This was funnny. It’s good to see you have a sense of humor.

The emails confirm that established scientists, while upholding a picture of modest saints that are judged by an objective peer review process, are often arrogant people who manipulate the publishing process etc. wherever they can in order to silence criticism.

Several investigations have found there is nothing to answer for. What have you found–aside from strawmen–that several independent investigations missed? Both of the papers mentioned in emails are in the IPCC literature and were not excluded/suppressed. If you’re thinking of editor resignations, find out from the people who resigned why they resigned (they have open letters). Again, nothing to answer for.

Or did you mean the environment with “at stake”? In that case, I cannot know, because I am no expert on climate.

We don’t know for sure so let’s do nothing then? Or is it We don’t know for sure so let’s accuse climate scientists of arrogance, silencing critics and manipulating peer review?

Being arrogant, btw, doesn’t necessarily mean you’re wrong. All you have to do is see what the pseudoskeptics offer to realize that they can’t possibly be right. So many contradictory claims often made by the same people. So many claims based on math that a high school stat student could debunk. So many cherry-picked quotes taken out of context.

But if you’re looking for arrogance, how about the absolute surety that pseudoskeptics have that they’re right and that they know more than the experts and scientific academies around the world despite their lack of expertise or credentials (often not even having a science background).

As for your QM ideas, keep doing what other scientists do when they’re doubted by their peers. Do more experiments, find more evidence, win them over by sheer evidence a la Marguilis (endosymbiotic hypothesis), McClintock (jumping genes), and Marshall and Warren (H. pylori and ulcers) to name a few.

Sincere good wishes with that because many of us (scientists) love it when the lone voice is shown to be right, even if we’re shown to be wrong. Yeah, it can grate depending on how much effort you’ve put into your ideas and depending on how big an a**hole the person has been, but if we can’t disprove it (and we’d really like to at times because that person has been such a pompous arrogant prick), we’ll incorporate it and build on it. If we can’t overturn it, then our next revenge strategy is to take it beyond what the discoverer does and maybe wrestle some recognition away from that s.o.b.

What is at stake? Unbiased peer review is *the* ingredient to unbiased science. If it is obviously corrupted as it is in today’s publish-or-perish culture, which turned science into a popularity contest, there is no reason to trust established scientific “consensus” anymore than other established belief systems.

Or did you mean the environment with “at stake”? In that case, I cannot know, because I am no expert on climate. As a physicist, I know temperatures are rising with CO2, but whether this just means we will grow food on the south pole, that I would need a trustworthy expert consensus on. I am an expert on QM/gravity and nanotechnology. In these two very different fields, I know well that peer review silences criticism: emergent gravity has been suppressed for 50 years, my criticisms of some nanotech papers are unpublishable, … . That is two out of two fields I know well. Thus, if I take my expertise into account, I should conclude that trustworthy expert consensus about what is at stake is unavailable.