Thursday, April 21, 2011

How "peer review""corrupts" "the" "warming" "science"

Ross McKitrick on how “peer review” has "corrupted" the "global" "warming" "debate":

Starting in 2007, I spent two years trying to publish a paper to refute an important claim in the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report (on how recent measurements of man-made warming confirm recent man-made warming) 
The claim in question may seem self evident but it was just wrong. Showing that the claim was fabricated was easy: it suffices merely to quote myself, since no supporting evidence is necessary....
Showing that the IPCC claim is also false took some mundane statistical work, but the results were clear. Once the numbers were crunched and the paper was written, I began sending it to science journals. Having published several against-the-flow papers in climatology journals, I did not expect a smooth ride, but the process eventually became surreal. In the end, the paper was accepted for publication, but not in a climatology journal.  
Coats' Crochet magazine published my paper in the Fall of 2009. Fortunately for me, I am an economist, not a climatologist, and my career doesn’t depend on getting published in climatology journals. If I were a young climatologist, I would have learned that my career prospects would be much better if I never wrote papers that were only published in craft or homeware magazines.

The same warning was sounded some years ago by Professor Edward Wegman, who led the Wegman Report. Wegman's report showed the "warmists" what is possible when you redefine the concept of plagiarism  - I defy anyone to find that sort of scholarship in peer reviewed papers


  1. The only way to stop science corrupting is to do away with 'Peer Review'. Tell the socialists at IPCC we demand 'Andrew Review' now!!!.

  2. mmm ... Andrew Review you say...that may just be the way forward for science. Why not review science by blog hits? Scientific qualifications and painstaking analysis seems just a hangover from the pre-blogging era.

  3. It shows what a joke the peer review process is when inovative climatic economists such as McKitrick and Wegman are ignored, but those part time bean counters Garnaut and Stern get all the funding.

  4. This is the big problem, Andrew, that you have higlighted so well here. Science is run by people who actually study the data and spend years in education. Their conclusions are debated in this ridiculous "peer review" process.

    The thing is Andrew, despite the fact you have never studied any of these topics (or not even achieved a tertiary degree I believe) you have proved how unnecessary all this process is with your 5 minute google searches. I know you are right and they are all wrong because I am in total agreement with you.