Comments: Climate Change Cultists Don't Believe in Peer-Reviewed Science, Unless Reviewed By Like-Minded Believers

There is a huge misunderstanding as well of the meaning that a paper has been peer-reviewed. All that really means in everyday terms (for research areas other than climate science) is that knowledgeable reviewers have vetted the paper for obvious mistakes and contravention of well-proven theories (which is why you will not see any papers on perpetual motion).

There is precious little implication of peer-review that a given paper is correct and accurate. Just that the paper doesn't make obvious errors or completely untenable claims.

Which is why Jones, Mann, Hansen and others perversion of the peer-review process is so heinous. By assuming that a research paper skeptical of the AGW hypothesis was ipso facto an obvious error--even though the AGW hypothesis was the point of the research paper--then Jones, et al could filter out from scientific publication any papers skeptical of the AGW research.

Posted by iconoclast at March 2, 2010 04:37 PM

'There seems to be very little separating climate change cultists from the evolutionists they love to mock...' Did you mean 'creationists they love to mock'?

Posted by RNB at March 2, 2010 07:28 PM