Corruption Of The Peer-Review And Publishing Process: “Follow The Silence” By Cap Allon for Natural Blaze
Science is not done by consensus, it isn’t a vote.
“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” — Michael Crichton
Regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the most widely-publicized “97 percent consensus” study was that done by Australian John Cook. Cook’s study was widely publicized and to this day is still being cited (knowingly or not) by all those in Camp Alarmist: “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” — John Kerry
Now is your chance to support Gospel News Network.
We love helping others and believe that’s one of the reasons we are chosen as Ambassadors of the Kingdom, to serve God’s children. We look to the Greatest Commandment as our Powering force.
Crucially, though, Kerry’s assumption is patently wrong and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the data. Climate researcher David Legates demolished Cook’s study soon after its publications but, surprise-surprise, Legates’ “0.3% consensus, not 97%” revelation was not so widely circulated:
Legates’ analysis of Cook’s “97%” claim.
That’s right, the much-vaunted 97 percent consensus turns out to be a mere 0.3 percent consensus.
As touched on in my the headline, we have the vast divide over publishing and peer-review. In recent years, the claim that almost all published papers support AGW in ‘some way’ is correct, but only because the vast majority of skeptical papers are now refused at peer-review, as the entire process has been completely subverted to support AGW. This gives the totally misleading impression that everyone agrees, when they most certainly do not.
On that thread, and at the risk of losing my advertising again, scientific integrity has managed to sink even lower since the onset of the pandemic. As noted by Dr. Bret Weintstein in a recent DarkHorse video (embedded below), a new and much anticipated study into the prevalence of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) following a COVID vaccination has, at the eleventh hour, been refused by the publishers — this is even though the paper passed the peer-review process!
As Dr. Weinstein, an environmental biologist, explains:
“This paper had passed peer-review and was headed for publication when the Elsevier Journal, a cardiology journal, replaced the pre-print of the paper with a note saying that it had been removed.”
