David Archibald on Climategate

“The only thing that the Climategate emails tell us about the peer review process is that it was used as a gate-keeping exercise to keep sceptical papers out of the system. For those of us who served in the trenches in the climate battle, part of the much larger culture wars, this revelation is not news. In disparaging my papers, one of the first things that warmers would say was that they were not peer reviewed. They were, but that did not matter either, because like the warmer scientists, I got to choose my own reviewers. One of my papers passed a higher test than peer review. Real Climate devoted a post to attacking it, which was fabulous because it told me that I was having an effect, and gave me encouragement to keep going. …

I don’t believe that changing the peer review system will help, in fact any prescribed changes are likely to make it worse. As the Climategate emails show, the warmers captured the whole system – all the journals, all their editors and the journals’ boards. They successfully removed inconvenient editors. As a last line of defence, they were going to change the definition of what peer review meant. Making the system more prescriptive will simply entrench the corrupted establishment …

The way to improve the review of papers is to break the power of the corrupted establishment. Two of the most prestigious science journals have been Science and Nature, but both of these now publish a certain amount of twaddle. In fact Nature seems to have degenerated to occupy the niche formerly occupied by New Scientist, and New Scientist has degenerated into the publishing arm of Greenpeace.” “Peer review locks gate


No Responses to “David Archibald on Climategate”

  1. amicus curiae Says:

    agreed! when control of the media is almost complete, telling the truth and getting it out is nearly impossible.The internet is saving us, and I see the various governments USA and UK in particular are trying hard to block our freedom to access info and have free speeech here now too…which means we are upsetting their control agendas..and that is good for us and bad for their line.We need to have at least a 50% share in air and media time , however big business and vested interests stand to Gain from Carbon Fraud, so it,s not likely to happen.I refuse to give up or shut up however, too much is at stake to go quietly!

  2. Doug Says:

    Both the media and science have suffered a huge credibility blow over all of this – be great to see the media and science organizations stand up and speak out against it

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: