NATURE Pulls Slanderous Article claiming scientist who disagree with AGW are "Deniers" + other slurs

[Billy_Bob]

NATURE Pulls Slanderous Article claiming scientist who disagree with AGW "Deniers" and claiming their credentials or work is substandard.

Now this is damn funny. The journal NATURE has been caught with their pants down and jerking off. It seems that some faculty memebers from the University of California @ Merced think their slander is OK... Now they and Nature face criminal prosecution in the UK, USA, GERMANY, among many other countries..

Its about damn time we started playing their game and dragging their sorry asses into court..

“On 13 August 2019, three UC Merced faculty, AM Peterson, EM Vincent and AL Westerling, published a paper in Nature Communications. The paper refers to ‘climate contrarians’, a pejorative term. Your university put out a press release, referring to ‘deniers’, a term referencing those who question the historical validity of the Holocaust.

Looks like the attorneys have already prepared the cases and are simply waiting for UCM to not answer their letter of retraction demand to their public and printed slander and criminal defamation of character.

So far 8 well respected and well known scientists have signed on to Monckton's criminal slander suit.. I expect more in the next day or so...

The Nature Communications hate list – a fast-moving story

 

[GLASNOST]

NATURE Pulls Slanderous Article claiming scientist who disagree with AGW "Deniers" and claiming their credentials or work is substandard.

Now this is damn funny. The journal NATURE has been caught with their pants down and jerking off. It seems that some faculty memebers from the University of California @ Merced think their slander is OK... Now they and Nature face criminal prosecution in the UK, USA, GERMANY, among many other countries..

Its about damn time we started playing their game and dragging their sorry asses into court..

“On 13 August 2019, three UC Merced faculty, AM Peterson, EM Vincent and AL Westerling, published a paper in Nature Communications. The paper refers to ‘climate contrarians’, a pejorative term. Your university put out a press release, referring to ‘deniers’, a term referencing those who question the historical validity of the Holocaust.

Looks like the attorneys have already prepared the cases and are simply waiting for UCM to not answer their letter of retraction demand to their public and printed slander and criminal defamation of character.

So far 8 well respected and well known scientists have signed on to Monckton's criminal slander suit.. I expect more in the next day or so...

The Nature Communications hate list – a fast-moving story

National Geographic has been publishing sublime American propaganda for decades but (as far as I know) they've never been called out on it. It's about time we started dragging their sorry asses into court too.

 

[SSDD]

 

[Billy_Bob]

Joanne did a smashing job with this propaganda rag's front cover...

 

[Billy_Bob]

LOL...

The list of potential law suits and criminal defamation suits is growing... Nature really stepped in the dog crap on this one... Where were its unbiased reviewers that allowed this paper to be published in the first place? This exposes the rampant bias and gate keeping of PAL REVIEW this publication is openly practicing.

Just taking the article down may not shield them from prosecution.. There are other hit pieces still in open publication.

 

[SSDD]

I seriously think that they need to make the reviewers who approved that piece of crap for publication public as well.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Just WOW....

The Journal of Nature is in deep doo doo...

The blurb gives rise to at least the following counts of libel, given the widespread circulation of my name by the defendants on the list of those whom they describe as “deniers”, a term calculated to invite invidious comparison with Holocaust denial:

1. The defendants’ use of the word “denial” twice (once in the headline and once in the opening sentence of the blurb) – constitutes libel in its deliberately false implication that I and others on the list circulated by the defendants deny well-established scientific facts, when – as will be self-evident from the well-referenced paragraphs outlining the defendants’ frauds supra – my objections to the Party Line climate to which the defendants choose to adhere are not, as their adherence thereto is, merely political, but instead rigorously scientific.

2. The defendants’ use of the phrase “Sowing doubt” in a prominent subheading in the blurb constitutes libel in its deliberately false implication that I among others named on the list circulated by the defendants are adopting a political stance opposite to that of the defendants, and that we are dishonestly causing deliberate confusion in the public mind, when in fact my own work on climate, which includes numerous peer-reviewed publications in leading journals somehow not identified in the defendants’ careless purported “study”, raises genuine and profound scientific and economic concerns about the Party Line to which the defendants adhere.

3. The defendants’ use of the phrase “dubious or discredited assertions about global warming” in the blurb constitutes libel in its deliberately false implication that I among others named on the list circulated by the defendants are dishonestly attempting to mislead the public, and in its deliberately false implication that all of my published statements about the climate have been discredited. Let us take a single example: I am on record as having pointed out that, in control theory, the branch of engineering physics from which climatology borrows feedback method, such feedback processes as may subsist in a feedback-moderated dynamical system must perforce respond not only to any perturbations of the input signal but also to the entire reference signal, which is the sum of the input signal and any perturbations. However, it is not difficult to calculate that the 3.35 K official midrange estimate of Charney sensitivity in the CMIP5 models (Andrews op. cit.) is predicated on the assumption that, while the 10 K directly-forced or reference sensitivity to the preindustrial noncondensing greenhouse gases is imagined to engender a 22.5 K feedback response (i.e., a response more than twice itself), the 274 K emission temperature that would be present in the absence of any greenhouse gases would engender a feedback response of zero. That is a large and self-evident but hitherto overlooked contradiction within the Party Line to which the defendants inexpertly adhere. Resolving that contradiction constrains Charney sensitivity to between 1 and 1.4 K – an interval entirely below the [1.5, 4.7] K interval currently imagined by IPCC and the CMIP5 models. The corrected warming, therefore, will be small, slow, harmless and net-beneficial. Even if it were the fact that official climatology’s “consensus” of “experts” had hitherto considered [1.5, 4.7] K to be a reasonable interval, the “consensus” would be incorrect and the experts – to that extent, at any rate, inexpert. The defendants have carelessly – and, in the event, libellously – assumed that the Party Line is in all respects correct, when in fact, in at least the respects outlined herein, it is demonstrably incorrect. The defendants’ libel is thus fundamentally dishonest and deliberately so, in that none of them has sufficient expertise in climatology or in any related subject to pronounce as they have pronounced to the effect that the Party Line must be in all material respects correct, and yet they have seen fit to pontificate in a fashion calculated deliberately to damage the reputations of those on the list they have carelessly circulated, including my name.

4. The defendants’ telling of the story of a Republican who had at first opposed the Party Line on climate and has now changed his mind was calculated, in association with the list of names including mine that the defendants had widely circulated, to convey the false impression that we too ought to confess our past sins and toe the Party Line to which they so faithfully and yet so inexpertly adhere, and to leave readers with the notion that it was only wilful dishonesty on our part that was leading us to make the allegedly “dubious” (but carefully unspecified) statements of which the defendants accused us in their prominently-circulated blurb.

The purported “study” contrasted “386 prominent contrarians” with “386 expert scientists”, and concluded that “professional mainstream sources” of news had been subjected to “crowding out” by –

“the proliferation of new media sources, many of which contribute to the production and consumption of climate change disinformation at scale. These results demonstrate why climate scientists should increasingly exert their authority in scientific and public discourse, and why professional journalists and editors should adjust the disproportionate attention given to contrarians.”

The above passage constitutes libel of me as well as others named in the list circulated by the defendants, in that we are held to be guilty of deliberate “disinformation”. In fact, as the numerous references supra demonstrate, I have good scientific and economic reason to disagree with certain aspects of the Party Line to which the defendants adhere. What is more, the above passage constitutes evidence of malice, in that the defendants declare their determination to prevent those of us who have genuine scientific and economic doubts about the Party Line from gaining access to the news media in future. This and other evidences of malice on the part of the defendants, including the defendants’ circulation of the list of names including mine, removes the protection granted by Parliament to those who commit libels in “peer-reviewed” “studies”.

OUCH!... This also violates these same similar laws in the US. Liable, Slander, Criminal Defamation of Character... And the list of violations goes on...

They think that if its a "peer reviewed work" that their criminal acts can not be charged against them, as courts do not normally deal in scientific maters, but that is a grievous error. The writers have now placed this in the courts purview and will now have to prove their accusations they placed in writing.

Nature is not out of the woods for pulling the article as their reviewing staff is paid for by them which places them liable for all content. This is not going to end well for UCM or Nature...

Fraud, breach of right of privacy and libel by Nature Communications @NatureComms

 

[SSDD]

It is about time these people started getting called on their fraud.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Willis Eschenbach exposes the fraud that passed for "peer reviewed" work published in Nature....

You cant make this stuff up.. These people are outright liars and frauds.

"Grrr … these jokers write a “scientific” paper and then they don’t release the code or the data for six months after publication? That’s not science, that a buncha guys engaged in what we used to call “hitchhiking to Chicago” accompanied by the appropriate obscene one-handed gesture with the thumb extended…"

links to dead web sites, double counting papers, and the list goes on and on...

Inside The Sausage Factory

I do not see how Nature avoids civil, let alone potential criminal liability, from their publishing of this article/paper..

 

[Sunsettommy]

Willis Eschenbach exposes the fraud that passed for "peer reviewed" work published in Nature....

You cant make this stuff up.. These people are outright liars and frauds.

"Grrr … these jokers write a “scientific” paper and then they don’t release the code or the data for six months after publication? That’s not science, that a buncha guys engaged in what we used to call “hitchhiking to Chicago” accompanied by the appropriate obscene one-handed gesture with the thumb extended…"

links to dead web sites, double counting papers, and the list goes on and on...

Inside The Sausage Factory

I do not see how Nature avoids civil, let alone potential criminal liability, from their publishing of this article/paper..

The clinching statement:

"I first took a look at the media mentions of St. Greta of Thunberg, the Patron Saint of the Easily Led. Since she burst on the scene a few months ago, she has gotten no less than 36,517 mentions in the media, about 60% of the total of all the “contrarians” listed in their study.

I then looked at the man who has made more money out of climate hysteria than any living human being, the multimillionaire Climate Goracle, Mr. Al Gore himself. A search of Mediacloud for ‘”Al Gore” AND climate’ returned a total of 92,718 hits.

So while the clueless authors of this paper are so concerned about how much air time we “contrarians” get, between them just Al Gore and Greta Thunberg alone got twice the number of media mentions as all of us climate “contrarians” combined …"

bolding mine

 

[Billy_Bob]

Willis Eschenbach exposes the fraud that passed for "peer reviewed" work published in Nature....

You cant make this stuff up.. These people are outright liars and frauds.

"Grrr … these jokers write a “scientific” paper and then they don’t release the code or the data for six months after publication? That’s not science, that a buncha guys engaged in what we used to call “hitchhiking to Chicago” accompanied by the appropriate obscene one-handed gesture with the thumb extended…"

links to dead web sites, double counting papers, and the list goes on and on...

Inside The Sausage Factory

I do not see how Nature avoids civil, let alone potential criminal liability, from their publishing of this article/paper..

The clinching statement:

"I first took a look at the media mentions of St. Greta of Thunberg, the Patron Saint of the Easily Led. Since she burst on the scene a few months ago, she has gotten no less than 36,517 mentions in the media, about 60% of the total of all the “contrarians” listed in their study.

I then looked at the man who has made more money out of climate hysteria than any living human being, the multimillionaire Climate Goracle, Mr. Al Gore himself. A search of Mediacloud for ‘”Al Gore” AND climate’ returned a total of 92,718 hits.

So while the clueless authors of this paper are so concerned about how much air time we “contrarians” get, between them just Al Gore and Greta Thunberg alone got twice the number of media mentions as all of us climate “contrarians” combined …"

bolding mine

I've stocked up on popcorn.... This is going to be a hoot to watch as it unfolds...

And they can not say "we didn't do that".....LOL

 

[Billy_Bob]

“Journal peer review information: Nature Communications thanks James Painter and other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work."

Who is he?

“James Painter ([email protected]) is a Research Associate at the Reuters Institute.”
Dr James Painter | Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism


His current research projects are:

– Animal agriculture’s contribution to climate change in the media (he is a collaborator on the LEAP project at the James Martin School at Oxford University: ABOUT THE PROJECT | LEAP)


– Climate denialism in the media (he is a senior adviser to the research project on climate denialism coordinated via the Centre for Studies of Climate Change Denialism (CEFORCED) at Chalmers University of Technology at Gothenburg, Sweden: Centre for Studies of Climate Change Denialism (CEFORCED) | Chalmers


– The media portrayals of extreme weather event attribution (he is working with climate researchers at the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University)”



He is a far left wacko environmentalist and the others remain anonymous... This paper is clearly agenda driven slander, criminal defamation of character, and done with malice as the reviewer is himself a gate keeper for the cause.

 

[Weatherman2020]

 

[SSDD]

“Journal peer review information: Nature Communications thanks James Painter and other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work."

Who is he?

“James Painter ([email protected]) is a Research Associate at the Reuters Institute.”
Dr James Painter | Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism


His current research projects are:

– Animal agriculture’s contribution to climate change in the media (he is a collaborator on the LEAP project at the James Martin School at Oxford University: ABOUT THE PROJECT | LEAP)


– Climate denialism in the media (he is a senior adviser to the research project on climate denialism coordinated via the Centre for Studies of Climate Change Denialism (CEFORCED) at Chalmers University of Technology at Gothenburg, Sweden: Centre for Studies of Climate Change Denialism (CEFORCED) | Chalmers


– The media portrayals of extreme weather event attribution (he is working with climate researchers at the Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University)”



He is a far left wacko environmentalist and the others remain anonymous... This paper is clearly agenda driven slander, criminal defamation of character, and done with malice as the reviewer is himself a gate keeper for the cause.

What do you bet that the other reviewers are as unqualified and biased as that one? I think nature really stepped in it this time...Seems that lawsuits are popping up all over covering great swaths of climate sceince and their claims...wonder how this will effect mikey mann's legal woes?