Tom P

I believe that in today’s politically charged world that peer review means nothing more than a bunch of like-minded scientists agreeing with each other.

Mann’s hockey stick was peer reviewed. It was published in Nature Magazine and used as the cornerstone to the IPCC 3rd assessment. Nobody questioned the methodology or the data, which were both flawed. Nobody checked Mann’s work. They all just accepted it as gospel because it fit neatly into their preconceived idea of man-made global warming.

It took mathematician Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick to identify Mann’s flaws. They wrote an article about their findings and submitted it to Nature – which of course rejected it. It took him five years to convince the National Academy of Sciences to review Mann’s work.

How many other supposedly peer reviewed papers fall into this category?