Are AGW-prone Editors A Hindrance To Science?
Imagine preparing to submit an article to a scientific journal, in response to something they have just published.
Imagine spending an enormous amount of time getting all relevant references together, all the reasoning properly done, all the computations calculated and reviewed thrice, to be sure about your results.
Imagine clarifying your message with the original authors, arriving at the conclusion that there really is something new in what you’ve found.
Imagine submitting your contribution following each and every rule for publication.
Imagine awaiting the response of the anonymous referees.
Imagine getting positive reviews and recommendation for publication from two referees out of two, a 100% success rate on the peer-review side.
Imagine then receiving an e-mail from the Editor of that “scientific” journal, explaining that they are not going to publish what you’ve referenced, reasoned, computed, clarified, submitted, and even gotten positive reviews about.
Imagine looking at your work, reviewed and approved by peers. Unpublished because of an Editor.
Oh…and of course…your work was not following the AGW consensus. No need to imagine that.