del:
The AGW scientists unfortunately deserve criticism for corrupting the peer review process:
In another email exchange CRU scientist Dr Keith Briffa initiates what looks like an attempt to have a paper rejected. In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, Briffa emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to *support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please."
Stahle is a tree-ring professor from the University of Arkansas. This request appears to subvert the convention that reviewers should be both independent and anonymous.
Cook replied later that day: "OK, today. Promise. Now, something to ask from you." The favour was to provide some data to help Cook review a paper that attacked his own tree-ring work. "If published as is, this paper could really do some damage," he said. "It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved [inverse regression] method is actually better in a practical sense."
Briffa was unable to comment. Cook told the Guardian: "These emails are from a long time ago and the details are not *terribly fresh in my mind."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
This article provides specific examples of how the peer-review process in climate science is completely discordant with how the process is done in other fields. For example, "For reasons that remain mysterious, all the major climate journals leave the authors’ names on the manuscripts sent out for review." Further, "If you are a member of the National Academy, you can submit four manuscripts a year, called “contributed papers” as long as you do the “peer review” yourself! That’s right: you send your manuscript to two of your friends, and then mail your paper along with their comments. Again, pal review. The PNAS editor then rubber-stamps the results. In fact, the editor probably goes through quite a few rubber stamps a year, given that only 15 of the 800-odd contributed papers submitted in the last year were rejected. For comparative purposes, Nature would have accepted only about 50 out of that number."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick...eer-review-and-pal-review-in-climate-science/
So for publications in medicine, or economics, or physics, or law [Law Review journals], your reliance on peer reviewed data makes sense. But you need to investigate what the very small community of climate scientists has done to peer-review in the AGW community.
The AGW scientists unfortunately deserve criticism for corrupting the peer review process:
In another email exchange CRU scientist Dr Keith Briffa initiates what looks like an attempt to have a paper rejected. In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, Briffa emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to *support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please."
Stahle is a tree-ring professor from the University of Arkansas. This request appears to subvert the convention that reviewers should be both independent and anonymous.
Cook replied later that day: "OK, today. Promise. Now, something to ask from you." The favour was to provide some data to help Cook review a paper that attacked his own tree-ring work. "If published as is, this paper could really do some damage," he said. "It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved [inverse regression] method is actually better in a practical sense."
Briffa was unable to comment. Cook told the Guardian: "These emails are from a long time ago and the details are not *terribly fresh in my mind."
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
This article provides specific examples of how the peer-review process in climate science is completely discordant with how the process is done in other fields. For example, "For reasons that remain mysterious, all the major climate journals leave the authors’ names on the manuscripts sent out for review." Further, "If you are a member of the National Academy, you can submit four manuscripts a year, called “contributed papers” as long as you do the “peer review” yourself! That’s right: you send your manuscript to two of your friends, and then mail your paper along with their comments. Again, pal review. The PNAS editor then rubber-stamps the results. In fact, the editor probably goes through quite a few rubber stamps a year, given that only 15 of the 800-odd contributed papers submitted in the last year were rejected. For comparative purposes, Nature would have accepted only about 50 out of that number."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrick...eer-review-and-pal-review-in-climate-science/
So for publications in medicine, or economics, or physics, or law [Law Review journals], your reliance on peer reviewed data makes sense. But you need to investigate what the very small community of climate scientists has done to peer-review in the AGW community.
