we do not have a political agenda. We are a
non-profit science organization!
This research gets funding from nobody!
The heroic consensus. Heroic
consensus? This a contradiction. Think of any heroic
character. Did this person fight for the majority or
97% of scientists believe that Global Warming is
true. And this is one of the big trumps the
scientific (and political) community uses, one of the
big arguments to convince people. To explain what is wrong
with using consensus as an argument, let me copy here
an e-mail sent to an Editor of Meteorology, where our
paper was rejected because all referees found our tone
insulting to the community. The editor said that she
never interferes with referees' decisions.
: J. Cook, D. Nuccitelli, S. A. Green, M.
Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P.
Jacobs, A. Skuce, "Quantifying the consensus on
anthropogenic global warming in the scientific
literature", Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 024024 (2013).
A letter sent to R
Editor of Hindawi Journals. (7 October 2013)
Thank you for giving us feedback and an explanation how your
journals are organized. Basically 'not interfering with the
Yet, I do hope that you realize that this behavior leads to a
consensus in literature. That famous heroic consensus. The
word 'heroic' is not mine, but actually recently uttered by a
[pseudo]scientist, Reusswig , who also writes "We -- as
scientists -- will have to explain to policy makers ..",
showing he himself is a politician and not a scientist.
Others write "The task of climate change agencies is not to
persuade by rational argument ..." (which is a Lutherian
religious statement "Reason is the biggest enemy that faith
has"). Rudman writes "Our hope is that researchers will design
persuasion strategies that effectively change people's
implicit attitudes". May I remind you, 'persuasion
strategies' (euphemism!) were used in totalitarian regimes to
align the people to the government.
The list goes on like this ...
This is how the consensus is constructed:
1) X (x%) is of opinion "A". Y (y%) of opinion "B"
2) X is inclined to accept A and reject B
3) Editors select referees on basis of their publication track
4) Editors do not check if reasons for rejection/acceptance
are scientifically sound
5) Researchers without (enough) publications will be out of
Imagine X starts with a (tiny) majority, x%>y%
- There will be more referees of group A (3)
- There will be more acceptance of group A (2)
- X will become larger and Y smaller. Goto first step.
- Eventually, there will be no publications of type B (2),
referees (3), nor researchers (5). We have a consensus! Praise
Conclusion: the apparent consensus in Global Warming is a side
effect of the editors not caring if referees have scientific
behavior, which would break the cycle at rule (2,4), and by
the Darwinistic force of peer-reviewing in general (2,5).
May I remind you to the words of Galileo, who, on his
deathbed, uttered the famous last words "Eppur si muove", "and
STILL, it moves", referring to the fact that he was forced
during his life to abdicate his controversial, against the
consensus, model that the Earth is revolving around the Sun.
Please take a look at your referees and their comments. None
of them make scientific comments on our paper(s). It is all
about the format, which is -- and I agree, it can be
considered as such -- insulting to the community (Yet, the
stance of the referees is rule #2 in the disinformation
technique used by politicians, "become incredulous and
indignant"). Well, we are not in it for getting a reward on
being Mr. Nice Guy. We understand that we are social outcasts
in this Facebook society, but please, try to take a
professional scientific stance and analyze our work as such.
You could, for instance, send our papers to
non-climatologists. Send it to a PhD in medicine, or something
like that. If our reasoning is sound, which I think it is, it
will stand up to scrutiny from any educated person.
I do realize that your publishing house also might have
difficulty keeping its head above the water in these difficult
times, and it is therefore more beneficial to publish popular
papers than to publish scientific papers, but bear in mind
that sometimes short-term strategies are detrimental on the
PS: This e-mail will be placed on my Facebook page for
everybody to see what we are working on.
PS2 (not sent to the editor):
In the work of Ereaut and Segnit, the authors write in the
second paragraph of the preface "This report was commissioned
by the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) as part of
its project on how to stimulate climate-friendly behaviour in
the UK". Let me write it in a way, to place it 50 years back
and 4000 miles East, so you'll understand: "This report was
commisioned by the Propaganda Department of the Polit Bureau
(*) as part of its project on how to stimulate communistic
thinking in the Soviet Union". Or let's put the clock a little
further back and return westwards, "This report was
commissioned by the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und
Propaganda (o) as part of its project on enforcing the Nazism
ideology". The words have changed, the methods are the same.
*: Отдел пропаганды и агитации ЦК КПСС
o: RMVP, or
, of Minister Goebbels
: F. Reusswig, "History and future of the scientific
consensus on anthropogenic global warming", Environ. Res.
Lett. 8, 031003 (2013).
 G. Ereaut, N. Segnit, "Warm Words. How we are telling the
climate story and can we tell it better?" Institute for Public
Policy Research (2006).
 L. A. Rudman, M. C. McLean, M. Bunzl, "When Truth Is
Personally Inconvenient, Attitudes Change. The Impact of
Extreme Weather on Implicit Support for Green Politicians and
Explicit Climate-Change Beliefs", Psy. Sci. (2013). DOI:
For more information, contact me at The University of The