3 ms·

This seems a bit like the Planned Parenthood tapes: approach someone with false pretenses, and then report the things they say in the worst possible way. I wou

This seems a bit like the Planned Parenthood tapes: approach someone with false pretenses, and then report the things they say in the worst possible way. I would find it much more damning if they found a professor that would change their position for money, rather than finding people that will accept money to forward a position they think is correct.

Pils 11y ago
I agree that the trend of using false pretenses to "catch" someone is a bad form of journalism, but I feel like your alternative is even worse. What information is gained by showing that a random professor is unscrupulous? In this case, the professors actively helped the journalists obfuscate where the funding was coming from, and ran a think tank where he knew his work would be accepted.
epistasis 11y ago
Eh, not really, take this for example: >The emails and recordings also outline how Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank. Happer admits that his papers would not likely be published through typical the academic peer review process. “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.” The headlines are actually somewhat mundane compared to the substance. This is the reverse of the Planned Parenthood tapes.
- crazy1van 11y ago
  > Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank. I really don't think submitting papers to similarly minded groups in the name of "peer review" is an uncommon occurrence on any side of the climate change debate -- or any other debate for that matter.
  - epistasis 11y ago
    I couldn't disagree more. Restricting your review to "like-minded" people is not science at all. It would be like a person advocating for Intelligent Design by only getting peer-reviewed by other evolution deniers. If the claims can't stand on their own and you have to go looking for "like-minded" people than it's pretty weak sauce.
    - crazy1van 11y ago
      I'm sorry but you're disagreeing with a point different than the one I made. Of course it's bad science to have your idea reviewed by an echo chamber that all agree with you. I was saying that I think it is not uncommon.
  - chetanahuja 11y ago
    "I really don't think submitting papers to similarly minded groups in the name of "peer review" is an uncommon occurrence" Yes it is. It's not just uncommon, it's simply unacceptable in regular scientific research. Don't believe me, here's Prof. Happer's own words: Verbatim from William Happer's email: "For example, Golkany knew the names of the reviews he received, but for a journal, the peer reviewers would normally be anonymous. . . Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review" He knows exactly what he's doing is wrong and why. He's deliberately engaging in a a sleight of hand in order to deceive the casual reader/listener with the words "peer review".
    - knughit 11y ago
      It is a peer review,but you are judged by the quality of the peers you choose.
JamesBarney 11y ago
I think most of the controversy around the Planned Parenthood tapes was around the editing not the style of journalism.
- kijin 11y ago
  I agree. This time, the papers are out there, edited by the authors themselves.

Pils 11y ago

I agree that the trend of using false pretenses to "catch" someone is a bad form of journalism, but I feel like your alternative is even worse. What information is gained by showing that a random professor is unscrupulous? In this case, the professors actively helped the journalists obfuscate where the funding was coming from, and ran a think tank where he knew his work would be accepted.

epistasis 11y ago

Eh, not really, take this for example: >The emails and recordings also outline how Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank. Happer admits that his papers would not likely be published through typical the academic peer review process. “I would be glad to ask for a similar review for the first drafts of anything I write for your client. Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review.” The headlines are actually somewhat mundane compared to the substance. This is the reverse of the Planned Parenthood tapes.

crazy1van 11y ago
> Happer ran a sham peer-review process through the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a prominent U.K.-based climate skepticist think thank. I really don't think submitting papers to similarly minded groups in the name of "peer review" is an uncommon occurrence on any side of the climate change debate -- or any other debate for that matter.
- epistasis 11y ago
  I couldn't disagree more. Restricting your review to "like-minded" people is not science at all. It would be like a person advocating for Intelligent Design by only getting peer-reviewed by other evolution deniers. If the claims can't stand on their own and you have to go looking for "like-minded" people than it's pretty weak sauce.
  - crazy1van 11y ago
    I'm sorry but you're disagreeing with a point different than the one I made. Of course it's bad science to have your idea reviewed by an echo chamber that all agree with you. I was saying that I think it is not uncommon.
- chetanahuja 11y ago
  "I really don't think submitting papers to similarly minded groups in the name of "peer review" is an uncommon occurrence" Yes it is. It's not just uncommon, it's simply unacceptable in regular scientific research. Don't believe me, here's Prof. Happer's own words: Verbatim from William Happer's email: "For example, Golkany knew the names of the reviews he received, but for a journal, the peer reviewers would normally be anonymous. . . Unless we decide to submit the piece to a regular journal, with all the complications of delay, possibly quixotic editors and reviewers that is the best we can do, and I think it would be fine to call it a peer review" He knows exactly what he's doing is wrong and why. He's deliberately engaging in a a sleight of hand in order to deceive the casual reader/listener with the words "peer review".
  - knughit 11y ago
    It is a peer review,but you are judged by the quality of the peers you choose.

JamesBarney 11y ago

I think most of the controversy around the Planned Parenthood tapes was around the editing not the style of journalism.

kijin 11y ago
I agree. This time, the papers are out there, edited by the authors themselves.