Lindzen-Choi ‘Special Treatment’: Is Peer Review Biased Against Nonalarmist Climate Science?

Master Resource ^ | 9 Jun 11 | Chip Knappenberger

[I got the rope]

[Editor’s note: The following material was supplied to us by Dr. Richard Lindzen as an example of how research that counters climate-change alarm receives special treatment in the scientific publication process as compared with results that reinforce the consensus view. In this case, Lindzen's submission to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was subjected to unusual procedures and eventually rejected (in a rare move), only to be accepted for publication in the Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.

[I got the rope]

This is disgusting treatment of Professor Lindzen. The youngest person ever admitted into the National Academy of Science.

PNAS has sunk to a new low.

[steelyourfaith]

 

Beam me to Planet Gore !

[ApplegateRanch]

an example of how research that counters climate-change alarm receives special treatment in the scientific publication process as compared with results that reinforce the consensus view.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. It is Scientific!" (Quant Suff!) /sarc

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks ApplegateRanch.

I must reiterate my feeling that experimentalists always welcome the suggestions of the theorists. But the present situation is ridiculous... In my considered opinion the peer review system, in which proposals rather than proposers are reviewed, is the greatest disaster to be visited upon the scientific community in this century. No group of peers would have approved my building the 72-inch bubble chamber. Even Ernest Lawrence told me that he thought I was making a big mistake. He supported me because my track record was good. I believe U.S. science could recover from the stultifying effects of decades of misguided peer reviewing if we returned to the tried-and-true method of evaluating experimenters rather than experimental proposals. Many people will say that my ideas are elitist, and I certainly agree. The alternative is the egalitarianism that we now practice and that I've seen nearly kill basic science in the USSR and in the People's Republic of China. -- Alvarez by Luis Alvarez (page 184)

---

join or quit view topics view or post blog bookmark post new topic subscribe

---

[stayathomemom]

I think this deserves a bump.

[ForGod'sSake]

I think in its simplest terms the whole stinking mess is biased towards ANY science that could lead to increased governance, particularly global governance.