The New Scientist is often an interesting read, but the magazine's slavish devotion to the climate change religion has put me off buying it on a number of occasions. I also find that some people's faith in what is, in the end, a bunch of hacks recycling scientific press releases somewhat worrying, e.g. @dnotice: "... but articles in @newscientist are based on peer-rev'd articles...".
Now, it seems, The New Scientist hacks are horrified to find that maybe the AGW alarmist sources aren't quite as honest—or, indeed, "peer-reviewed"—as that magazine's naive hacks might have hoped. [Emphasis mine.]
Sifting climate facts from speculation
It was a dramatic declaration: glaciers across much of the Himalayas may be gone by 2035. When New Scientist heard this comment from a leading Indian glaciologist, we reported it. That was in 1999. The claim later appeared in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's most recent report—and it turns out that our article is the primary published source.
The glaciologist has never submitted what he says was a speculative comment for peer review—and most of his peers strongly dispute it. So how could such speculation have become an IPCC "finding" which has, moreover, recently been defended by the panel's chairman[*]. We are entitled to an explanation, before rumour and doubt compound the damage to the image of climate science already inflicted by the leaked "climategate" emails.
As His Ecclesiastical Eminence points out, maybe The New Scientist might now try looking beyond the press releases...
This sudden burst of inquiry from Britain's premier science magazine is certainly welcome. We've had twenty-odd years of, at best dumb acquiescence and at worst dumber cheerleading. What have the New Scientists been thinking of these last two decades?
We are entitled to an explanation too.
Perhaps that is why a former editor of The New Scientist gave Bishop Hill's forthcoming book—The Hockey Stick Illusion—such a good review.
This is a thriller about codebreaking—not Napoleon's or Hitler's codes, but computer codes that generated a false signal to the world about runaway global warming. Like most codebreaking it was painfully slow but Montford keeps the drama pacy as the years pass, while he explains the intricacies in the plainest possible language. By military codebreaking, the likes of Scovell and Turing helped to change the course of history, and McIntyre and McKitrick should soon do the same, when the statistical fudges that misled the politicians become more widely known.
Former editor, New Scientist
co-author, The Chilling Stars
Over the last few years, The New Scientist's unquestioning acceptance of catastrophic AGW has formed the basis of belief for many of its readers: the events that are about to unfold over the next few years, when juxtaposed with that magazine's near-religious zeal, will do extraordinary damage to The New Scientist's reputation.
None of us should accept even scientists' views unquestioningly—something that the CRU documents have amply demonstrated—let alone the reportage of a bunch of hacks posing as scientists.
* That chairman being, of course, multimillionaire businessman and all round dodgy, compromised fucker, Dr Rajendra Pachauri.