Oh yes you are. You were foolish enough to believe the lies of the GW deniers and take their hysterical 'hoax' howls seriously.
Ive always wondered about whether the "return" polar melt water would be entering the thermohyaline at such a rate as to "shut down" the tropical ocean streams like the Gulf Stream and would more quickly induce anothr Ice Age. In which Global Warming would be the parent of Global Cooling.
As far as I know, there is no reliable global warming data, from any source, so I advise not listening to any of it.
They arent lying. Theyre just wrong.
There is no reliable data to be had, at all.
How do you know that? What benchmark are you using to make that statement?
The scientists who are complaining that their papers are being suppressed are not lying.
can you identify some of these articles and the Journals in which they were denied publication?
Usually there would be a great track left for some authors to complin or publish it through the press.
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.
They are lying.
It's called a peer review process. If you can't pass it, you don't get published in a peer reviewed journal...
make some really questionable inferences bout ow it is being conducted, really really questionable,
then try to ssy that throws out all the data from all the other independent lines of research. They are flat wrong.