Silly Illustrated 2: The Corruption of Peer Review

All that stuff you hear from the global warmongers about how their work is peer-reviewed and the skeptics’ work isn’t?

Yeah, it’s bunk.

Oh and the corruption and manipulation of data? It’s not just at East Anglia.


  1. Tim R. says:

    Doesn’t it get exhausting living in Conspiracyland?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Conspiracyland is where these modern “libertarians” live. I fully expect Trey to reveal that there is a conspiracy by parents to make kids clean their rooms and share their toys.

  3. Tim R. says:

    I wouldn’t go that far.

    I just know that conspiracies have a way of self-perpetuating since you can’t disprove a negative.

    Also, when someone believes something, regardless of how inane or fruity it may be, a confirmation bias will maintain the belief IN SPITE of evidence to the contrary.

    How else do you think Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck keep an audience?

  4. Anonymous says:

    “How else do you think Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck keep an audience?”

    By appealing to other immature, self-centered sociopaths. The kind who never gave a second thought to the environment to begin with. The kind who foam at the mouth for lower taxes and a bigger military. The kind who apparently think all their ancestors were native Americans.

  5. Hey hey hey! Can we get the comments section back to funny? These comments are boring. They bore me.

  6. Garrison Fan says:

    All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

    Arthur Schopenhauer

  7. Tim R. says:

    Garrison Fan: Good sounding quote from a philosopher most ignore. Perhaps a bit of unintended irony?

  8. Frank R says:

    Ah, yes, those who accept the sci-fi headlines are quick to point to Limbaugh and Beck as the source of untruth. Amazing. The weaknesses of the peer review process have been pointed out by scientists in many fields. Note today’s headline regarding the British Medical Journal, “The Lancet.” It has finally formally retracted its cautions regarding rubella vaccines as the cause of autism. Seems that one of the physicians whose “peer reviewed” work they published is guilty of rigging the research.

    Anyone with an understanding of science and who has followed the global warming saga knows that the “research” was flawed. It is now becoming clear just how flawed. Also, anyone who has followed the very aggressive and combative nature of commentary coming from the global warming crowd should not be surprised by what is in those e-mails from Hadley.

  9. Tim R. says:

    Frank R: No reputable scientist out there takes the position that Peer Review is the holy grail of truth and enlightenment. Only the anti-intellectual crowd creates that straw man.

    No science is without flaws, but the process of science is designed to correct that with peer review being one among many of the tools.

    I don’t get where all this anti-science/anti-intellectualism comes from. Are you really taking the position that all climate science is flawed? If you are, then you’re being irrational and assuming thousands of people who’ve devoted their lives to studying the processes have conspired to “lie.” That’s an absurd proposition and an extraordinary claim for which you need more proof than a mere assertion to back up.

    If you don’t like the results of science, stop driving your car and stop taking medicine and go back to the land of snake oil and horse-driven transportation.

  10. Anti science is the religious dogma of manmade global warming, Tim. The evidence does not support the theory, and every day we get new revelations about how the evidence was manipulated, the data altered, source data destroyed and that the supporters of MMGW have a political and financial agenda.

    It’s the global warmongers who subvert science, not the skeptics.

  11. Frank R says:

    Tim, I am not anti science in the least. Quite the contrary. As I stated, those who actually followed the issue and actually read the studies on both sides found the argument flawed, seriously flawed. Furthermore, Mann and the folks at Hadley actively sought to prevent others from viewing their data. This runs strictly against the standards of scientific inquiry.

    As to your comment about peer review, I agree. It has not been the “skeptics,” however, who used the label of “peer review” to defend and define their work. It was the global warming activists. The media also held the phrase up as the gold standard. I can’t tell you how many reporters whom I have corresponded with who replied, “yes, but how many credible, peer reviewed scientists hold that view.”

  12. Anonymous says:

    So if some peer reviewed research is suspect, does Science scrap peer review altogether to appease the cranks? What alternative do you egoless skeptics propose?

  13. You and Tim don’t seem to get it.

    The problem isn’t science or the process of peer review.

    The problem is proponents of MMGW are not, in fact, practicing science and they are subverting the process of peer review. Their claims — not all science — are at question, and they have not made their case. In fact, they have shown that the evidence contradicts their theory.

    Yet they — like you and Tim — hold onto the dogma of global warming in spite of the evidence, and in spite of the fact they have been caught fabricating supporting evidence and destroying contradictory evidence.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Is the entire body of climate science to be discarded because of the ethics of a few? The lack of scientific ethics of a few climate scientists does not invalidate the work of all climate scientists. To imply otherwise says more about your slavish devotion to internal combustion engines and discretionary warfare.

  15. CRU and NASA represent two of the three legs of the MMGW stool in terms of data sets and research.

    Both have proven compromised.

    Further, the IPCC 4 has been proven a political and fraudulent document from start to finish.

    The body of evidence is a few computer models gamed and fed flawed data that can’t be reproduced.

    And you call that scientific evidence?

    Sorry, no dice.

  16. Anonymous says:

    The entire AGW sham is eerily reminiscent of opinion-shaping in the Soviet Union.

    So-called scientists, duly credentialed with doctorates and the moniker of “expert”, would simply promulgate whatever the government desired the population to believe.

    Harvests in the Ukraine? The experts declared there were 3,000 tons of surplus grain while millions starved in the Holodomor.

    Steel production? Declared ahead of target by 15% every year from 1935-45, while in reality production was plagued with technical mishaps and fell far short of the target every single year.

    And the Soviet experts had “data” to back up their claims, just like the AGW fraudsters.

    In truth, countless Soviet scientists and “experts” were nothing more than apparatchiks of the totalitarian regime, entirely corrupted and politicized. When so-called scientists and experts become instruments of those with a political agenda, they lose their legitimacy and become mere government-sponsored mountebanks on the prowl for the next gullible mark.

  17. David in Cleburne says:

    If climate science is not a religion, but actual science, why is there the common thread – from those high up in the movement to the people commenting on blogs and forums everywhere – that dissent must be ridiculed and silenced?

    Why are we constantly reminded that “the science is settled” when there are many scientists who disagree with the “broad consensus”?

    Are you telling me that weather people cannot tell me with 100% precision the weather for for next Monday, and yet these global warmists know with near 100% certainty what will happen in the next fifty years?

    I thought science was about discovery and debate. Not rigged studies, cover-ups, and attempted suppression of dissent.

  18. Anonymous says:

    “…why is there the common thread…that dissent must be ridiculed and silenced?”

    Ask Garrison, as he and his ilk are engaging in ridicule and dissent as well. You’re right, there are many who do not agree with the “broad consensus.” It is difficult to predict the weather. It’s time for all the knee-jerk dissenters and ridiculers – on both sides – to admit it’s not a polarized either/or situation and move on to something a little more productive.

  19. amanda says:

    Anonymous- Thanks for killing the entertainment on this blog! You’re right! You win! Trey sucks.

    Now, move along…

  20. Anonymous says:

    I AM the entertainment on this blog. Have another Midol.

  21. Frank R says:

    Peer review is a fancy phrase for proof reading. It does require that the reader attempt to repeat the study. All the reader needs to do is proof it for errors in logic or, in most of these studies, math. Roy Spencer took an excellent tact when he was getting a recent paper reviewed. He sent the paper to three independent reviewers including one whom he knew disagreed with his opinions. The paper passed muster with all of the reviewers. In fact the person who had disagreed with him, went back and modified some of his own work based on what he read in Spencer’s paper.

    The other problem with the AGW claim is the one so few people seem to understand. NONE of this stuff has been verified. The models are not accurate and have not been able to reconcile with the observed climate. In addition Mann, Jones and others attempted to keep data from those who wanted to repeat the study. This goes against the basic premise of scientific inquiry. Anyone who refuses to allow other researchers access to their data should not be considered valid. Period.

    @Anonymous – can you hear the sound of one hand clapping?

  22. Iron Mountain says:

    Years before climate change hysteria made its debut in the form of global *cooling* fearmongering in the 70′s, it was openly discussed by the government in The Report From Iron Mountain as a possible means of maintaining the social and political control provided by the Cold War.

    “War is not, as is widely assumed, primarily an instrument of policy utilized by
    nations to extend or defend their expressed political values or their economic
    interests. On the contrary, it is itself the principal basis of organization on which
    all modern societies are constructed.”

    “[The end of the Cold War] will
    require the construction of a detailed and feasible system of substitutes for those
    functions that are necessary to the stability and survival of human societies.”

    “The permanent possibility of war is the foundation for stable
    government; it supplies the basis for general acceptance of political authority. It
    has enabled societies to maintain necessary class distinctions, and it has ensured
    the subordination of the citizen to the state, by virtue of the residual war powers
    inherent in the concept of nationhood. No modern political ruling group has
    successfully controlled its constituency after failing to sustain the continuing
    credibility of an external threat of war.”

    “An acceptable economic surrogate for the war system will require
    the expenditure of resources for completely nonproductive purposes at a level
    comparable to that of the military expenditures….”

    “A viable political substitute fir war must posit a generalized
    external menace to each society of a nature and degree sufficient to require the
    organization and acceptance of political authority.”

  23. Tim R. says:

    Trey: here’s a report of a study done by a scientist from your Alma Mater.

    Note the unequivocal language: “incontrovertible” Scientists don’t use such absolute language unless they have the data and results to back it up. They’re not politicians after all.

  24. Tim R. says:

    One other thing: You placed me in the “Global Warming” camp, I presume because it’s easier to knock down anything I say with straw man arguments than actually looking at what I’ve said repeatedly from the beginning of this thread:

    Global Warming is just one part of a larger issue; that issue being Man-Made Climate Change.

    Climate change is to global warming as continental drift is to plate tectonics. Small part of a larger body of evidence.

    Never once have I said global warming was happening. I’ve said repeatedly climatic variations and their intensification were the issue.

  25. Anonymous says:

    Government stockpiling infant DNA without parental consent

  26. Well says:

    The Anthropogenic Climate Change fairy tale deserves as much study as the nutritional content of the various porridge dishes Goldilocks ate, or the temperature of the oven in which Hansel and Gretel were going to be cooked.

  27. Frank R says:

    Dr. McClintock is likely an eminently qualified and respected marine biologist. I am sure that his research regarding the acidification of the polar oceans is quite good. He never explains, however, how he makes the leap to the notion that man is contributing the CO2 he says is acidifying the oceans. Since man contributes very little, it’s unlikely that the paltry level of human CO2 contribution is responsible. Since atmospheric CO2 levels have been much higher during earth’s pre-industrial history, it’s unlikely that what we are seeing is not a natural occurrence.
    Given the drastic and often sudden changes in climate that have occurred over earth’s natural history, how can one state conclusively that man is driving the climate change?

  28. News says:

    Federal agent runs down pedestrian, then pedestrian is ticketed for jaywalking.

  29. Tim R. says:

    Frank R: “how he makes the leap to the notion that man is contributing the CO2 he says is acidifying the oceans.”

    It’s a real simple: Take a seashell, put a few drops of acid on it and watch what happens. It’s fun and simple to see how acidification of the ocean increases atmospheric CO2.

    When marine organisms cannot absorb available atmospheric CO2 due to acidic ocean water preventing shell construction (just like you found out in the little experiment above..) then that leaves more CO2 in the atmosphere–unabsorbed.

    The ocean is a CO2 sink, but only if its ph is conducive to shell formation by marine life. Reduced shell formation = more atmospheric CO2.

    It doesn’t matter where it comes from when the carbon cycle is thrown off balance.

    This is basic science learned in 7th grade. He probably didn’t make the connection in his report because he assumed (wrongly) that people had learned the basics of ph in middle school.

  30. amanda says:

    MSM isn’t getting this story: right or at all. There have been dozens of HARO queries in the last 2 months seeking “green” input on corporate adaptations to the climate change kool-aid.

  31. Frank R says:

    Tim R, CO2 in the atmosphere has been far higher than today WITHOUT man’s contribution. What is the evidence that man’s contribution, which is LESS THAN 1% of the total, is making the critical difference? To date the ONLY evidence exists in the computer models and they have proven to be incorrect. Further, the atmospheric CO2 is but one source of carbon which acidifies the oceans.
    The environment is dynamic and in a constant state of adjustment, regardless of what man does. We have only scratched the surface in understanding how all of the variable interact. CO2 is a very small variable and man’s portion of that is even tinier.

  32. Tim R. says:

    Frank: My point all along has been about intensification of climatic variation. Minor changes in ocean ph have dramatic changes in the rate of CO2 absorption that in turn impact the homeostasis of the carbon cycle.

    A 1 % change in CO2 absorption (using your claim) is small, but if the ocean ph is changed by half a point, that 1% contribution has exponential impacts because of the large-scale reduction in CO2 absorption.

    It is true that man does not contribute more CO2 than natural processes, BUT (and this is the point) changing the CO2 absorption rates through ocean acidification, forest reduction, and increase fossil fuel use, can have a synergistic effect increasing that rate of climatic variation beyond the system’s resiliency.

    No one (at least not anyone reputable) claims that climate change results from a single variable. To make such a claim is to ignore the complexity of the issue. We’re talking about large systems with large and variable homeostatic powers.

    But, when the homeostatic power of those systems is stressed, their resiliency is reduced.

  33. Frank R says:

    “No one (at least not anyone reputable) claims that climate change results from a single variable.”
    The focus of the AGW has been nearly exclusively on CO2 and how it operates in the environment. The solutions that this group proposes all deal with a reduction in CO2. These are the same “reputable” people we see quoted as the climate experts.

    There is no equilibrium in the climate or in the levels of CO2. Never has been. The only constant is change. It has been both much colder and much hotter than it is today. CO2 levels have been higher and lower than today. And climate changes have happened with great rapidity in the past, as well as slowly. There is no evidence that climate variation has intensified. This is particularly true if you look at earth’s entire history rather than what amounts a a nano-second of natural history. If anything, the period in which we are living is the anomaly in terms of temperature.

    In the end all we can be certain of is that the climate will change. Man’s contribution is likely quite small and unavoidable (read the link referenced earlier). Man must learn to adapt to the changes in climate. It is nothing short of hubris to believe that we are both the cause and salvation of the Earth.