Click images for more details



Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Fleshing out the cosmoclimatogy hypothesis | Main | +++Michael Gove responds to Climate Control+++ »

Ethical confirmations

As if any confirmation were required that Lewandowsky's papers were ethically compromised the expressions of dismay from the wilder fringes of the green movement provide it in buckets.

Ugo Bardi, an Italian chemist who seems to have something to do with the Club of Rome, has resigned from the editorial team at Frontiers in disgust, penning a long protest article here. In it we learn that although he has no opinion on the ethical or legal aspects of the paper he is convinced that Frontiers has let Lewandowsky down.

It is not for me, here, to discuss the merits and demerits of this paper, nor the legal issues involved (noting, however, that the University of Western Australia found no problems in hosting it on their site). However, my opinion is that, with their latest statement and their decision to retract the paper, Frontiers has shown no respect for authors nor for their own appointed referees and editors. But the main problem is that we have here another example of the climate of intimidation that is developing around the climate issue.

And, as if to put the seal on the conclusion that the paper was bunk, support for Bardi's decision comes from Peter Gleick, a man with long and deep experience in the area of ethical compromise:

Not retracting academically flawed papers is bad for a journal; so is retracting academically sound ones.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (103)

Frontier's states, "because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization".

In what sense can this be a realistic description of anything? What is the threat? Literally nothing is happening to Earth that is climate driven that is a threat to civilization.In what sense has the climate not changed in the past?
Drought, famine, heat, cold, flooding: not one of these areas of concern are changing in dangerous or unprecedented ways. Predictions of these things changing dangerously have been made in the past. the predictions have failed the test of time..
In fact, it might be difficult to find a less serious threat to human civilization than the climate.
Maybe it is time to start challenging this ubiqtuous, fatuous mantra of "because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization". This oft repeated statement resembles a religious proverb more than a comment based on science.

Apr 11, 2014 at 4:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

@hunter Frontier's states, "because climate change is a very serious threat for human civilization".
- look saying it, is the equivalent of protection money, in the same way that corps have to make payments and messages which agree with the green agenda.
..if they don't give in and do it , the BigGreenBulies presume you are not on their side, so you get spammed, namecalled , name dirtied etc.

Apr 11, 2014 at 6:21 PM | Registered Commenterstewgreen

Comrade Chambers (April 9, 8:12 PM):

"Did Cook drop a scented handkerchief [for Lew] from his balcony that escaped Turnill's FOI requests?"

Oh boy! Where do you get lines like this?

Apr 14, 2014 at 4:55 PM | Unregistered CommentersHx

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>