The New Peer Review
The peerless climate-science community kept criticism at bay by forming a clique that excluded all dissenting voices. Those who doubted the AGW line were labeled as quacks whose writing was not “peer-reviewed.” The media of course bought this hook, line, and sinker. In fact, the clique hid the data precisely to prevent their own shoddy work from being reviewed by their peers.
It’s all a question of how you define your peers.
Today we are learning about that threatened meltdown of Himalayan glaciers. The vaunted Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said those glaciers would likely disappear by 2035.
The peer-reviewed science behind that finding goes like this:
- Unknown scientist in India speculates while talking to reporter.
- Reporter writes that glaciers will melt by 2035.
- IPCC reads newspaper.
Yes, I’d say this is a fine example of peer review. An unknown scientist with no supporting data speculates that the glaciers will melt, getting his name in the press and a career boost. A reporter with no sense of curiosity about the science speculates that the scientist is correct and spreads the opinion as fact. There could be a Pulitzer in this. The IPCC figures if it’s in the newspaper, it must be true, and besides, gullible governments will throw money at this and ensure the continuation of their little bureaucracy.
They are all peers in promoting junk science at the expense of the rest of us.
But the public is fed junk across the board and seems to prefer it to anything more rigorous. We have a “pop” version of everything, from music to economics, from education to the Supreme Court. Why shouldn’t science be admitted to the peer group?
