Not our kind of science

The Telegraph has very credible evidence that the scientific journals Nature and Science are censoring certain views on global warming.

It all started when...

Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view [that global warming is happening and is caused by humans], while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

But that kind of slam dunk sends up red flags to serious academics. Nothing has that kind of consensus. So...

Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University [...] decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

And he's not alone:

Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.

If these journals are biased about something so straightforward as summarizing conclusions of studies, what should we expect from them on something less objective?