Story here
John Maddox, a former editor of the journal Nature, who attended
yesterday’s meeting, said the sceptics might have a point. He did not
dispute that carbon dioxide emissions could drive global warming, but said: “The IPCC is monolithic and complacent, and it is conceivable that they are exaggerating the speed of change.”
–David Adam, The Guardian, 25 January 2005
Spike my previous comment. It is unkind.
Thanks!
Reply: Ok, and thanks for all the electricity ~ charles the moderator
Let us not forget that Sir John Maddox also admitted that, in all likelihood, 50% of what he published would be subsequently proved wrong. By implication the editor of the world’s foremost scientific publication is admitting that “peer-review science” is wrong half the time.
Saraswati, the goal in science is to have your work replicated by others. More often than not, scientists are corrected along the way. It is very humbling, but that is how it works. Sometimes they don’t have all the pieces to the puzzle and their work is sidelined by increased knowledge in that field over time. Every scientist is aware of this. Maddox just had the cajones to say it out loud. The hardest thing to admit is “I was wrong”. Wish Hansen, Mann and their cabal had the guts to admit they are wrong, ………
“Peer-review” is not the same as having “your work replicated by others”. Hansen, Mann, Gore et al rely on the “peer-review” process set in motion by amongst others Maddox/Nature. That is why his admission that half of what he published is likely to be proved wrong is worth emphasising. Maddox handling of Sheldrake was highly amusing. I still cant determine the degree to which he was being ironic in calling the New Science of Life the best candidate for book burning this [20th] Century. Given Maddox admission that half his publication is nonsense perhaps Nature is the best candidate for burning? But then again not all of us behave with the dogmatic cabalistic aggression deployed so frequently by Maddox, Hansen, Mann, Gore et al.
Thank you for the clarification. I see your point.