Skip to comments.Commenter Nails the Central Issue in ClimateGate: the Rigging of Peer-Review
Posted on 12/07/2009 9:34:57 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
The pro-global warming blog Climate Change Denial is spinning like a top. Devastated by the revelation of pervasive fraud in climate science, the warmists are clearly dazed and grasping at any tactics that might salvage their ideological hijacking of science, now laid bare. In their latest post, "Swiftboating the Climate Scientists", they ignore the transparent scientific misconduct and fraud revealed in the highest eschalons of climate science, and accuse the skeptics of attacking climate science for base ideological motives. The term "swiftboating" alone is risible and actually revealing; warmists are nearly all leftists, still simmering over the implosion of the Kerry/Edwards candidacy. It's ironic that these "objective" scientists and activists use a left-wing political slur to attack skeptics who demand honest science.
A commenter (Starchild, # 20) summed up the scope of scientific fraud revealed in ClimateGate quite nicely:
(1) Peer-review process is one of cornerstones of modern science. Actions described in e-mails are WAY out of normal review process I know. Actually they usually are explicitly prohibited by journal policies and ethics codes. Tampering with peer-review process, expecially to exclude opponents, are second most serious scientific crime after outright research fabrication. E-mails are clear enough and no amount of context could change interpretation. In any other research field I know, perpetuators would be expected to resign immediately on peer-review games alone.
(2) I think Ill delete the file rather than send to anyone stance by Phil Jones is quite damning one, especially IN CONTEXT of repeated information requests. Again in branches of science, natural assumption would be that paper or papers in question are fraudulent. This could be cleared, but only afer serious explanation by author and INDEPENDENT and COMPETENT verification of research in question.
This is major scandal concerning Ethics of Science. Damage control of yours could deal with public opinion, but I believe scientific community would not allow it just go away.
The most pervasive manifestation of this fraud is the perversion of the peer-review process; it renders all of the 'consensus science' that has accrued under that process essentially worthless. Peer review is to science as jury deliberations are to criminal justice. It is sacrosanct. If it is tampered with, the verdict scientific or judicial is worthless, and must be thrown out.
The peer-review process in evolutionary biology is at least as compromised as the peer-review process in climate science. There is no "consensus" when the deliberations are rigged. No scientific conclusion is valid unless the raw data on which it is based is available to all for inspection and replication, and no scientific conclusion is valid unless the peer-review process is free of coersion and of ideological bias. Is there ideological bias in evolutionary biology, as there obviously is in climate science? Perhaps we should ask the 98.7% of evolutionary biologists who don't believe in a personal God that question.
It's easy to get a 'consensus' when one side controls the jury. That's a 'show trial', which is a succinct description of the peer review process in evolutionary biology as applied to intelligent design.
See especially the part about ideological bias and peer review. All the best—GGG
Copenhagen climate conference opens to dire warnings
By Richard Ingham and Marlowe Hood (AFP) 7 hours ago
COPENHAGEN A landmark conference on tackling climate change opened here on Monday, with negotiators from 192 countries aiming toward a deal to ward off global warming’s potentially catastrophic effects.
The meeting will climax on December 18 with more than 100 heads of state or government in attendance.
Opening ceremonies began with a short film featuring children of the future facing an apocalypse of tempests and desert landscapes if world leaders failed to act today.
“There will be hundreds of millions of refugees,” Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN’s panel of climate scientists, said in the film.
“Please help save the world,” said a little girl, plaintively.
I would suggest that we leave the evolution debate out of this.
We should fight this battle on its own merits, and try to win this battle.
Then, after this fraud is exposed, we should compare other scientific frauds to this fraud.
The fact is that man has yet to be able to understand or model the weather, oceans and atmosphere. So the only thing they could do to prove their theory was to rig the data and avoid peer review. So that is what they did.
In this case, the scientists are the tiniest possible fish. The real issue here is a global redistribution of wealth and power.
Cheers. I feel a bit vain, having just registered. But as a scientist, I think this is the most succinct critique aimed at the grand scam put before us. I will remember it.
Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)
Thanks for the ping!
Welcome to FR. Everyone has to have a first post sometime!
I totally agree. But, what I want to know is why Kerry doesn’t object to the smearing of all swiftboat vets. “Swiftboating” has become a pejorative term in left-speak with horse-face never raising an objection. Ass.
Welcome to FR. You may find FR addictive and a great place to find and discuss issues.
They are “Watermelons”; green on the outside and red on the inside. The first earth day was on the 100th anniversary of Lenin’s birth..
“The first earth day was on the 100th anniversary of Lenins birth..”
Wow, didn’t know that one (well, there’s a lot I don’t know, but...). But even if it wasn’t a deliberate choice of the organizers, then it was one of those “coincidences” meant to help us see what is right in front of our faces.
The global warming fraud stands as an important example more for how the matter is being treated by the scientific community than the act its self.
Are the studies and papers on purported human evolution any different?