If you're not familiar with the details of the fight over "anthropogenic global warming" --AGW--let me take one minute to brief you:
The pro-AGW crowd believes that not only is the Earth warming at an unprecedented rate, but also that the main cause of this warming is carbon dioxide from human activity such as burning gasoline, oil, natural gas and coal.
Accordingly, they see the solution as cutting way back on those activities--as you probably know.
What you may not know is that for the last 15 years or so, editors of scientific journals have consistently rejected any submitted paper (scientific study) that debunked any aspect of the pro-AGW theory.
Because there are usually only a handful of scientific journals relevant to any highly specialized field (say, atmospheric physics), a half-dozen "reliable" editors could block publication with almost total efficiency. That put authors of debunking studies in the position of having to go to an "off-topic" journal if they wanted to get their work published.
This in turn allowed the pro-AGW crowd to claim that every paper critical of AGW was garbage, "since the only place they could get it published was in this off-topic journal."
Neat way to shape the concensus, and thus public opinion, eh?
But once in a while this "perfect defense" slips up: Two researchers in Alabama submitted a paper to the journal "Remote Sensing." Following normal procedures, the journal assigned three reviewers to ensure that the researchers had used sound methodology and calculations. It passed all three and was published.
This is critical: Passing a review by three respected reviewers indicates that the paper appears to be scientifically sound.
But then someone who wasn't part of the review process realized that the paper debunked part of the AGW theory--rather sharply. This could not be tolerated, and the gatekeepers reacted: The editor of the journal resigned.
As far as I am aware, this is completely unprecedented. The editor did nothing wrong, the reviewers were randomly picked and well qualified, and their reviews of the science were solid. So why would the editor resign?
One theory is that the pro-AGW establishment forced him to resign as a show, while simultaneously promising him another position at comparable pay.
This theory is supported by the contents of the editor's letter of resignation, in which the only substantive reason he could give for resigning was that by chance,
the three reviewers selected "probably" were "skeptics"--meaning they had reservations about the theory that humans are the primary cause of global warming.
Then someone else noted that if--as Al Gore and others claim--virtually every expert agreees that "the science is settled" that the theory is correct, the odds of randomly selecting 3 guys who disagreed with that theory were one in 100,000 or so.
Supporting this is the editor's use of the word "probably" to modify "skeptics." This is tantamount to admitting that the editor has no evidence for his claim and in fact didn't bother checking. In other words, it's a bullshit excuse.
I suspect the real reason the editor was "forced" to resign is that he didn't
select the three reviewers from the known pool of true believers--which would have led to yet another rejection of a debunking study.
Next time some moron tells you "the science is settled," just laugh.