Perdition? These guys went down that road a while ago. The same company owns Un-Scientific Un-American.
They have something else in common with Hitlery: Corruption.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macmill...
They are not scientists. They are unethical publishers.

Macmillan / Pergamon Press, the holding company and the individuals on the board have been notorious carbon change alarmists for ~20 years or more.
New Scientist once had a fine reputation for explaining science, then there was a change of editor (and ownership?) and it became in effect Climate Change Weekly. Scientific American and Nature are part of the same conglomerate.

Their academic journal subscriptions are so high that even universities such as Harvard have cut back.

They publish articles by scientists who have to pay- yes the writer pays the publisher.
Technology to the rescue- There is now a Russian web site that hacks into the source and makes material available to all at no charge.


This has come up here recently but it is so good I will repeat it again - source Vinay on http://www.thesavvystreet.com/is-gary...


The climate change creed claims:

(a) there is global warming,
(b) that warming is dangerous,
(c) that it is man-made,
(d) that it is near-term catastrophic requiring urgent action,
(e) that it can be reversed by substantial replacement of fossil fuels with wind and solar
(f) that such replacement is technically feasible,
(g) that the economy can bear the expense, and,
(h) that the only avenue to deal with the crisis is replacement of fossil fuels since geo-engineering is destined to fail, because geo-engineering is man-made as against the nature-worshiping withdrawal from fossil fuels.

When you put like that, there are eight matters (a) to (g) that the climate change creed must prosecute.
All eight, no exceptions— a single weakness in the chain and the climate creed falls flat.

Sad...