Is scientific peer review a dead institution due to the AGW hysteria?

The difference between science and agw science is that agw science is really political-science. Left wing political science to be precise.

It seems there's a multitude of peer-reviewed crap out there that supports manmade global warming. Hansen's stuff is a good example. Peer-review is easy if collusion is used, but it makes everything else suspect and essentially meaningless.

Those who disagree with what's peer reviewed re agw have been chastised, discredited and in some cases threatened with physical violence. The global warming empire has no interest in science really, it's known to be a leftist political movement that has created a fake crisis and hijacked science (as they see it) to deal with the 'problem'. Peer reviewed papers from these guys aren't worth the paper they're written on.

Peer review is alive and well thank you. Most scientists check and re-check their work before submitting to peer review. While the reviewers are anonymous, the authors of a paper are not. It is embarrassing to be called on elementary errors. If a scientist does not want to submit a paper to peer review, that is an indication that the quality of that paper is substandard. Good scientists review their own work and frequently decide that the results from some experiments are not definitive enough to publish. We don't have the time and resources to follow every line of investigation to completion. For example, last year I noticed enhanced uptake of a certain element in 4 samples of diseased tissue. To prove a connection and write a paper, I would need to do more than 100 samples @ $400 each. My grants are not specific to that problem, so I can't follow up. Instead, I passed the information at a friend at a government lab that has the funding and mandate to study that problem. For that case my data would not pass peer review, but my friend might pass peer review after doing hundreds more experiments. Science is a full contact sport for elite players. Pedestrians get mangled. Sorry. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

"It is well known that many scientists today do not want to get involved in the studies which require peer review"

Clearly you don't have a clue about how peer review or science works the above suggestion alone prove that, beyond doubt, peer review is the primary method science uses to share information and new theories and to build upon existing theories.

Baccheus: he posted the same nonsense yesterday about some sort of law suit related to peer review and also posted a pdf which was supposed to be evidence, which of course it wasn't, it simply reinforced the fact he didn't have anything but a vivid imagination, he then deleted the question because I think even he realised he had made a fool of himself, as the pdf seemed to actually be a reply about an attempt to sue, stating it was not possible, how smart is that.

To be honest the claim that peer review doesn't work because those in the denier camp can't get their papers published is getting a little stale which is why they have switched to attacking peer review, there is no great secret or conspiracy to why they can't get published their science just doesn't work, they might be able to hoodwink portions of the general public through blogs and websites but that sort of rubbish doesn't work on scientists who want facts, figures and data to back it up and ranting about Al Gores electricity bill or fictional increases in the Sun are not going to work with scientists who know better. I think deep down even most deniers even know this.

the best way to spot a bad argument is by looking at the premises that are presented. if the person making the claim talks about the opposition rather than the opposition's arguments than they have essentially said nothing of any value

to suggest that someone is doing something just because they would make a profit off of it, or suggesting that the profit is a primary motivation is an ad homeniem circumstantial fallacy. a pharmacist could get money from selling you sugar pills rather than what you actually need, but that doesn't mean he is certainly doing it does it?

to suggest that someone is automatically right, simply because the are qualified in a field is an appeal to authority. science doesn't work by credentials it works based on the presentation of valid evidence, the author is irrelevant.

I think peer review will evolve due to the advent of instant publishing on the internet. I'm not sure it go away entirely due to the need to have some "crackpot" filter even on internet journals. Whatever it evolves into will not in any way be because of AGW.

It would help if you least indicated where the libel occured. Almost every publication is online now, so a link would be helpful.

I think it is more than time to remove political charlatans from positions where they can alter important scientific data for political reasons in order to protect the scientific community from their active fraud. In fact until the frauds and Charlton's can be removed and properly trained scientific professionals put in place to recheck all weather data back to 1970 and correct it all current data and reports based on them should be marked as suspect of fraud and set aside. Until all data has been validated by the scientific method I consider anything that comes out of any laboratory controlled or influenced by a radical leftist to be highly suspect of bering completely fraudulent and bogus.

Some scientific information revealing the truth about global warming, when it happened and what probably caused it.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/global_warming.h...

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data....

http://reasonmclucus.tripod.com/CO2myth.html

http://mc-computing.com/qs/Global_Warming/Atmosphe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers....

No, peer review is still valid where political hacks haven't taken over. It is damaging the credibility of all science. It is particularly galling when political activists pretend it equivalent to actual science.

Science is for sale and has been since the 80's. I believe none of it anymore, unless it is science used to make my cellphone even smaller and harder to use.