As much as an entire array of forces attempted to prevent it, the PRP special edition journal with its 12 peer-reviewed papers that offer an alternative explanation on what contributes to driving climate is coming out – and how!
Ironically, the intense efforts to silence the journal have backfired – the special edition has been receiving widespread exposure rather than being silenced.
Unsurprisingly the dubious attempts to silence the publication have met with loud and harsh objections, see here, here, here, here and here.
The problems began when 19 scientists declared that the special issue shedded “serious doubts” on the conclusions of the IPCC.
That didn’t sit well with publisher Copernicus director Martin Rasmussen, who had come under intense pressure from the climate establishment and took the unbelievable decision to close down the entire journal immediately and “without any discussion with the editors“.
“Inquisition and book burning”
Distinguished Swedish scientist Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner, the former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University, and the PRP special edition journal editor, has now issued a statement here (last page) on the events leading up to politically motivated cancellation of the journal.
By this decision, we were suddenly thrown back in the evolution of humanism and culture to the stage of inquisition and books burning. […]
To debate is a vital part of science. To forbid and even close down a journal because of an inevitable conclusion which “sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC” is most unscientific and unethical.
Copernicus has disgraced itself in this desperate act of trying to cover up for IPCC.”
Nils-Axel Mörner was also president of the International Union for Quaternary Research Commission on Neotectonics and has authored close to 600 peer-reviewed papers.
Now comes the journal’s real test. Let’s wait to see what the “real experts” say about it.
63 responses to “Backfire! Eminent Physicist Calls Attempted Journal Suppression A Throwback To “Inquisition And Books Burning”!”
I’m working my way through the pdf now. Frankly, prima facia, some of it seems a bit astrological to me. I’m hoping that sufficient debate will occur to help me over the more obscure bits.
We want to find out if it really holds water…
> Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner
He’s not a prof. Just like last time.
> and has authored close to 600 peer-reviewed papers
I’ve seen that bandied around on various “skeptic” blogs but I’ve never seen anything to back it up. Got any evidence?
> issued a statement here
Notice how he has to hitch-hike on NS’s website, cos he can’t afford his own.
> 19 scientists declared
Only if you have a very low bar to the meaning of the word “scientist”. Some of them have no publications at all in genuine peer-reviewed journals.
I notice Morner has eleveated them to being “co-authored by 19 prominent scientists” – surely that’s beyond even the realm of “skeeptic” fantasy. Stretch things rather thin and you might call TB a scientist, maybe. But a “prominent” one? Come on.
> inquisition and books burning
Ridiculous hyperbole. No books have been burnt; the “papers” remain freely available. There has been no inquisition: quite the reverse: no-one really wants to read any of this stuff.
> Nils-Axel Mörner was also president of the International Union for Quaternary Research Commission on Neotectonics
Oh but that was ages ago, before the madness. More recently was the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes. There’s an amusing story there. See for example http://web.archive.org/web/20070714041029/http://www.edf.org/documents/3868_morner_exposed.pdf
As if anybody cares what William ‘Wikipedia’ Connolley has to say. Consistent with the censoring and BS that you edited into Wikipedia … history will edit you right out, mate.
This is not 100% accurate but I can find evidence closer to 550,
Pierre, Roger Tattersall is not a scientists, please stop referring to him as one.
Roger Tattersall, HNC [Higher National Certificate] Mechanical and Production Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University (1985); B.A. History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds (1988); Customer Services manager, Vital online Ltd. (2000-2004); Fundraising Coordinator, Yorkshire Air Ambulance (2006-2008); Digital Content Manager, School of Education, University of Leeds (2009-2013)
While Dr. Morner has excellent scientific credentials,
Nils-Axel Morner, Fil. Kand. [B.A.], Stockholm University, Sweden (1962); Fil. Lic. [M.A.] Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden (1965); Fil. Dr. [Ph.D.] Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden (1969); Associate Professor of Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden (1969-1971); Associate Professor of General and Historical Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden (1971-1980); Secretary, Neotectonics Commission, INQUA (1977-1981); Editor, Bulletin of the INQUA Neotectonics Commission (1978-1996); Professor of General and Historical Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden (1981-1991); President, Neotectonics Commission, INQUA (1981-1991); Chairman, Nordic Historical Climatology Group (1989); Professor and Head, Department of Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden (1991-2005); Co-ordinator, INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1999-2003); President, Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, INQUA (1999–2003); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007); Professor Emeritus of Palegeophysics and Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden (2005-Present); Golden Chondrite of Merit Award, University of the Algarve, Portugal (2008)
As allways with members of the CAGW-team, watch the pea… While Nils-Axel Mörner is no longer working as a professor, since he has retired, he has right to use the title of professor emiterius:
While Connelley’s play with words might impress his friends at the CAGW-camp, for the rest of us such games are quite pathetic.
It is a very good idea to not imitate Anthony Watts and Willis, but to read the papers before criticizing them.
About Rasmussen (Director of Copernicus), note the following thing:
(1) he did not read the papers (like Anthony and Willis).
(2) In perfect Willis’ jumping reading style, Rasmussen read only one sentence extrapolated from the contest and he considered it to be highly “heretical”. The sentence as reported by him reads: “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).
Now, the full sentence reads:
“Several papers have addressed the question about the evolution of climate during the 21st century. Obviously, we are on our way into a new grand solar minimum. This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.”
So we say that a grand solar minimum would slow down the IPCC projected warming.
Now read this. In the abstract of this paper
Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum” like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming? Gerald A. Meehl, Julie M. Arblaster, Daniel R. Marsh, GRL 2013
you can read this sentence
” After the initial decrease of solar radiation in 2020, globally averaged surface air temperature cools relative to the reference simulation by up to several tenths of a degree Centigrade. By the end of the grand solar minimum in 2070, the warming nearly catches up to the reference simulation. Thus, a future grand solar minimum could slow down but not stop global warming.”
It is evident to me that at least qualitatively our “heretical sentence” is compatible with what written in Meehl’s paper. So, or GRL must be “terminated” as well or Rasmussen does not know what he is talking about and his ad-hominem censorship are fully demonstrated.
This is nothing but a shameful act of ad-hominem censorship.
> a shameful act of ad-hominem censorship.
You’re still insisting that you’ve been censored, when in truth your paper has been published, and still remains available.
A blatant attempted censorship, it was
Mr. Gosselin, you should immediately ban Connolley. Notice the no Mr. He is a well known liar.
Can certainly understand your point, but on the other hand I think he’s always good for lively debate, if not even for some entertainment.
No wikipedia articles to rewrite today, Winston?
Almost every day I read articles in my newspaper, I do not like. Suppose, I would complain about that in an email to the publisher. Suppose next, that the publisher terminated the newspaper because he did not like the articles either. In a press release he would also add that the editors did something formally wrong. I could explain why this throwback to inquisition and book burning is at present impossible in the Netherlands. Apparently, at our eastern border the jungle begins.
Debate in Germany gets suppressed on many fronts. Noteworthy, the new SA, the Black Bloc; subsidized by the state to vilify and destroy Euroskeptics by denouncing them as N.azis.
> I do not like. Suppose, I would complain
A better analogy: suppose your newspaper starts publishing supposedly factual articles that are made up. Suppose your paper has a reputation for fact-checking – and people buy the paper for factual information, based on that reputation – but it turns out that in this case, a sub-editor is publishing stuff he happens to like, and by-passing the usual fact-checkers with his friends. Wouldn’t you expect the overall editor to put a stop to it?
Quite. I expected the editors of Nature to do that, but so far no result
William says: “suppose your newspaper starts publishing supposedly factual articles that are made up…..”
Ok, William. Did you prove that the papers contain errors? Did Rasmussen prove that any of the paper contain errors? No that I know. So, your initial point is not factual.
Rasmussen acted under his ignorance that the IPCC climate models must necessarily be correct and cannot be questioned. Evidently, the models are failing. Thus, Rasmussen was in evident error.
What do you think that a publisher such as Rasmussen should at this point do? I think that if he was honest, he should have called Morner and should have apologized. But until now nothing is coming from him. He did not respond emails.
So, the fact cannot be interpreted as an “error” but as a shameful act of ad-hominem censorship.
As Morner said: “Copernicus has disgraced itself in this desperate act of trying to cover up for IPCC. “
Yes William, in that case I would ‘expect the overall editor to put a stop to it’. However, the overall editor is not the publisher. In my newspaper factual wrong articles get the follow-up of correction articles. It gives to the public the opportunity to send in comments, and even has an ombudsman for mediation. In scientific journals there is also the possibility to publish comments or rebuttals and in the worst case there is the instrument of retraction. It is common practice that in scientific journals there is a rational discussion about theories and facts, whereas most scientists know that theories are doomed to be wrong. Only after many violations of an editorial statute, the publisher may appoint another chief editor. Usually, a journal is terminated for financial reasons because this is the publisher’s interest.
Not really, William.
There were two papers in press whose publication was suddenly stopped.
Moreover, even if the papers are online, Rasmussen put them in the
“Index of the Forbidden Books”.
In fact the journal does not appear in the list of Copernicus Journals, while Copernicus lists also the journals that were closed. So, this is censorship, and unscientific and unethical behavior.
In any case, the argumentation of Rasmussen are scientifically ridiculous and offensive, and based on ad-hominem prejudices.
Finally Rasmussen have not even had the correctness to respond to the emails from Morner and others demonstrating to him the scientific errors implicit in his statement.
With his very action, Rasmussen has demonstrated that at least in Germany there is no freedom of doing scientific research on climate related issues. Thus, German scientists and in general the IPCC advocates have fully lost their credibility.
Here you mean German “climate scientists”, I’m sure.
the things may be more complicated than that.
When one applies censorship in one scientific field, then expect that the censorship might exists and may extend in other research fields as well.
In our case, our special issue did not focus at all on climate issues but mostly on astronomical ones. The message from Rasmussen was that scientists focusing on other fields of research should not address climate related issues not even when these are tangential to the main issue.
> So, this is censorship
You’re so desperate to be oppressed you’re having to fiddle with the meaning of words. You haven’t been censored; your work was published, and is still out there (in a journal that used to have a poor reputation and now has a very very poor reputation; you know exactly why you published there, and so do I).
Your re-write of the word “censorship” would have anyone who fails to advertise your work a censor.
> Did you prove that the papers contain errors?
Of course not. I’ve only skimmed one of them (one of TB’s; it was full of numerology). The point you’re missing is that no-one cares about these papers as papers; no-one bothers read them carefully enough to find the errors. There’s been a vast (but, short-lived; all this will fade to nothing) fuss in the “skeptic”-o-sphere about this issue, but only because you’re a convenient tool to bash their opponents with; not because they want to read your work; and you can tell this because in all this fuss there have been no posts at all carefully reading and analysing the papers.
> Rasmussen acted under
His wording was clumsy. In my opinion, what he meant was that a gang of “skeptics” had got together and bought themselves a journal under Copernicus imprint flying false colours; and brazenly lied about what it was going to be about.
“clumsy” wording? Considering his position as director and Rasmussen’s level of education, I’d say you’re offering a bad excuse. This is not some routine e-mail sent off by Rasmussen. Rather it is a document announcing a major policy change.
Clumsy: yes, I stick by my assertion. I can offer you no proof, but then again neither can you. “major policy change” – no, not really. This is a Big Deal to you in your tiny fishbowl, but in the Real World no-one has even noticed.
Mr. Connolley, you said “no-one really wants to read any of this stuff.”
I do. I read some of it already, and I REALLY can’t wait to read more of it. Does it upset you to know that your claim of “no one” has just been shot down in flames?
I’ll bet there’s more people reading these papers now than before PRP was terminated. Does that upset you Mr. Connolley?
What if people start to agree with these papers in time, and what if evidence is presented by others down the road that the PRP has even more merit than, say, the IPCC’s load of manure?
You have to be pretty all-knowing to posture as you do. I think you’re jealous.
Tallbloke is a prominent scientist. He is prominent because he is a leader with a public face, and he’s a scientist because he searches for answers in the realm of science, which makes him just as much a scientist as anyone – and he pays for his work out of pocket too. Nicola Scafetta is a prominent scientist, as are the others in their own right.
You? Are you a scientist or just an opinionated ass? If you are a scientist, what makes you the gatekeeper to the sciences?
At what moment does anyone become a scientist? According to your logic someone isn’t a scientist until they have a peer-reviewed paper published. What about the moment just before the prospective “scientist” submits their first paper? Do they only become a scientist after someone else evaluates or approves their work and not a moment before? What about Nikita Tesla, was he a scientist? Did he publish?
Is this why you don’t want these papers to be published, because then in your eyes Roger Tattersall would then be elevated to the classification of “scientist”? Does that bother you? Where are you coming from man? And what about all those “scientists” who were proven wrong through the ages? Were they really scientists then? Your idea of what constitutes a scientist appears to be very narrow, rigid, elitist, and politically correct.
I don’t really care what your responses are, by the way. Mr. Connelley, why don’t you find something more productive to do with your time while earnest men and women handle the heavy lifting.
> Mr. Connolley
Dr. You people aren’t very good at titles.
> no-one really wants to read any of this stuff
That’s all right. You’re no-one, so I’m still right 🙂
> Are you a scientist
No. I’m a software engineer. Its not difficult, I’m easy to find: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley Why do you need spoon feeding – can’t you do your own research?
> Tallbloke is a prominent scientist
ROTFL. Next you’ll be trying to tell me that Tisdale should submit his stuff to the NSF.
> At what moment does anyone become a scientist?
This, and the related “what is a scientist”, is actually a good question, well worth pondering. Its a shame you’re only asking it for rhetorical purposes. There is no clear definition. You can be a scientist with no publications. Nowadays, “scientist” is largely a professional designation. TB, for example, isn’t a scientist because he isn’t a skeptic, he’s a “skeptic”.
> you don’t want these papers to be published
When will you people get this right? The papers *have* been published. They haven’t been censored. The are (or rather, were) flying under “false colours” though, since they were pretending to be in a decent quality Copernicus peer-reviewed journal.
> I don’t really care what your responses are
Petulant. I’m not here to just write, I’m here to rad and respond. This should be a conversation, to be interesting.
No Green party meetings? No wikipedia to rewrite? No own biography on the wikipedia to embellish? The famous Winston Connolley has descended from his tower to bring truth to the mortals?
I possess neither a scientific background nor a speedy computer, but had enough curiosity today to download 20+ mb of the special edition. Of course, most of it is over my head entirely. Did find the papers on the sunspot cycle length interesting, but could not offer any thought on whether they were accurate, out in left field or in between.
My question is, despite the supposed radical thought within the special edition, why kill the journal (most had never heard of), or even spike the story? Put it out there and let supporters and detractors chime in. Chances are it would have made a few ripples, and life would have gone on. And, obscure retirees like myself would have never read a word about it.
I infer the publicity the content has now received is far more than what it would have been had it simply been published on schedule.
“Now comes the journal’s real test. Let’s wait to see what the “real experts” say about it.”
They will dismiss it as pal-reviewed and not take any of the papers seriously. What part of this did you not understand when this argument was originally made?
‘They will dismiss it as pal-reviewed and not take any of the papers seriously.’
Is the Mann hockey stick been dismissed for pal review, or its just because it dosen’t hold to the evidences?
Do you have irrefutable evidence that MBH98 violated the peer-review rules of Nature? After the M&M takedown, it was never featured prominently in the IPCC reports again so it is effectively dismissed.
Do you have irrefutable evidence that the papers in PRP should have been rejected in the peer review process?
I’m pretty sure you are well aware of climate gate, so i wont elaborate too much on it.
Should Mann paper have been reject on the peer review?
-2 sets of data in the same graph.
“They will dismiss it as pal-reviewed and not take any of the papers seriously.”
That’s also why we don’t take Newton seriously. No peer review.
This is a strawman argument. The reason the papers were published in PRP was to give them “peer-reviewed” credibility.
Isn’t it interesting that this is the definition for ‘scientist’ in Wikipedia :-
“A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the *scientific method.*”
Further down the page :-
“Scientists can be motivated in several ways. Many have a desire to understand why the world is as we see it and how it came to be. They exhibit a strong curiosity about reality.”
Many scientists have used empirical evidence and observation, as described in the scientific method, to determine what the climate reality has been for many years.
By the way, the phrase “peer review” does not appear anywhere on the page, except for in a link to an external website: ‘Peer Review Journal Science on amateur scientists’.
The actual linked-to article at that site is very interesting!
The aggressive agenda to take “climate science” and politicise, manipulate, demonize and guilt-trip people into following the leaders into social and economic turmoil based on run-away global warming is reaping a reward. It is not pretty. William Connolley may be making some appropriate comments but the response is based on his prior actions. Unless Earth’s temperature goes up rapidly over the next few years more of the CAGW adherents will be treated likewise. This PRP thing is a hog pen. It will make a footnote (maybe) in the history of science. Science is ill served.
A real question: On one of the coldest nights of its existence – Washington, D.C. will hear (9 pm EST) a president of the USA declare his intention to use executive orders to bypass Congress and attack global warming. How will this work out and be remembered?
Since William Connelley has taken residence here with his well-known manners, let’s all remind us of his tireless efforts in rewriting Wikipedia concerning all things climate:
particularly interesting are his efforts in the “disappearence” of the late French climatologist Professor Marcel Leroux from the Wikipedia:
and his war agains the MWP:
History won’t be kind to such rewriting, unless we abandon the ideals of science and enlightment.
Hello little anon. You’re not very good at sticking to the topic. But WUWT has lied to you. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/ or http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/04/death-of-a-salesman/ if you care for (some of) the details, but I know you don’t.
No one has lied about your criminal behavior on Wikipedia as I was on the receiving end of your censorship.
You are such a lunatic you do not even realize that your science blog post is defending deletion of an entire page.
> I was on the receiving end of your censorship.
Really? Go on, lets have the details. What article, what did you try to insert?
Hmm, a man who was banned from the Wikipedia for a period
asks us to trust his excuses, right. So what is your reply to this:
Your reasons for the dissappearance of “inconvenient” people from the history books remind me of stories from the late soviet state where this one of their favourite rewriting techniques
I forgot to add that the dissappearance of inconvenient people seem to become a favourite technique of watermelons/greens also:
All his wikipedia writings are peer-reviewed by his friends Brigade Harvester Boris and this Schultz guy.
> banned from the Wikipedia
You’re wrong. As was AW, but you won’t be surprised by that I’m sure.
> what is your reply to this
Well, firstly, I’d have replied there, except WUWT doesn’t like dissenting voices. Secondly, I’m not sure what you think there is there that’s worth replying to. Leroux was deleted for being non-notable. I have a post on that (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/04/death-of-a-salesman/). If you want the details of why, you can read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux directly. I didn’t delete the article myself, of course, not least because I can’t.
Was there something specific in the WUWT post that you thought worth a reply?
OK, that’s it then for me. I have had enough of your games and denial of reality:
and of your acceptance of the idea that dissenters should be deleted from the wikipedia.
I never thought I would see a new version of Lysenkoism in my lifetime. Hopefully it will stop at axing of scientific journals this time, although it does not look too promising:
> Was there something specific in the WUWT post that you thought worth a reply?
I guess that’s a “no”, then.
> idea that dissenters should be deleted from the wikipedia
Non-notable people should be deleted from wikipedia. That’s policy; its not my idea. Nor am I responsible for the deletion; other people make the decision.
As I’ve said many times before: no-one outside wiki understands how it works.
Your criminal behavior on Wikipedia is references here,
5.6) William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.
5.6) William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so. *
Passed 7 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
* Amended by motion, 8 to 2, 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
And we are well aware you already admitted to wanting to outright delete Wikipedia pages no need to keep pointing it out.
Your behavior is as reprehensible as book burners.
> criminal behavior
> as reprehensible as book burners.
I see we’re back to the “absurd hyperbole” school of argument. And you censor me on your blog, so you’re being hypocritical as well.
> you already admitted to wanting to outright delete Wikipedia pages
No idea what you mean guv. Though I’ve certainly deleted piles of wiki pages in my time; most admins do. There’s nothing strange about it. AFAIK none of my deletions were controversial. My deletion log is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&user=William+M.+Connolley
Pages like “Saddam heussein” and “Sub-Saharan African DNA admixture in Europe” and so on. As you’ll see, they’re mostly still red – as in, no-one has seen fit to recreate them.
As always with you lot, you’re vague with your accusations. VV has a nice blog post discussing JC’s problems in that area: http://variable-variability.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/interesting-what-interesting-judith.html
> criminal behavior
Again, hyperbole. Nothing criminal there.
> admitted to wanting to outright delete Wikipedia pages
Dunno what you mean by that. As per my comment of 11:57, NN people should be deleted, of course. As you can see from my deletion log
I also think that “Hilery clintin”, “Saddam heussein”, “Gorge bush” should be deleted. That appeared to be uncontroversial to me – perhaps you think differntly. As I’ve pointed out before (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/) those three pages, together with many others, are part of why the claims about deletion at wiki at WUWT, or Delingpole, are either vacuously true (if you’ve got a clue about wiki) or lies (as interpreted by the likes of you).
For your documented criminal Wikipedia behavior you have earned yourself a life ban from my website, deal with it.
We are well aware you do not know what censorship is and abused your administrator privileges on Wikipedia.
“History won’t be kind to such rewriting, unless we abandon the ideals of science and enlightment.”
Historians are mostly the biggest rewriters themselves. Not all of them, but most. Because they are paid by governments.
Of course history is just an interpretation of past events but it tends to become more neutral and objective when new generations start interpreting them. The history of science in particular tends to correct misinterpretations in the long run. I agree that the short-term interpretations are unavoidably coloured by the political climate during which they were produced. This is why I referred to history not historians.
Compared to Dana, Winston, from the Dept of Truth, is a courteous guy.
Just below, Mindert Eiting mentions some that have never read a book. This and your comment about Dana and Winston made me wonder if Dana has ever read a book. As I recall, reading was part of Winston’s job description.
Prof William Whewell of Cambridge University, coined the term Scientist, in 1833. See p65 of ‘Central Cambridge’ a Guide to the University and Colleges, 2nd edition, edited by Kevin Taylor. with photographs by Hiroshi Shimura. The Foreword is by H.R.H. The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, published by Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Now, in the 21st century, we have little Willy, the Wiki weasel, explaining to us what the word means and acting as gatekeeper. How pompous and amusing.
I have Green friends with nice sons, who were, besides the Green issues, mainly interested in soccer. When they went to University they had not read one book in their whole life. Perhaps they reinvented the world between watching two soccer matches, and concluded that a publisher is the same as an editor, who does with his publication whatever he wants. If they had to write a school thesis, they went to Wikipedia, containing everything they had to know. Ideal environment for teachers without class.
> Me: 28. Januar 2014 at 13:27 | Your comment is awaiting moderation.
> Me: 28. Januar 2014 at 13:29 | Your comment is awaiting moderation.
> DirkH: 28. Januar 2014 at 16:55 | “History…
Was it something I said?
No censorship – just slow moderation on my part. Sorry about that. (Dirk is pre-approved and adjustments to the spam filter seem to no longer hold him back). Trusting you’ll on nothing but gentlemanly behavior, I’ll even pre-approve you.
It’s good to see William Connolley writing here. Livens things up. Wikipedia isn’t where I’d go to find out anything reliable about climate change, or for that matter about almost any other controversial issue. It’s good on factual data tho’.
Does it have list of the Central Politic Bureau’s approved cencors aka approved peer reviewers?
You might want to know that Tim Ball has been declared non-notable *again*: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/01/29/tim-ball-turned-out-nn-again/
By the Grand Wizards of the wikipedia I presume? How impressive. Reminds me of the practice of “totträumen”.
This brevity in citing journal articles stems from the need to conserve space in printed bibliographies and the early databases.