On Oct 20, 12:13*am, wrote:

Coming from the champion of the obscure that is as usuall meaningless
tripe.

On May 7 2006, 12:51 am, "Weatherlawyer"
wrote:
Adam Lea wrote:
"Richard Orrell" wrote in message
roups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm

I didn't think this was anything new:

http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/20...s-natural.html

Hells bells; it's been going on since Noah entered the ark. Time and
again climate changes affected the regions around Palestine
in biblical times. So what were you expecting?

Carbon dioxide that no longer dissolves in water?

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/20...cepticism.html

Which had this to say about editors:

"Anyway, another of Richard Black's articles was an investigation into
"censorship". Some time ago, he asked for any evidence to back up the
occasional claims that the reason why there is no sceptical science is
because it is censored by the gatekeepers of the peer-review system.

Apparently someone (several people?) had pointed him towards my
multiply-rejected paper "Can we believe in high climate sensitivity",
so he phoned me up for a chat about it.

As is clear from his article, I don't really see this as "censorship
of scepticism" so much as gatekeepers doing their usual thing of
defending the status quo.

In fact as I blogged at the time, a fair proportion of the reviewers
actually supported publication, it was the journal editors who seemed
to be the main obstacle."

The fact is that most people fail to realise that you don't just write
an article for the BBC the way you sit down and write a post to
Usenet.

In the first place you don't get to choose what you want to write; you
might sell a prospective outlook on a matter but then the offer might
come back for so many words on climate change.

In which case you savour a moral dilemma or work around it as best you
can.

What was so difficult for your admittedly dimmer light enhancer to
deal with in the flare of my earlier brilliance?

In the earlier post I sent, it was obvious to me that a measurement
error of tenths of a degree averaged over a decade is easily supplied
from the positioning of sensitive equipment, when just moving a few
steps over from the bus stop can get you 3 or more whole degrees C on
any sunny morning.