[Rudder]

Excellent essay on the lunacy and risk of the anthropogenic global-warming movement. It's worth sending to e-mail friends., etc.

Peer review is frequently a way of controlling debate, even curtailing it. Many people who fall back on peer-reviewed science seem afraid to have out the intellectual argument.

Having been at both ends (reviewer and reviewee) of the peer review process of life science articles, my experiences don't support this statement, however. To date, I have never seen an instance of its use in stifling debate.

[Old Professer]

Talk to Fred Singer about his battles with Science to even get a letter-to-the-editor published and then get back to me.

[thulldud]

Peer review is a tool. We know how it should be used, but how it is actually used may be something different.

YMMV.

[webstersII]

“To date, I have never seen an instance of its use in stifling debate.”

Apparently peer review is not the gold standard it’s assumed to be — at least not in certain disciplines.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1578777/posts