For a magazine named New Scientist, they aren’t very scientific.
When Einstein came up with his theories, the scientific establishment laughed at him. After all what could a mere clerk in a Patent office have to say about anything? Who was he to question the work of people who had far more prestigious jobs, who had published far more papers in the top journals. The man could not even get a teacher’s assistant job at a university, and he was pretending to tell the top scientists in the world what was what?
You couldn’t listen to Einstein – he was virtually uncredentialed, compared with the massive number of scientists who actually knew what they were doing.
And so they scoffed.
Now, New Scientist Magazine reminds us that we should only listen to those in the establishment – only listen to those that are approved by those who go along to get along,. Let the circle jerk of the establishment be your guide:
The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, according to a study led by Stanford researchers.
In a quantitative assessment — the first of its kind to address this issue — the team analyzed the number of research papers published by more than 900 climate researchers and the number of times their work was cited by other scientists.
“These are standard academic metrics used when universities are making hiring or tenure decisions,” said William Anderegg, lead author of a paper published in the online Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.
Yeah. Don’t even listen to those Eiinstein characters, or those Copernicus characters. (Copernicus was afraid to publish his work because he knew the other scientists at the universities would make a mockery of him.) Don’t listen to Galileo, or those guys who discovered DNA by going about it the unconventional way.
Don’t listen to Newton, or Faraday, or Thomas Edison. Those guys hardly ever published a proper paper.
Useless, I tell you.
Papers by climate researchers convinced of human effects were cited approximately 64 percent more often than papers by the unconvinced.
With all of the establishment’s built in advantages, with all of their purposely working to make sure skeptical papers are never published, and all New Scientist can find is that there was only a 64% difference?
That’s laughable. That’s not much at all. Of course the guys controlling the system are going to cite each other more.
New Scientist is a joke.