Sunday, November 22, 2009
Tipping point
The whistle-blowing by an honest scientist in the British crimate bureaucracy has been boiling in the blogworld for several days. Until now the enemy-controlled media have held to the standard Gaia line, describing the whistle-blower as a Russian hacker, and only debating how many logs to put on the fire when they find and burn the heretic. (Burn in a carbon-neutral way, of course.)
This morning one mainstream reporter finally understands what's happening, finally sees the corruption clearly, may even be starting to doubt the orthodoxy.
Juliet Eilperin at Wash Post:
Eilperin still doesn't seem to understand how thoroughly corrupt the process of peer review has become, even in fields that aren't politically "hot". Peer review does not reject bad science and bad logic. It only filters out contributions that disagree with the current fashion in each field.
In other words, peer review filters out scientific progress. ¶ 5:48 AM
This morning one mainstream reporter finally understands what's happening, finally sees the corruption clearly, may even be starting to doubt the orthodoxy.
Juliet Eilperin at Wash Post:
While few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world's climate -- nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal -- public debate persists. And the newly disclosed private exchanges among climate scientists at Britain's Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies.
In one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Eilperin still doesn't seem to understand how thoroughly corrupt the process of peer review has become, even in fields that aren't politically "hot". Peer review does not reject bad science and bad logic. It only filters out contributions that disagree with the current fashion in each field.
In other words, peer review filters out scientific progress. ¶ 5:48 AM
