4 ms·
I don't have one. That's sort of the problem, though, isn't it? With the climatologists interfering so strongly in the way this is supposed to work, by select
by robotrout 17y ago
I don't have one. That's sort of the problem, though, isn't it?
With the climatologists interfering so strongly in the way this is supposed to work, by selecting which peers do their reviews, and by applying political pressure to the journals, the whole "look it up in the established body of work" approach has been sabotaged.
EDIT: I forgot an important one. The collusion aspect that the emails revealed. We're not going to put this result in our paper, even though we believe it, because it messes up Scientist B's premise.
- thaumaturgy 17y agoYou're kidding, right? Evidence of absence is not proof. Imagine if this argument were used in other contexts: "there are no papers published in peer-reviewed journals about intelligent design. This proves that there's a conspiracy in the biological community!" In fact: there are a few published papers which challenge popular climatological measurements and papers, and they are cited as often as possible by ... I don't want to call them denialists, but I'm not sure what else to call them. So, wrong on both counts.
- robotrout 17y agoReread my post. I didn't say that the absence of papers proved anything. I said that the scientific process has been sabotaged in this instance, making things more unclear than they should be. You are slick though! EDIT: Perhaps you're honestly confused. I'm a bit doubtful on that, but in case you are. We know that the process has been sabotaged. Not because there are no papers, but because many of the details of the sabotage were revealed in the ClimateGate emails.