Nobody asked me to put anything about climate change in the articles, and I don't think it would have helped the articles to get published.
You're projecting your bias onto the world.
EDIT: Gary F's answer made me laugh.
Kano, if you believe that a paper is claiming something that's not true, you can always write a response to it--that's done all the time. You will need to SUPPORT your assertions, though. Just saying something is false or an exaggeration because it disagrees with a blog you read isn't going to get you very far.
Open minded does not mean re-hashing false information. There is very little appetite to put the two sides of gravity or the two sides of flat/round earth theories in science journals. Once a theory is accepted, most work is on discovering other things. No matter how hard you try, CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
You could always look to FOX news for 'Fair and balanced' reporting. A real oxymoron.
Most of the alarmist I'm seeing are those who think civilization will end when we get off fossil fuels. This is really stone age thinking.
Good observation.
The problem is research needs funding, funders usually have desired results in mind. The money often buys the desired findings no matter how much research was done. The paid for result is usually used to make more money in some way.
Peer review is one of the few checks on thus system. Check out peer reviews too, which are basically the same as the blogs you've read (I'm guessing).
I suggest you read Michael Chriton's State of Fear. It deals with the same topic. I think you'll enjoy it, even though it is a bit bland.
Quote by Jim Sibbison, environmental journalist, former public relations official for the Environmental Protection Agency: "We routinely wrote scare stories...Our press reports were more or less true...We were out to whip the public into a frenzy about the environment."
That is from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Isn't there something about the blind leading the blind?
Antarct: <"institutes are totally one sided" yes I agree they are, they print the facts supported by evidence, > The Earth has been cooling for over a decade. That is a fact that 'institutes' have been overtly denying while covertly accepting the fact.
http://joemiller.us/2012/08/busted-leake...
In this article it states, "But in 2009, as the thermometer hit record lows in America, he and other climate scientists panicked in a flurry of emails: “Skeptics will be all over us – the world is really cooling, the models are no good.”
So, if any 'science journal' stated that we are still warming, it is not telling the truth, and that is bias.
Then to top that off the CO2 level is rising while the earth's temperature is going down, proving that CO2 doesn't have the control of the temperature as the climatologist would have us believe. That is bias in its supreme form. Which nobody can deny.
The reason why science journals seem one sided is because they use science. Not conspiratorial thinking as you seem to be tuned more towards. Anyone can put any idea on the internet they choose.
Hollow moon? - http://www.davidicke.com/
UFOs? http://www.ufosightingsdaily.com/
Illuminati and new world order? http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/
This is exactly the type of rubbish that occurs in the climate change 'skeptic' online world. This is why you are seen, as well as those that think as you do, as unscientific.
You also will find that scientific journals are similarly biased against…
? Humans and dinosaurs coexisting;
? Chemtrails;
? Faked moon landings;
? Alien reptiles, and;
? Abiotic oil.
… and that believers in those ideas also claim that there are government and scientific conspiracies to hide the truth.
"institutes are totally one sided" yes I agree they are, they print the facts supported by evidence, and reject B.S. supported by nothing, that is why deniers use blogs and why they have even tried to invent a couple of their own journals.
Journal papers are reviewed by scientists before they are published usually 3-5 scientists picked at random but from the same field, this is to check for accuracy and any glaring errors, then of course once it is published the entire field (in this case climate science) read and critique the work, that is the true peer review not the 3-5 who just review the paper. This is something deniers continue to either ignore or not understand. A paper is valued on the reception it gets and the times it is cited in later work.
Making the sort of conspiracy deniers are trying to invent on this is simply absurd, as anyone who actually works in science would and does understand. All such conspiracy theories show is how uninformed deniers actually are.
Deniers (or their experts) have certainly had some papers published, and boy do they let everybody know when they do, of course you see no further comment about the citations for those papers because they go nowhere, what they do get published is usually watered down versions of what they put on their blogs, watts has actually done this he put out a little paper and crowed about it but it went nowhere, watts like many deniers seems to think getting the paper published is all you have to do, for him it's about having some propaganda to say look "I'm scientifical" (he isn't), a look at his blog shows pretty clearly he will post just about anything that knocks AGW, from sources that are not even slightly believable. i,e political lobbyists like Marc Morano, who's idea of 'science' seems to be shouting louder than the other guy. Deniers whine about how rude scientists where about them is personal private (stolen) emails, yet watts is, or allows, such rudeness in a public forum and was long before the emails where stolen.
Another trend deniers have tried of late is to get papers published in obscure journals, that are more related to things like statistic's than climate, but one of these backfired on them rather badly, the poor editor ended up resigning in shame after he realised he had been conned.
"What happened to open minded objective science and reporting,"
Nothing at all, it's just denier 'science?' is so bad it doesn't fool climate scientists at all, but then much of the B.S. is never even submitted to a science journal, look at the graphics, these have not been prepared for real publication at all, part of my job is prepping images and graph's for journal papers and I know they are very demanding about quality, because those who read the journal (i.e. scientists read and study the work and support it or reject it)
While I know you have a closed mind others may be interested in 3 examples of lead denier theories
1) It's the Sun
2) It's Volcanoes
3) It's cosmic Rays
All three are and continue to be used by deniers yet 1 & 2 have solid evidence showing they are not the case, the Sun has been in a very small decline in activity over the last 35 years (while we have been warming) Solid evidence shows the build up in atmospheric Co2 is not coming from volcanoes.
The 3rd is one based on a real paper (from years ago) a paper that was looked and and studied by others in the field (that's how science works) it was disputed and shown to be incorrect.
But now of course denier are trying to reinvent it.
A guide to denier actions can be seen in the recent attempts to claim "the ozone hole was also a myth", this is itself a pure denier fantasy, which as usual they can produce not a shred of evidence for.
There are no papers 'disputing or claiming it was all a conspiracy to get a new patent', as with the B.S. deniers spin on climate you only find this their blogs, were it was invented.
You have some actual evidence, publish it.
I was asked why do I read blogs and not science journals (I do I read journals and blogs pro and against and research using google scholar) simply, science journals and institutes are totally one sided, haven't you noticed so many articles about everything, always have near the end have a little sidebar mentioning climate change, to help it get published.
What happened to open minded objective science and reporting,
