Call For Hot Papers

The well named "PR Wire" reports Messrs Avery and Singer claim to have chalked up 500 contrarian papers "mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their [un-peer reviewed] book." authored if not from atmospheric scientists,at least by specialists in "tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics."

But there is still no sign of  CEI weighing in  in Nature's new  Climate  Feedback news blog, nor has a peep been heard from the 17,000 scientists who famously signed the 1987 Heidelberg petition rejecting global warming.  How many of them read it remains  as controversial as their bibliographies ,or lack thereof, but  at least they all  have a place to publish now:

Nature Precedings is now accepting submissions

"the newest online resource from Nature Publishing Group, is now accepting submissions in all areas of biology, medicine (except clinical trials), chemistry and the earth sciences.  Nature Precedings is a free open access service that provides a way for researchers to share preliminary findings, solicit community feedback, and claim priority over discoveries.

 Since many  K Street climatology references turn out to be museum pieces , this venue shouldbe doubly attractive  as Nature Precedings  "submissions are screened by our professional curators for relevance and quality ...There is never a charge to submit or access material on Nature Precedings."

Mere demography suggests that if 17,000 adult  scientists signed the petition a generation ago, by now 5/6 of their 2.3 children should have grown up, making  50,000 new signatories available for the sequel, outnumbering  the IPCC panelists by two dozen to one. This suggests a new , pro-active  litigation and publication strategy for K Street Climatologists. Imagine what Mike Crichton could do with 17,000  signatures on a petition denouncing scientific consensus.

How could any serious journal turn down an article with 50,000 co-authors. when Nature regularly runs  CERN and  Human Genome Project  submissions with as few as 500 ?  Even Science's floridly green editor might pop for a paper cosigned by  2,000 or so  postulating that global warming is a terrible misunderstanding arising from the derangement of generations of meteorologists by thermometers filled with neurotoxic mercury.

The New York Times  is leading the charge for a total  ban on the toxic heavy metal outside of ethnic restaurant kitchens, where  its foodie  columnists applaud the Feng Shui benefits of applying  cinnabar paint to blast burner stoves. Seizing on the Times MSM status,  State Climatologists can now argue that  temperature measurements made with  non-OSHA compliant mercury devices shoild  be rejected on the grounds that a statistically significant number of global warming advocates have lately  gone mad as hatters

Meanwhile, Discovery Institute lawyers can arrange for  two dozen of the forty eight thousand scientists  left over from Heidelberg II to endorse an Oath Of Compurgation swearing that whatever each of the 2,000 coauthors says is legally true, and that they are collectively innocent of all complicity in any conspiracy to persuade the public that science is not what it appears to be. Since DI lawyers are great champions of precedent, natural law demands they lead the anti-consensus consensus to substitute the Oath of Compurgation for newfangled  peer review, as it ranks as the greatest legal stratagem of the Medieval Warm Period.

Comments

[ZZT]

Umm, heavy sarcasm with no supporting evidence is not funny, just nonsensical. A bit of a letdown, I was hoping for a better response from this blog.

[BearOfNH]

Hold off on your demographic convulsions. Many of those 50,000 children are currently rebellious teen-agers, automatically opposed to their parents ideas -- especially after indoctrination by paid government subversives disguised as public school teachers.