Comments on: New Nature paper: Jan Veizer Contradicts His Own Results?

By: southchild » Blog Archive » Rebutting Anthropogenic Global Warming

southchild » Blog Archive » Rebutting Anthropogenic Global Warming — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 20:40:17 +0000

[...] has dropped to the lowest levels since recording began some 50 years ago. Current experts, such as Veizer, Shaviv, and most recently Svensmark et al., and Patterson, suggest that changes in the output of [...]

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:43:40 +0000

As is Energy and Environment for trash.

By: Paul Biggs

Paul Biggs — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 08:27:17 +0000

Veizer’s previous results are confirmed, but the interpretation is different and is not definitive. Nature’s editorial bias is well known, even bemoaned by James Annan.

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:44:01 +0000

Why – hasn’t stopped him before. What utter twaddle.

By: John

John — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 03:10:37 +0000

I can understand where Veizer is coming from. If one wants to publish a sceptical paper or article in “Science”, “Nature” of “Geophysical Research Letters” one must bow to the consensus even if one doesn’t agree with it.

Luke, if you don’t understand how the IPCC has directly and indirectly corrupted the normal scientific process then I suggest you have some research work to do.

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 00:38:55 +0000

What a total load of bulldust – so here we have a gun anti-AGW scientist accepting a consensus solution that he doesn’t agree with. WTF !? How piss weak is that.

And more framing “Obviously, none of this was good for ever-fragile climate hysteria and the alarmists struck back with the new Nature study” – is that so – or maybe it’s just science at work.

Anyway there are other studies: http://droyer.web.wesleyan.edu/climate_sensitivity.pdf Royer DL, Berner RA, Park J. 2007. Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years. Nature, 446: 530-532

So how did the “multibillion-dollar-funding of global warming research” industry achieve this – did they threaten people – did mafiaso guys in dark suits turn up and threaten to knee-cap Veizer for not complying”. Come on. More framing.

So let’s do some inverse framing then: “Veizer should resign as he’s totally and knowingly compromised the paper’s results and misled the Nature readership – pull the paper ! Typical satanist alarmist conspiracy-theory denialist science standards”