How to go out with a bang — score points for censorship — a poseur for honor! « JoNova: Science, carbon, climate and tax

An editor has resigned after committing the dastardliest of crimes: he helped publish a skeptical paper in a peer reviewed journal. God-forbid, imagine a paper only being reviewed by people who have some sympathies with your results? It’s unthinkable. We all know that Nature and Science for example, send all the papers by alarmists dutifully to at least one skeptical reviewer, and since only 97% of climate scientists are alarmists, that means the other two scientists who aren’t, are very busy people. (You know, 75 of 77 climate scientists “agree” that the world is going to hell because of CO2). And who knows where they found that third skeptic?

Naturally, lots of journal editors have resigned when they realized that accidentally, they only sent alarmist papers to alarmist reviewers.

1970 : Hurricane In Greenland At 22 Below Zero | Real ScienceACS webinar: the backstory | Climate Etc.

[Pete Bonk] What I have found is that most scientists take a much more nuanced view of what we do and do not know about climate than those who deal mostly with policy.

Gavin’s Argument On Real Climate Undermines Trenberth’s Argument Against Spencer | Real Science

Trenberth should withdraw his comments and resign, since that is the new standard for being wrong.