Follow The SilenceArticles 

Corruption Of The Peer-Review And Publishing Process: “Follow The Silence”

Science is not done by consensus, it isn’t a vote.

“Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.” — Michael Crichton

Regarding anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the most widely-publicized ’97 percent consensus’ study was that done by Australian John Cook. Cook’s study was widely publicized and to this day is still being cited (knowingly or not) by all those in Camp Alarmist: “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” — John Kerry

Crucially though, Kerry’s assumption is patently wrong and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the data. Climate researcher David Legates demolished Cook’s study soon after its publications but, surprise-surprise, Legates’ “0.3% consensus, not 97%” revelation was not so widely circulated:

Legates’ analysis of Cook’s “97%” claim.


That’s right, the much-vaunted 97 percent consensus turns out to be a mere 0.3 percent consensus.

As touched on in my the headline, we have the vast divide over publishing and peer-review. In recent years, the claim that almost all published papers support AGW in ‘some way’ is correct, but only because the vast majority of skeptical papers are now refused at peer-review, as the entire process has been completely subverted to support AGW. This gives the totally misleading impression that everyone agrees, when they most certainly do not.

On that thread, and at the risk of losing my advertising again, scientific integrity has managed to sink even lower since the onset of the pandemic. As noted by Dr. Bret Weintstein in a recent DarkHorse video (embedded below), a new and much anticipated study into the prevalence of myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) following a COVID vaccination has, at the eleventh hour, been refused by the publishers — this is even though the paper passed the peer-review process!

As Dr. Weinstein, an environmental biologist, explains: “This paper had passed peer-review and was headed for publication when the Elsevier Journal, a cardiology journal, replaced the pre-print of the paper with a note saying that it had been removed.”

Dr. Weinstein goes on to point out how highly irregular this move is, noting that 1) this wasn’t a paper being rejected because of any fundamental issue, and 2) that the authors still haven’t been given an explanation.

It suggests some kind of “behind the scenes shenanigans,” added Weinstein. This is a topic that we’re told has a strong scientific consensus, “but here’s a paper that ran against that consensus and suddenly mysterious things are happening to it.”

Weinstein reiterates his suspicions, saying: “I just want to emphasis how unusual it is for no reason to be given. It definitely suggests that something has happened behind the scenes, and in light of the contentious nature of the ‘phenomena in question’ it appears to be the construction of the appearance of consensus by the targeting of anything that goes in the other direction.”

In other words, it seems it is now all-too easy for those with the means to build whatever consensus they want and within any topic, too — all that is required is stifling of conflicting research which is achieved by the refusal of its publication.

This of course isn’t science, it is censorship.


“It is intolerable that thoroughly qualified scientists and doctors are having publications that have passed peer-review, that have done everything correctly eliminated from the record before they even emerge, without explanation,” concluded Dr. Weinstein.

And this circles us back to AGW.

Alarmists are quick to claim that ‘the science is settled’ and that ‘the debate is over’, but little do they realize the scientific establishment is now setup in such a way to allow only certain theories and particular narratives to enter the public domain. An honest pursuit of the truth has been traded for the vested interests of the powerful, and both COVID and AGW have fallen foul of this.

We find ourselves in a reality where facts and agendas are now nigh-on impossible to distinguish between–which is by design. However, one truth does remain, and always will: the science, in any subject, is never settled, and therefor scientific debate should never be shutdown. My new favorite line, lifted from the DarkHorse video: “Follow The Silence”.

I’m off to continue harvesting my olives, before the rains arrive — 2 trees down, 38 left to go!

Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach: Twitter are purging followers while Facebook are labeling posts as “false” and have slapped-on crippling page restrictions.

So, be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).

And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: patreon.com/join/electroverse.

The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.

So any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.



Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift

Related posts

15 Thoughts to “Corruption Of The Peer-Review And Publishing Process: “Follow The Silence””

  1. anon

    Consensus is a political device, not a scientific device.
    That’s a clue.

  2. warren schaich

    How can I support you without PayPal?

    1. Deb

      You can use patreon.

  3. Crispin Pemberton-Pigott

    For more, see the video at:
    https://youtu.be/4_kW7_9azxI

  4. Tommy Mills

    Echo chamber science at it’s best. Explaining away the facts as icicles cling to their pointy beards will be interesting.

  5. pure realist

    this is a new Scientific Journal and they proclaim that they will not be silenced.

    https://scc.klimarealistene.com/

  6. Matt Dalby

    To be fair the silencing of people/views that didn’t agree with the consensus/settled science is nothing new. The theory of plate tectonics (originally called continental drift) was widely mocked for decades right up until the early 1950’s, but is now regarded as being as settled as any science can be, i.e. the evidence to support it is overwhelming. Similarly the theory of periodic ice ages (or glaciation) and the idea that a comet or meteor impact wiped out the dinosaurs were initially rejected and took decades to become widely accepted.
    The consensus can and does change, although it takes a long time to do so. Lets hope the consensus on AGW also changes before it’s too late, although the big difference is the examples I used are politically/morally neutral whereas AGW isn’t.

  7. Anonymous

    Love you guys!
    Well about the cardio paper is simple; those who fund WHO and alikes do not want that kind of Science (not $cience) to be out there so the masses can not be aware they are being fooled, or most certainly lied.

  8. prioris

    Let’s be very clear about one thing. Gatekeepers in scientific publications have been the norm for last century. These operations have been sanctioned by the political establishment and deep state.

  9. James

    Of course, the science is important, but we have to stop deferring our common sense to what experts say. Just the fact that something is being hidden from us, is enough to seriously question dogma.

  10. James Charles

    ‘ For example, in order to reject the findings of the paper my colleagues and I published last year finding a 97% consensus on human-caused global warming in the peer-reviewed literature, Bast and Spencer referenced a critical comment subsequently published by David Legates et al. in an obscure off-topic journal called Science and Education. That paper was based on a blog post written by Christopher Monckton, who’s infamous for calling environmental activists “Hitler Youth.”

    Monckton’s blog post and paper tried to deny the consensus by ignoring 98% of the papers that endorse it. He compared only papers that explicitly quantified the human contribution to global warming to the full sample of all peer-reviewed papers that mention the phrases “global warming” or “global climate change.”

    By that standard, there’s less than a 1% expert consensus on evolution, germ theory, and heliocentric theory, because there are hardly any papers in those scientific fields that bother to say something so obvious as, for example, “the Earth revolves around the sun.” The same is true of human-caused global warming. That Bast and Spencer refer to Monckton and Legates’ fundamentally wrong paper in an obscure off-topic journal as “more reliable research” reveals their bias in only considering denial “reliable.” ‘
    https://skepticalscience.com/wsj-denies-global-warming-consensus.html

    1. prioris

      If 97% of the scientists agree with global warming, that would mean that 97% are dysfunctional or corrupt or touting the party line to keep their jobs or easily brainwashed. That would mean a massive failure of the human race as a whole. They wouldn’t be any different than politicians or the sheeple as a group.

  11. James Charles

    ‘Fighting’ yesterday’s ‘battles’?

    ‘We’ have 16 years?

    ‘Global peak oil production may have already happened in October of 2018 (https://energyskeptic.com/2020/will-covid-19-delay-peak-oil/ Table 1). It is likely the decline rate will be 6%, increasing exponentially by +0.015% a year (see post “Giant oil field decline rates and peak oil”). So, after 16 years remaining oil production will be just 10% of what it was at the peak.’
    http://energyskeptic.com/2020/climate-change-dominates-news-coverage-at-expense-of-more-important-existential-issues/

    Or,
    ‘We’ have ten years?
    “ . . . our best estimate is that the net energy
    33:33 per barrel available for the global
    33:36 economy was about eight percent
    33:38 and that in over the next few years it
    33:42 will go down to zero percent
    33:44 uh best estimate at the moment is that
    33:46 actually the
    33:47 per average barrel of sweet crude
    33:51 uh we had the zero percent around 2022
    33:56 but there are ways and means of
    33:58 extending that so to be on the safe side
    34:00 here on our diagram
    34:02 we say that zero percent is definitely
    34:05 around 2030 . . .
    we
    34:43 need net energy from oil and [if] it goes
    34:46 down to zero
    34:48 uh well we have collapsed not just
    34:50 collapse of the oil industry
    34:52 we have collapsed globally of the global
    34:54 industrial civilization this is what we
    34:56 are looking at at the moment . . . “
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxinAu8ORxM&feature=emb_logo

    Remember?
    “A barrel of conventional crude oil contains the equivalent of roughly 4.5 years of continuous human labour; or around 11 years at 35 hours per week, 48 weeks of the year.  But the capitalist doesn’t pay for the value of the fuel, merely the cost of extracting it.  For a mere £49 (at pre-pandemic prices) the capitalist purchases £330,000 worth of work (at the current UK median wage).  It is the exploitation of fossil fuels rather than the exploitation of labour which generates the vast majority of the surplus value in an industrial economy. . . .
    {As Nicole Foss once put it – if conventional oil was like drinking draught beer from a glass, fracking was the equivalent of sucking the spilled dregs from the carpet.}”

    https://consciousnessofsheep.co.uk/2020/05/26/two-money-tricks/?fbclid=IwAR1rOz0jexO2dIIldSlseh-8-EqES4oYZcBTvHMtW-JyBgMHB6xgfOOsbBI

  12. Ray

    It may well be that most ‘scientists’ DO agree implicitly with ‘global warming.’ So what? That merely reflects the fact that modern, speculative science was hijacked long ago by Academia, which is organized as a Dogmatic Church. No surprise there, as Universities were in fact set up to serve the purposes of the Catholic Church. That they serve Marxism now and not Christianity is a detail.

    Incidentally, I have eight earned University qualifications, of which five are in the sciences. I only mention this to show that I am not a case of ‘the uneducated raging against their intellectual betters’ and that it is perfectly possible to take what is useful from education without becoming a dumb robot.

    The quote from the trolling mill about a publication being in an obscure journal shows that the troll is definitely not a scientist, because one of the ruling principles of the system is a sort of democracy. Any paper that gets through the process is supposed to be as ‘respectable’ as any other.

Leave a Comment