I guess you are not open to the possibility that these particular "peers" might not even allow their skeptical colleagues publication. In fact, there was a bit of a scandal a few years ago when some of those "objective" peers were caught red-handed doing just that.
Quite the contrary. I have a decent idea what is going on in the scientific publishing world, and even specifically this particular journal. And I did see a bias when I investigated. However, I realise that the truth is always somewhere in the middle. I do not trust career warming advocates, but neither do I trust scientists funded, in part or in whole, by the Koch brothers. What I do trust is indirect research (plant migration and such) confirming warming. Mind you, I'm not saying 'man made' warming, as I have not seen any definite proof of that. Humans are increasing greenhouse gases, the planet is warming, but whether those are causally linked remains open.
In this case I err on the side of caution. Yes, we may spend billions in energy infrastructure we do not need to spend. Which would suck if truly unneccessary. However, the cost of the alternative, inaction, are potentially much worse.
Well there are other views, especially now that the predictions of the vaunted "global warming" models have been discredited. And these other views are from scientists with every bit the same level of credentials as the global warming crowd, your gratuitous attacks on religious beliefs notwithstanding.
Yes, there are other views. A very small minority of views. The majority certainly is't always right, but the wisdom of the crowds does hold some weight.
Also, anything to do with religion is a cancer upon this world and deserves all the ridicule it gets.
Check these out; your brainwashing may yet be reversible:
Thanks, already read all of that. And so, so much more. Still a regular reader of WRH, just because I need both sides of the story in order to make a balanced decision.
Tell me this: If you went to a doctor and he told you you had six months to live, and you were alive and well six months later, would you say "Well, he still must have been right, even though I am still in great health, because his research was "peer reviewed?"
What a terrible straw man. First of all there is no peer review in medical decision making (well, there is now, and it is slowly gaining popularity). And second, yes, I would still trust the doctor. Perhaps remind him to work on his phrasing of odds in probabilistic events, but he's a doctor, not a statistician, so I'd probably let that one slide.
All kinds of false theories have been published in the "peer reviewed" journals of their time. Google "luminiferous aether" for one example. There are many.
Man-made global warming is just one of the latest such cases.
Yes, there have been many theories refuted in scientific literature. That's the beauty of it. It's just that, until that happens, the standing theory still holds. And no lame excuses about not being able to get published. There's so many Open Access journals now that you can always find a publisher for anything. You'd be amazed at the shite that gets published in scoentific journals in all field.
