More Climate Science Hijinks

Unfortunately, some in climate science appear not to be learning the lessons from Climategate. Here is the concluding paragraph from Roger Pielke, Sr.’s blog:

Ross’s entire article is worth reading. I also will be posting further examples of this deliberate attempt to surpress scientific studies which refute or raise serious questions on the IPCC perspective in the coming weeks and months.

In science, papers should be published in journals based solely on their scientific merit.  Anything less is a perversion of the scientific process.

For readers who are not scientists, here is how the process works:  A scientist has an idea or hypothesis that he or she wishes to communicate to the larger scientific community. It is sent to the editor of a scientific journal who sends it to three reviews who are supposed to have expertise in the specific topic discussed in the paper. Those reviewers are anonymous, in theory so they will be free to be critical. Fine.

However, given what we have learned about a clique in climate science deliberately attempting to suppress papers from those outside the clique, I believe it is time that the author of the paper be kept anonymous. While that would not solve all of the problems in peer-review revealed by Climategate, it would be a useful first step.

Comments are closed.