New Scientist about-face

Monday, 18 January 2010

Well, as said before, I don't like New (Nu) Scientist, as it has an uncritical bias for the Environmentalist 'Man-Made' Global Warming Agenda. So I was surprised to read on Page 3 of this week's edition a criticism of the IPCC.

Surprised seems a little tame a word for the moment I read the article, more like jaw-droppingly shocked at the audacity of the Nu Scientist Editorial staff to write the article and try to act the innocent, as if they had no part to play.

The story was the Nu Scientist reported that Himalayan Glaciers may be gone by 2035 according to an un-named Indian Glaciologist, who has since never submitted the evidence for peer review, and Nu Scientist stating they reported this story in 1999 because it was 'a dramatic declaration'. The story having then as much scientific value as now. Nowhere in this short editorial statement is there an apology for reporting something that had then, as now, little or no scientific value, and treating it as having scientific merit.

But the value of the story now? The IPCC found the 1999 Nu Scientist story, from what was (is?) a leading magazine for Scientific significantly merit-worthy stories - especially as getting on the front page was (is?) a big-deal for scientists and engineers. The IPCC found the 1999 Nu Scientist story and used it, citing 'New Scientist' as primary source. Gosh, says New Scientist, the IPCC reported a story from us, (a leading scientific journal/magazine) and we reported a speculation without regard to scientific value, but treated it as scientifically significant, gracing it in a magazine that had a reputation for reporting scientific excellence.

To get the double take, here's the editorial comment: 'So how could such speculation have become an IPCC "finding" which has, moreover, recently been defended by the panel's chairman? We are entitled to an explanation, before rumour and doubt compound the damage to the image of climate science already inflicted by the leaked "climategate" emails'.

That is an awesome statement coming from a magazine that wheeled out Prof. Mann of the 'discredited Hockey Stick' fame to discredit any 'climate deniers'. Is New Scientist trying to distance itself from Anthropogenic Global Warming? 'We are entitled to an explanation...'. The evidence against Anthropogenic Global Warming is extensive, and damning. The best or worst bit of this is New Scientist actually admitting reporting speculation as Scientific Fact, while trying to maintain a po-face high and mighty attitude about being a serious Science Magazine.

This 'cold spell' in Britain must have had an effect in the New Scientist's offices, finally helping to cool off their over-heating brains, what with all those alarmist comments coming from the Environmentalists the moment that they realised there was a respectable magazine that was prepared to legitimise their junk science and give it legitimacy.

But, nice to see that there's an admission, at least one piece of 'Man-Made' Global Warming reported science was just speculation, which could not withstand the peer-review process, according to one of the World's Leading Science Magazines. link

Author: Dr. Stephen Lathwell, BSc(Hons), MSc(Optoelectronics), PhD.
Independent Candidate for MP Luton South