Will we ever be able to trust Peer Review again?

It will be a long haul to get respect back into science after being kidnapped by the liberal left these past years. Contrary to what you are hearing from those alarmists that pretend to be someone they are not, there is a war going on between scientists and their agendas right now in specific areas of study. These areas center around environmentalism and the activists that have infiltrated government agencies with poorly trained scientists from the activism side of environmentalism.

It is happening a many scientists have had it with the slander and libel going on in their profession and many are afraid to speak up in fear of the political pressure and repercussions they will receive.

Liberals hijacked science folks for their twisted liberal agenda. Good luck all of you.

If deniers care so little approximately consensus why did they bypass to the effort of bobbing up petition after petition to purpose and instruct that they have got consensus, if certainty be told peer evaluate is the final occasion of consensus and the argument that deniers are being blocked 'via some conspiracy' is rubbish because of the fact there are dozens of journals and each has a distinct set of editor and reviewers that's 1000's of people, deniers won't be able to get printed for the essential reason they are able to't help their claims in a actual technological know-how paper. Dana it incredibly is all of the thrill on numerous different boards I bypass to that Monbiot has fooled those denier-bots with a pretend digital mail that replaced into no longer area of the stolen ones and that they fell for it hook line and stinker.

It will be a long haul to get respect back into science after being kidnapped by the liberal left these past years. Contrary to what you are hearing from those Darwinists that pretend to be someone they are not, there is a war going on between scientists and their agendas right now in specific areas of study. These areas center around evolutionism and the activists that have infiltrated government agencies with poorly trained scientists from the activism side of evolutionism.

It is happening a many scientists have had it with the slander and libel going on in their profession and many are afraid to speak up in fear of the political pressure and repercussions they will receive.

Liberals hijacked science folks for their twisted liberal agenda. Good luck all of you.

Not that they ever should. Peer review may be a good idea, but if you include the profit motive it falls apart. Money changes everything, and that includes the "scientific" community. They want their piece of the pie and there is a lot of money to be made off of this hoax.

The truth of it is that any body that makes it to PHD level did it because there are no jobs available for undergrads in their field or they are social misfits that nobody would hire. Gates and Jobs aren't scientists, but they are a whole lot smarter than the losers that couldn't get a real job.

Will the population trust peer review? Are you kidding? 95% of the population has no idea what peer review is. I know that virtually none of the deniers understand it. If people don't like peer review, I say suggest something else. Peer review definitely has problems, I've experienced them myself, but the only alternative I've seen is publishing on blogs, and that seems even worse to me.

By the way peer review and the scientific method refer to two different things which are neither in conflict nor alternatives.

EDIT: One answer gives libertarianism a bad name by his completely unsupported and ridiculous opinion of Ph.D.s. Did he perhaps get turned down for a Ph.D. program? Or perhaps college entirely? And he must never have heard of a little company called Intel, founded by a couple of Ph.D.s

Another EDIT: Sure, I'm for access to the data. In fact I don't know of another field of science that has so much free access to data as atmospheric science does. In my research I'm constantly amazed that I can download terabytes of data for free. If you read more of the emails than the 5 or 6 that have been publicized by deniers, you'll find that they already felt that they had given McIntyre all the data needed to check their work. The talk about deleting data is the result of someone being pushed to the breaking point by a pest, but that is wrong.

I should point out, though, that that is NOT what you asked about--that was not peer review, although you may think it is. Peer review is the specific process that takes place when an article is submitted to a journal, not just random review by peers.

Best quote from climategate:

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering

http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11...

I think a more pertinent question would have been "will we ever be able to trust skeptics again".

Can you remind me, what was it that Climategate revealed? That's right, that skeptics have to ignore at least 99.9% of the evidence then distort and selectively edit what little bit remains.

So far I haven't come across a single skeptic that can actually explain anything about the content of the leaked e-mails and documents, they simply parrot what they've read on non scientific blogs and forums. For example - do you know what 'Nature trick' is referring to?

- - - - - - - - - -

RE: YOUR ADDED DETAILS

Thanks for the added details and credit where it's due - you have demonstrated that you do have some understanding of the content of the emails.

What 'Nature trick' actually refers to is the replication of a homogeneity adjustment as per the publication Nature (hence the capital N). It was not an attempt to distort the data but a suggestion that was raised, it was not implemented. The den-chro record has always had discrepancies in relation to the inst-temp record, there are many reasons for this, declining temps is not one of them.

The data held by the CRU is taken from Met Office Archives, they could delete all the data but the originals would still be there. Skeptics have claimed on numerous occasions that the data were deleted. In response they have been shown the data, to which the skeptics respond by claiming that the data have been deleted.

The reference to deleting data in this respect was to say that it would be preferable to delete it rather than let the skeptics get hold of it. Given the conduct of the skeptics in question and their appalling record then this is perfectly understandable (and again, this is copies not originals). I personally am withholding a lot of information from skeptics in general because I know how it would be distorted. I readily share my info with genuine skeptics and guess what – they too withhold it from the unscientific skeptics.

I’m not sure what your claim in relation to the peer-review process is. Unless you’re going to seize all photocopiers and scanners and take control of the world’s media then there’s no way to stop the process.

The claim of having something to hide is so tired and worn out. Many, many times the evidence and data have been presented to the skeptics and they have failed to comment on it. There can only be two possible conclusions – a) they haven’t bothered to do anything with it (despite all their demands for access) or b) they have analysed the data and it doesn’t conform to their preconceived notions so they’re ignoring it.

You guys have been trusting right wing blogs more than peer review for over a decade. Please remind me what has changed.

Yeah, from now on, all the scientific evidence will ONLY be posted in e-mails and on blogs.

Doubtful.

It's sad, but liberals destroy everything they get their hands on. First the media, then the schools, our economy, the military, now science in general.

Got to admit, they're very good at destroying things.