The Value of Peer-Review and Scientific Consensus?

I think peer-review has a valuable place in science. Although not a complete thorough validation of every claim in a paper, it does ensure the science is rigorous and not strictly the opinions of one scientist.

Peer-review also has it flaws. Often times influential results are bogged down in the peer-review process, delaying their publication. And again, it is not a complete check so haphazard science can slip through the cracks.

Scientific consensus is also very valuable. Although it definitely sets a standard for future research and funding, it is a standard set for good reason. Furthermore, scientific consensus does not end a debate. Scientists are always challenged to test the consensus and are rewarded if they discover new results. Overall, Scientific consensus is a general measure of where the science is at and what direction future research should take.

This applies to all fields of science, not just climatology. I think climatoligsts are taking a lot of heat from non-scientists because global warming is such a politically charged debate. You also hear this debate come up with the science of evolution, but you never hear any debate about the peer-review and scientific consensus about optimal defense theory in plants, neutral theory of biodiversity, the Lotka-Voltera predator prey models, or other less politically charged scientific fields, even though some of these theories may have less supporting observational and experimental evidence.

Consensus doesn't make scientific fact, but it does demonstrate the strength of scientific evidence. It's very difficult to get scientists to agree about anything. It's their job to be skeptical and require hard evidence to convince them that a particular idea or theory is correct. Whenever you can get 97% of scientific experts agreeing that a theory is correct (as is the case with climate scientists and man-made global warming), it doesn't prove the theory is right, but it does tell you that the supporting scientific evidence is very, very strong.

http://news.mongabay.com/2009/0122-climate.html

As for peer-review, it's a critical tool because you or I or anyone else here can't look at a climate science paper and determine how valid it is. You need other people who are experts in the field to evaluate these studies and ensure that the research was done correctly. Otherwise as far as you know, a paper is no better than some random guy writing some ignorant article on his personal blog, which coincidentally, is unfortunately the kind of source a lot of people get their climate science information from.

The problem isn't an appeal to authority, but rather a case of begging the question. If there is a better process to evaluating an article, it would be used. The refereeing process catches well over 99% of inconsistencies and errors in published articles. If any of you ever had to do rewrites in order to satisfy a reviewer prior to submission to pre-editing, you would have a different take on the issue.

I blame TV, which casts scientists as aping sycophants. While rivalries do exist, unless any of you have ever actually worked on cutting edge research, it's time to quit pretending that you have any idea of how the process works.

Researchers build on each others' work- that's the value of consensus- you begin in the general, and work to the specific. Publication requires originality, and that's where consensus loses its value by design- where original thought comes in. If the argument proposed is logical but startling, a new direction for future research is created. For this reason, peer-review requires multiple sources.

There's a misconception here that when an article is submitted, it gets passed around to some like-minded scientists sitting in an inner circle. Reviewers are scattered across genres, as I've mentioned before, and the point isn't to prove or disprove the article, but rather to strengthen the article to foment discussion.

There is plenty of room for criticism in the process, but no one has yet suggested a way to improve it. The stupid suggestions that do rise to the top tend to come from bottom-of-the-barrel hacks or frustrated, lazy senior scientists too egotistical to submit to a system of checks and balances, however flawed.

Peer review has its value, particularly in lieu of hard proof, in situations where an assertion can't be proven outright.

With respect to most issues, scientists are looking at less-narrow questions, and often are looking back in time rather than forward in time - for example, the question of "what killed the dinosaurs?"

You can't answer that question "time will tell."

You can with the question of anthropogenic global warming.

With respect to most issues, there are competing theories and different groups of scientists each with their own candidate theories. It may not be an open-minded, open-ended search for knowledge but at the very least there are several candidate theories battling - and the goal is to get it right. Peer review of an article asserting a theory is usually a matter of a few scientists with their own theories reviewing the article written by a scientist with a different theory. So there is the benefit of skepticism, of cross-examination.

This is not applicable to global warming. Global warming is more monolithic. FIRST there was an adenda - shut down coal, and hopefully oil, natural gas, and then they tacked on red meat. Then they found a theory to support the agenda, and then they found "facts" to support the theory.

THAT is why there aren't many variations of the theory - other than the ones that have sprung up over time to explain the data that they can neither interpret to fit with the theory nor bury - and it is why "most scientists" agree to the broad statement that "mankind contributed to the 20th century warming."

As a result, "peer review" with respect to global warming is mere group-think - - it's like asking both A-Rod and Jeter what they think of the Red Sox.

I do not mind people saying that having statistically insignificant warming for 15 years does not disprove climate science theory. But to claim settled science and anyone who disagrees is a big oil stooge or is anti science is crazy. All of this just because "scientists" have written a computer program that says that warming will come back with a vengeance. You are placing scientific weight on theoretical computer climate models and not over real data by claiming "settled science". Anyone who does this are the real denialists ( for denying that you theory is falling apart), and the ones who are anti science.

Peer review is important in the development of scientific theories and applications, but climate models because of their complexity are exempt from the peer review process, and climate models are at the heart of the AGW band wagon. The scientific consensus that support the AGW theory, assume that the models are correct, they do not have the knowledge to validate the climate models, only time can do that.

In my industry, the geophysical industry, their are numerous papers published every month that pass peer review, and very few of them actually benefit the industry, they are merely a by product of individuals personal educational endeavours.

Peer review is just like minds reviewing others work. It was established by magazines to prevent embarrassing articles from reaching their publications.

Imagine if Bush had his economic plan reviewed by Dick Cheney, or a person who believes in UFO's having his paper reviewed by someone else who believes in UFO's. Is their any chance that the premise that there are no UFO's would be covered?

No - Peer review is a very low standard as a check.

Scientific consensus may be a good tool to determine how research money is spent, however it isn't scientific, it isn't science, and it proves nothing.

Man, talk about an intelligent question, a gold star for you.

The whole issue of peer review and scientific consensus is more of a game of politics than one of actual reality. The liberals among the scientific community enjoy the benefits of massive media coverage, while the conservatives are virtually totally ignored.