If you get to the front of the pack you will be disqualified!
Scientific consensus is maintained by the editors of peer-reviewed journals. It is their function to ensure that a submitted paper meets the criteria of the journal. In this they have absolute control. It presents huge opportunities for corruption, both noble cause corruption and the old-fashioned venal sort. Papers critical of the existing consensus never make it to peer review let alone publication. Furthermore, it means any cross-disciplinary explanation for an observed phenomenon is never going to make it because it won’t fit the said criteria. An example is the role of ocean floor volcanoes in mixed layer heating; too much oceanography for for a geology journal and too much geology for an oceanography journal. As a result the smoking gun of the 4 degree sea surface temperature anomaly observed in June 2023 in the North Atlantic was ignored by all the journals. Besides we all know climate change is the origin of all ocean warming. No journal editor is going to risk being labelled a denier by acknwledging the possibility of an alternative explanation.
Comments and guest posts are welcome but we do not tolerate rudeness or obscenity. We don’t care what you think, we care how you act.
If comments are closed, email your comment to me at me at johnsinclairreid at gmail.com.
Our header is a view across Tasmania’s Derwent Valley looking south towards Collins Bonnet from Black Hills Road.
John Reid, Editor