Why did NASA refuse to publish this?

Question

Those defenders of truth at Nasa tried to stifle this guy and his theory. He had to quit NASA and get it published elsewhere. Way to go NASA. I guess people really are being silenced when it comes to Climate change.

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm

And notice how the detractors at the end of the article focus, not on the data, but on the fact that the science is 200 years old. Once again, they follow the play book. Do not focus on the data. Redirect focus to something as idiotic as saying the science is 200 years old.

Answer 1

Because it's wrong.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

He doesn't need NASA to get published.  If his research were valid, he could find a peer-reviewed American journal to publish it.  We know it's wrong because his calculation can't account for the runaway greenhouse effect on Venus.

Not that you care why he's wrong, but he is.

Answer 2

I don't think NASA refused to publish it, what happened was that it didn't pass NASA's internal peer-review and Miskolczi resigned in protest.  DOE, NASA, USGS, EPA, and NOAA all have an internal peer-review step before papers can be submitted to journals for external peer-review.  None of us know exactly why NASA prevented this paper from being submitted, but the most likely explanation is that it is wrong.  There are also many instances in science of a respectable researcher "losing it" and going off into Never Never Land.  Einstein and quantum mechanics is a great example of this.  

Very little of NASA's money is for climate change, go here:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/142458main_FY07_...

and look at the breakout of the Earth-Sun System budget (this is the theme for NASA where climate resides).  You'll find that the funding for Earth Systematic Observing work was on order of $200,000,000, which may sound like a lot, but keep in mind it is only 10% of the total ESS budget (the rest of that money goes to probes for solar research and non-climate related Earth system research).  NASA could, and probably would be willing to, lose all of that research to save its manned-flight programs.  

The real cash cow for NASA is manned flight, the Space Shuttle and ISS, with combined funding of over $6 billion dollars per year.  That neither has produced much in the way of relevant results besides some feel-good PR (if you forget about the 14 dead astronauts) is beside the point.  

So my point is none of your objections, or Miskolczi reasons for why his paper wasn't published make any sense.  He's feeding you a line, which you are buying because you want to believe it.

Answer 3

So you're unable to find any scientific articles opposing AGW from the US, England, Australia, Canada, or any other modern western nation?  They're all in cahoots with Al Gore, right? Are we to assume you've checked the math in this paper and found it sound, or do you merely accept it because it agrees with your ideological based position that the science of AGW can't possibly be right?

This issue was already well covered in this question:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?...

Answer 4

Dana is quite correct, You submit your paper for peer review if it is accepted you pay the fee ~1000-2000 paying this is about all NASA would have done, he could have paid it him self. There is also a pecking order to various journals with Nature at the top followed by things like JATP (Journal of Atmospheric & Terrestrial Physics) with Nature being the most stringent quite a lot of papers rejected by Nature go on to be published in journals like JATP or JGR. To date no paper that offers and alternate theory to GW being manmade has appeared in any reputable journal. It goes without saying 'Dailytech' isn't on the list of journals, at all.

There is a good reason for this (a) there is no theory currently appearing in blogs that would get through. (b) those like the Heartland institute know their arguments won't hold water with scientists so they don't waste their time trying to get them published, instead pushing them to blog sites many of which they run to influence the general public, there is considerable effort going into this as some go to some lengths to look like genuine scientific papers.

Answer 5

Global warming seems to be a fact. It does not look like we can do anything about it. How do we eliminate the internal combustion engine?

Answer 6

Miklós Zágoni didn't quit NASA, because Miklós Zágoni never worked at NASA. Here's his actual resume:

http://www.ns.ac.yu/stara/letnjeSkole/20...

NASA is a research agency, not a publishing house.

Answer 7

MARS AND VENUS ARE GETTING HOTTER, AND 12- 21-2012 IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER..

Answer 8

This was one guy with a theory.

When he couldn't get other scientists to agree with him, he decided to move on.  The guy couldn't get published anywhere except in an obscure foreign journal, because his theory is not compelling.  

This is no big deal, no imaginary "conspiracy" just another of the tiny group of "skeptics" who can't prove their ideas.

Answer 9

It goes against their political agenda.