Posted on 05/17/2014 8:13:16 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Among the documents requested from me in discovery by Michael E Mann's Big Tobacco white-shoe legal team a couple of months ago was this column of mine from 2009:
Here's what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by "peer review." When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann "consensus," Jones demanded that the journal "rid itself of this troublesome editor," and Mann advised that "we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers."
So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the "consensus" reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley ("one of the world's foremost experts on climate change") suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to "get him ousted." When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Which in essence is what they did. The more frantically they talked up "peer review" as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in The Wall Street Journal Europe is unimprovable: "How To Forge A Consensus." Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That's "peer review," climate-style.
"Climategate" wasn't only about the science...
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
“Don’t forget every five per cent increase in my legal offense fund is equivalent to a 41 per cent increase in Fahrenheit.”
Sheer genius.
Peer Review is also a weapon used to defend evolution against all dissent. Modern science isn’t science. Sure, some of it is correct, but a lot of it is politics. And not just the Global Warming stuff.
Another parallel to string theory. Peer review broke down there too.
Scientists as Chicago style thugs... how charming.
I clicked the link thinking it was “womanizing”.
The public has been led to believe that “peer review” is somehow a magical test of the “truth”. In fact, there are thousands of “peer reviewed” journals — many catering to a small cabal of like-minded individuals, who review each others’ articles. It’s highly incestuous, and no guarantee of quality research, let alone of “truth”.
LMAO! Now that would be Laz’z’z’z line.
Bookmark
I have degrees in Geology, Pharmacy and know a hell of a lot about chemistry and scientific protocols relating to research.
The scientific methodology of the global warmist proponents would be thrown in the garbage can. If they were a graduate student they would have been tossed out of school for bad scientific methodology. If they were a professor in all probability they would be fired or more likely asked to be retired least their scientific crimes be exposed.
However today, we have science directed by political and financial gain for those that will support bad science. This is no longer science but simply propaganda.
It saddens me greatly as many of our great Scientific Journals that in the past were to be trusted can no longer be trusted. Money and fame have corrupted them.
As a researcher I have found that when one postulates a theory it is most difficult to realize that after months and or years of work to find your original hypothesis wrong. An honest researcher will then toss the hypothesis in the garbage can. However in my case I did salvage my research when I knew my hypothesis was wrong and it lead to new research that was very correct.
Most of our researchers are honest. When it comes to Global Warming their research is suppressed.
The irony is that the global warmest are probably correct about rising sea levels, and it does not have a damn thing to do with CO2 levels. Historically the earth has been mostly glacial with brief interludes of warming and the melting of the Arctic and Antarctic. Yep, the sea will rise and it is not because of CO2. It will rise at a rate that is totally acceptable as we will gradually recede from the coast over several thousands of years. It will disrupt nothing as anything we have built will have long been of no value due to thousands of years of normal decay.
It must be noted that during the brief interludes between the normal ice age environment man and the planet flourished. During the Ice Ages man and the planet did not flourish.
Steyn ping.
The damage the Warmist alarmists have done to science is incalculable.
Mark has to win this one. He’s the one with the brain.
That is very quotable. I enjoyed your comment. It is the same argument I have been using with a couple of friends over email. One issue with a lot of these man caused global warming/climate change "scientists" is that they have the premise, and are unwilling to accept a negative. I was taught that a negative result might be disappointing, but it is a good result. Accept it. Document it. Move on. Science is suffering with this politicization junk, but this isn't new. I ended my last email with my friends by retaliating to their "denialist" nonsense by calling them "flat earthers". I know it wasn't mature, but it is accurate in that a lot of the flat earth and earth centrist scientist during the Dark Ages were the majority view and supported by politicians of the time.
Mark Steyn ping.
Freepmail me, if you want on or off the Mark Steyn ping list.
Thanks for the ping Slings and Arrows
Speechless. OTOH, there's nothing more amusing than being condescended to by a complete moron. BTT
Now, the bit about the sun being the center of the solar system is a different matter. Ptolemy thought the earth was the center, and that matter wasn't corrected for a number of centuries, since Ptolemaic geocentric math with its epicycles actually worked out pretty well.
And hence, was the "scientific consensus" of its day.
I share Steyn’s frustration in being a Climate Denier. Being marched by fascists into a totalitarian future is frustrating.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.