First published @ Celestial Junk

Global Warming promoters make a great hullabaloo over peer-review. For example, whenever a “denier” challenges Global Warming ecophobia, censure comes pouring out in the form of personal attacks, such as castigating the critic’s CV or his donors. The actual content of the critic’s charge is often brushed off without the serious back and forth that is expected when science comes under scrutiny; the excuse being that the science has already been peer-reviewed, so any criticism of it must be baseless.

Peer-review is being held up by the IPCC and its groupies like some secret mantra that proves the veracity of any scientific study, and we as the stupid PHD-less public are supposed to simply go along and gasp in awe whenever a “peer-reviewed” work lends supposed proof to anthropogenic global warming. After all, 2,345,999 scientists agree, as peers, with the IPCC.

The fact is, that peer-review conducted by like-minded scientists who derive a living from flogging the global warming mantra, is a perfect setup for careless evaluation. Yet that is exactly what “peer-review” in the “green” realm is; like-minded insiders checking each other’s work. We know this to be true, because serious criticism leveled by skeptics is simply brushed off using personal attacks and politics.

When one thinks of peer-review, they are correct to recall the good’ol days of medical science in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s when discovery after discovery cut through mortality rates like a giant scythe. In those days scientists often found themselves in theoretical camps, each vying for the next eureka moment. The result was ruthless scrutiny of reported discoveries; not by government agencies, but by fellow researchers hell bent on finding every single little flaw in the other camp’s hypothesis and methods. If a theory was to survive, it had to weather peer review that was incredibly skeptical, thorough, and based on flawless science. The result was a golden age in science.

Yet today, we find skeptics to Global Warming theory castigated politically, disregarded scientifically, and having to face down an assault not only by the other “camp”, but by ecophobic politicians, activists, and business interests.

Enter, the “New Media”. A few short decades ago Global Warming hysteria would’ve been a done deal, a fait accompli, but today serious as well as dubious peer-review is being carried out by skeptics despite an onslaught of opposition. The “New Media” has given peer-review a venue, a place to be published, a voice, and little by little it is chipping away at the politically motivated bad science that is telling us that we, the human race, are causing Global Warming.

The most recent example of “peer-review” has taken place in the United States, where a much heralded NASA Goddard data set has just been crushed by good science. Recall the hockey stick graph … recall the recent record setting USA temperatures … recall the proof that America is warmer now than ever before… recall and forget; because it’s all been based on a Y2K bug: CLICK

For just a tiny taste of “real” peer-review: click or click

For links to the original SDA archive with recent updates: click and click

Be Sociable, Share!