Redefining peer-reviewed literature (by Christians)

[rug]

A couple of years ago there was a scandal involving the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Somehow, a decade’s worth of emails between scientists there were leaked to the world. The whole “hide the decline” scandal. Some of these emails suggested that scientists were going to take extreme measures to limit participation by climate change skeptics in academic discourse. Phil Jones, a climatologist there, sent an email that said, in part:

“The other paper by MM is just garbage — as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well — frequently as I see it. 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!”

I don’t know what the proper term is for those who are skeptical of the claims made by mainstream climatologists whose views are generally celebrated by the United Nations and written about in mainstream publications. Whatever their name, this group has long claimed that they’re being shut out of many peer-reviewed journals by “gatekeepers” like Phil Jones above and that this prevents their arguments from being engaged in the academic square. They claim that the funds flow to those scientists that write about man-caused global warming and that they are treated as pariah rather than having their views published and responded to in the typical way scientists engage controversial topics. This leads them to publish their work in other peer-reviewed journals but perhaps not the ones that would be their first pick.

I’m not particularly interested in the debate but I do enjoy reading the dust-ups time to time, if only to remind me of the most political time of my life: my very brief foray into graduate school. And I couldn’t help but think of the East Anglia emails after reading about a dramatic episode involving a peer-reviewed paper that has caused quite a bit of controversy.

http://www.getreligion.org/2011/09/redefining-peer-reviewed-literature-by-christians/

[Leontius]

1. This is typical of most science, the dominate point of view drowns

out the minority until the tide turns in it's favor. Just a case of defending your own against the other. Scholars are not immune to basic human nature anymore than the rest of mankind, although they like to think they are.

[edhopper]

2. "Climategate" was a fake scandal

invented by righties and fundies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/climategate-the-7-biggest_n_371223.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1946935,00.html

Inquiry vindicated the scientist.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7876999/Climategate-professor-gets-his-job-back.html

http://news.change.org/stories/climategate-fail-scientist-cleared-of-misconduct-charges

[cleanhippie]

3. It was not just fake, it was fabricated.

[edhopper]

5. That is true.

[Jim__]

4. It sounds like Wolfgang Wagner resigned for valid reasons.

The published paper really didn't meet the standards of peer reviewed papers; and this fact was not known because the reviewers were not specialists in climate science. Spencer and Braswell took advantage of a hole in the peer review process and garbage got published as a result. The editor's resignation is a reasonable response.