I'm not familiar with the article, but you said it was published as a progress article and not a review, so what's the problem?
Basically, though, journal editors have discretion to do what they want, and that's seems particularly true with Nature editors.
The first action you would do in science is to define a problem or theory. Every person who has been to a decent school knows that. Climate Change hasn't been sufficiently defined to review it. The IPCC's definition, "Climate Change is a change in climate," is not a good enough definition even for the most basic science.
New Ice Age Coming---It's Already Getting Colder. Some midsummer day, perhaps not too far in the future, a hard, killing frost will sweep down on the wheat fields of Saskatchewan, the Dakotas and the Russian steppes…..Los Angles Times Oct 24, 1971
Is that something that you can sink your teeth in?
A number of climatologists, whose job it is to keep an eye on long-term weather changes, have lately been predicting deterioration of the benign climate to which we have grown accustomed….Various climatologists issued a statement that “the facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade,” If policy makers do not account for this oncoming doom, “mass deaths by starvation and probably in anarchy and violence” will result. New York Times - December 29, 1974
All this because of climate change. I haven't seen any in seventy two years of my life and I have been all over the US.
Define it first!
Yes, "All climatologist are excluded from liability, accuracy, and responsibility"
Basically it's a: Whatever I think science.
If they were willing to back up the claims with compensatory values...like the rest of the world. I would give them credence. They don't, so its a junk science.
Given deniers history of misquoting and altering quotes (like the stolen emails) I put little stock in what you say and given you provide nothing that could help link to or find this article or the fact it makes no actual mention of what field it is even talking about.
It could just as easily be referring to a study of Elephant dung in the Serengeti, with no link we just have to take your word, and given your history and general denier history on this site, that's not worth squat
Also hard not to note this "supposed to resurrect or reinforce the hockey stick" I'm sorry but the denier fantasy that the hockey stick graph was ever discredited is complete nonsense, it exists only in denier blogs, there is no published work that ever discredited and in fact it was followed by around a dozen other works that over time confirmed it. But deniers don't like to even address that point, otherwise their whole pile of nonsense starts to fall down round their ears.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11...
Or this "So if according to Nature magazine" do you actually not understand how a journal works papers are the science of their authors (not Nature), they just publish them, Nature is the pinnacle magazine for scientists it publishes on a range of subjects, but it also has published many many articles on Climate Change.
In fact here is the full article you failed to post
http://www.dendrocronologia.cl/pubs/2013...
and this the source of your quote the nature blog where someone called "Steve McIntyre" tried to invent some controversy, somehow that name seems familiar. I'll bet there a version on his blog that tries to beat this up into a story and that that is your source.
http://blogs.nature.com/ofschemesandmeme...
Your selective quote can be found in the first reply to McIntyre and I see why you didn't want to link to this as the second reply to McIntyre shows he has some problem understanding what they are saying.
Because when there is little scientific firm ground to stand upon, it is only natural that mystical elements of intuition and educated guessing become concept-making suggestion. Sensible opinion and non-standard analysis of information can allude to parallelism to enlighten the mind with relativity that science shadows ,profiles in silhouette on its days off.
Is genetics a mature field? Scientists knew that humans could cause global warming before anyone knew about the structure of DNA.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timel...
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/me...
Rio
<"All climatologist are excluded from liability, accuracy, and responsibility" >
Liability means that whoever causes damage pays for it. Rising sea levels or any other effect which people say are damaging effects of global warming would have to happen for anyone to be liable. If they do happen, it is not the "alarmists" who would cause them, but global warming. If anyone were to blame for anything bad happening because of anything the "alarmists" say, it will be those who tell us to pay no attention to the "alarmists."
Yet, whenever anyone does back up the claims, you block them.
no its one of the important factors for review as its creating lots of problem such as global warming
The phrase "not mature enough for review" doesn't mean what you think it means. Not that you likely care. But to people who do understand the meaning, you look like an idiot. You're probably ok with that though. Life is a funny thing.
There was a Pages2K article that is supposed to resurrect or reinforce the hockey stick with global coverage and lots of proxies. It was published as a Progress article in Nature. According to Nature's website:
“When the discussion is focused on a developing field that might not yet be mature enough for review, a Progress article is more appropriate. Progress articles are up to 2,000 words in length, with up to 4 display items (figures, tables or boxes). References are limited to 50. Reviews and Progress articles are commissioned by the editors, but proposals including a short synopsis are welcome. Reviews and Progress articles are always peer-reviewed to ensure factual accuracy, appropriate citations and scholarly balance. They do not include received/accepted dates.”
So if according to Nature magazine, climate change science is not a field mature enough for review, why are they including such articles in their magazine that are not Progress articles?
