"It's All Over For Science"

... that is, if the Winds of Change piece is accurate, and the Nature Publishing Group is quashing the publication of articles contra anthropogenic global warming. Briefly, articles submitted for publication in Science and Nature have gotten the boot, not because of the science involved but for political reasons. Moreover, it appears that the hockey-stick group is busying itself with ejecting scientists from the peer review in-crowd-kids:

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It’s pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It’s the news value that is most important." He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."

Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it’s all over for science."

As I have warned my readers previously on this subject, the important point is that science gets done transparently and skeptically. There is slowly mounting evidence that Mann and others have been manipulating publication for political ends. (See also the "honest broker" debate at Prometheus between R. Pielke, Jr. and Michael Mann for the gloves-on version; round 1 here. More of this kind of thing can be found here and here.)