It’s a curious thing....almost a month prior to this release....it was the BBC coming out and questioning several aspects of global warming. They knew that the mess would appear shortly within the mass media.
At the time, the BBC was condemned by several environmental groups over their sudden change in perception. Now, we can look back and see that they basically discovered the same issues and figured the entire scheme out.
The key to fixing this entire mess...for all sides...is peer review. This is something that the environmentalists do not want. The minute you involve math and statistics experts in to analyze your data...they will note every single mistake or “game”. But it’s the only way to be honest. Face it....Einstein has been peer-reviewed a million times...and will continue to be peer-reviewed for another 1,000 years. There’s nothing wrong with that.
If the global warmers, are working themselves up into a lather now, wait until they realize every liberal thought in their heads is as wrong as the global warming religion they bow to.
Really? There was plenty of peer review going on in climatology: the AGW types reviewed papers that came to different conclusions and saw to it they were rejected, they reviewed each others' papers and accepted them for publication, fuzzy methodology, fudged data, etc. all overlooked so long as AGW was supported.
Peer review is broken: it creates herd-mentalities even when it isn't supporting actual corruption. Look at string theory--40 years w/o a testable prediction, 40 years of fudging to explain away the not-observed-in-nature dilaton field, but the sting theorist review each others' papers and grant proposals while competing ideas mostly get published in mathematics journals rather than physics journals.
The same thing happens in the social sciences. There was an experimental study done on social work journals: two fake research papers both with glaring methodological flaws were prepared, identical except that one purported to show a social work intervention worked, the other purported to show that it didn't. They were submitted to randomly chosen social work journals. Peer review accepted the social-work-works version more often than not, and rejected the social-work-didn't-work version more often than not. Of course, the deception was revealed and the submissions withdrawn, but the point was made.
Peer review depends on having a sufficient proportion of a discipline be committed to objectivity, and ideally not so committed to their own ideas that they can't see the merit in other, even competing, ideas. The 'big science' funding model used in most developed countries now militates against this, since money going to competing ideas isn't going to one's own ideas.
No! These fraudulent papers WERE peer-reviewed!
The key to honesty in science is rigorously enforced Data Availability so that experiments/models can be reproduced.
All the journals technically impose DA agreements on their contributors, but - in the case of AGW ‘science’ - they didn’t enforce them.