I've read reports that said they have a hard time getting published. Even in the post here they said they lost grants because they weren't toeing the party line anymore.
Well, boohoo! See what scgp does? By using statements like
toeing the party line she's making it sound like a political thing, something one can have an opinion about, like abortion, the death penalty or guncontrol.
Global warming is something which can be scientifically proven or disproven. Given the
impressive amount of scientific organiza...nge is manmade, I say that the science is still on the MMGW side.
The fact that they don't get published in peer-reviewed magazines has no doubt something to do with that their assertions can not be proven ...
At a time when the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is censuring free market organizations for accepting donations from ExxonMobil, critics have turned the spotlight back onto the UCS, its left-wing positions, and its own funding practices.
In a recent report, the UCS charged that organizations are using oil industry money to create public uncertainty about what it calls "consensus" about climate change and the role of human activity in affecting temperatures see related story. Organizations named in the report have denied the claims.
The UCS describes itself as an "alliance" of over 200,000 citizens and scientists that initially came together in 1969. It integrates "independent scientific research" with "citizen action" for the purpose of developing and implementing "changes to government policy, corporate practices and consumer choices."
But critics say it is an openly political group.
~snip~
____________________________________________________________
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htmA Major Deception on Global WarmingOp-Ed by Frederick Seitz
Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996
Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a United Nations organization regarded by many as the best source of scientific information about the human impact on the earth's climate, released "The Science of Climate Change 1995," its first new report in five years. The report will surely be hailed as the latest and most authoritative statement on global warming. Policy makers and the press around the world will likely view the report as the basis for critical decisions on energy policy that would have an enormous impact on U.S. oil and gas prices and on the international economy.
This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.
A comparison between the report approved by the contributing scientists and the published version reveals that key changes were made after the scientists had met and accepted what they thought was the final peer-reviewed version. The scientists were assuming that the IPCC would obey the IPCC Rules--a body of regulations that is supposed to govern the panel's actions. Nothing in the IPCC Rules permits anyone to change a scientific report after it has been accepted by the panel of scientific contributors and the full IPCC.
The participating scientists accepted "The Science of Climate Change" in Madrid last November; the full IPCC accepted it the following month in Rome. But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.
~snip~
