5/20    Science and Nature censoring papers that reject global warning
        as a man made phenomenon:
        http://tinyurl.com/85x6t (telegraph.co.uk)
           \_ I've never published in Nature, but Science rejected my paper
              on my mono-pole magnet until I agreed to pledge alegiance to the
              Unitied Nations, give up all my guns and renounce God.  Now they
              publish all my mono-pole magnet papers without question. It's
              not a bad system, really.  All hail the scientific priesthood
              and their athiestic consensus science.
           \_ Did you read the article? S&N have started dropping
              research groups from its pool of reviewers when they
              publish (or try to publish) research that contradicts
              the "accepted truth" re global warning. I don't care
              that they are biased as long as they come out and
              admit it.
              \_ I care if they are biased. If the research is good
                 research then it should be published. It is up to the
                 scientific community to accept/reject the conclusions. A
                 journal should just publish papers, as long as the
                 science is good.
                 \_ You could publish it as a paid advertisement and publish
                    the URL as a "hey, look, look at this, isn't it unique?"
                    story on http://slashdot.org... -John
        \_ gee... scientist can't get his paper published in Science or
           Nature, then whines?  Publish it somewhere else, then.  You've
           already started whining... show us what you're whining about.
           Thousands of papers get rejected from both S. & N.  They are
           the top two journals, and two most prestigious.  If every
           scientist who wanted to publish there, got his/her wish, then
           the two journals would be shite.  Also, getting rejected by
           no means indicates your article is poor, flawed, or not
           newsworthy.  It just means that Science/Nature ed. boards
           didn't think your article is on-topic enough.  Plenty of
           scientists get rejected by them, and then go and publish in
           other journals.
           \_ I've never published in Nature, but Science rejected my paper
              on my mono-pole magnet until I agreed to pledge alegiance to the
              Unitied Nations, give up all my guns and renounce God.  Now they
              publish all my mono-pole magnet papers without question. It's
              not a bad system, really.  All hail the scientific priesthood
              and their athiestic consensus science.
           \_ Did you read the article? S&N have started dropping
              research groups from its pool of reviewers when the
              research groups from its pool of reviewers when they
              publish (or try to publish) research that contradicts
              the "common knowledge" re global warning. I don't
              care that they are biased. Just let them come out
              and admit it.
              the "accepted truth" re global warning. I don't care
              that they are biased as long as they come out and
              admit it.
              \_ I care if they are biased. If the research is good
                 research then it should be published. It is up to the
                 scientific community to accept/reject the conclusions. A
                 journal should just publish papers, as long as the
                 science is good.
                 \_ You could publish it as a paid advertisement and publish
                    the URL as a "hey, look, look at this, isn't it unique?"
                    story on http://slashdot.org... -John