3 ms·

> 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 th

> 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.

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.