[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Begley kept screaming about “peer-reviewed science”, but a big part of this disclosure was that the peer review process had been *corrupted*, by creating peer review “circles”, amounting to, ‘A’ peer reviews ‘B’, then ‘B’ peer reviews ‘C’, then ‘C’ peer reviews ‘A’.

To make matters worse, ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ are all in agreement that they will all support all arguments the others make, *and* exclude *anyone* not just who is in disagreement with their theories, but *anyone* who is objective. They might have well had their papers “peer reviewed” by Al Gore.

This goes beyond bad science, to criminal science. It is just as bad as a doctor-scientist taking bribes from a pharmaceutical company to assert that there is nothing wrong with pregnant women taking Thalidomide, then being “peer reviewed” by another doctor scientist who has also been bribed.

[SpaceBar]

His disdain for physicists was interesting. I kinda doubt Begley could work out a freshmen one dimensional particle kinematics problem ignoring friction.

[Tallguy]

Begley kept screaming about “peer-reviewed science”, but a big part of this disclosure was that the peer review process had been *corrupted*, by creating peer review “circles”, amounting to, ‘A’ peer reviews ‘B’, then ‘B’ peer reviews ‘C’, then ‘C’ peer reviews ‘A’.

IOW's when it comes to "climate science", peer review is one big circle-jerk.

[slowhandluke]

And, on top of the A->B->C->A circle jerk, there is the problem that nobody was allowed to review the data or the code. All that any reviewer was allowed to do was to essentially read the results, and go "Yup, that sounds about right."

Without access to the data and the computer program codes, there's no way to tell if the numbers presented as the result were correct or not. The papers were never truly reviewed by anybody in any meaningful sense.