If it was suppressed, how did you find out about it?
This was all months if not years ago. Give the original cites again.
A group of us noted that the snowpack in the Cascades was NOT rapidly melting away, in contrast to some publications by some local climate scientists and publicized by Mayor Nickels. The reaction was intense. One of my colleagues, Mark Albright, who was the first to notice the lack of snowpack loss was fired as associate State Climatologist and the media went wild...we called it Snowpackgate...and it got national attention. I was told in the hallways to keep quiet about it...the denier types would take advantage of it!
We then wrote a paper on the subject (the main contributor being Mark Stoelinga) and submitted it to the Journal of Climate. I have published a lot of papers in my life (roughly 100) and I never had problems like we had with this paper. Very biased associate editor and some reviewers. Four review cycles and it was about to be turned down, until we appealed to the editor, who proved fair and reasonable. This paper has now been accepted for publication, but it really revealed to me the bias in the system. Here is the paper if you are interested:
Poor papers with significant technical problems, but reflecting the "official" line, get published easily, while papers indicating the global warming is weaker or delayed, go through hurdle after hurdle.
I have heard case after case of similar treatment...so this is no anomaly.
For example, climatologist John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville accepts that global warming is happening, but he says there is a lot of uncertainty about its causes and impacts. He says he has trouble getting some of his results published.
"I've done a pretty thorough study of snowfall of the Southern Sierra mountains of California, and the Southern Sierra find no downward trend in snowfall," he says.
That's important because snowfall is forecast to decline because of global warming, and that would seriously affect California's water supply. Christy says he has tried three times to get his paper published. So far, it's been rejected, and he suspects it's because scientists are trying to stifle his message.
"Everyone from the secretary of Energy [on down] who has talked about the snowfall in the Sierra going away will not find any comfort in the fact that the trends in snowfall are essentially zero for the last hundred years," he says.
It's multiply proven science.
what you keep calling biased was merely a disagreement bout quality of research.
Their argument was published as well.
Check into snowpack melt this year. Setting new records all across the SW. Flood waters 25 feet above normal, and that's from river and water people, not climate scientist.
As usual, you try illegitimately to generalize one questionable data point to question literally millions of data points with no basis to do so.
Data, I might ad, from many different fields of research, gathered by a variety of approaches, all of which agree GW is real and approaCHING THE TIPPING POINT.
Hope you enjoy it when your bunker in the woods becomes a bunker in a desert.
I dont have any invstment in youre delusion other than to scoff at your lies.
Your inabilities to acknowledge facts and evidence are well known herein because youve done it many many times before
where you, not knowing of what you speak,
merely keep repeating your mantra about how folks cant find any mistakes in your assertions. Its not that they cant find any, its just that we are the guys who really believe youre just a wee bit nuts in the head.
The NAS and the American Geophyical Union (AGU) have reviewed all the IPCC data and have found it sound, and have stated that the counter "scientific positions" are merely commercially and politically driven.