You cringe when you hear phrases like "collective opinion" regarding science, because science is supposed to be objective, correct? Further, I suppose you reco

You cringe when you hear phrases like "collective opinion" regarding science, because science is supposed to be objective, correct? Further, I suppose you recognize that science is not subject to the will of the majority, but to the scientific process, right? Yet, when it comes to scientific papers, you want to see them subject to the filtering of "experts" to assure they are politically correct? During my time working in a national lab I had several papers published. Around me, there were over 100 Phds, all of whom were actively publishing papers, and we worked together on them, at least to review them. We were investigating an area of physics regarding the electrical properties of some rather exotic materials. One thing about the peer review process is that it is very highly political. Often, perfectly legitimate papers would be refused for publication because they disagreed with a scientific view of one of the peers. Sometimes we'd have to submit the paper to another journal. But at least this level of "politics" was scientific politics. I don't like that some Professor Emeritus is holding to an older view, as that forces us to make our argument a bit stronger, or to do a bit more experimentation to resolve his concerns. But, sometimes, there was just no way we were getting published in that journal. This is completely subjective. Sometimes our case was really not strong enough, but often, it was simply our position was too modern. And that was the state of affairs (at that time, in that area) without any undue government influence. I believe the earth is very old and evolution is an observable phenomena. But I don't see how any scientist who also holds this view is threatened by articles proposing the alternative. Some creationist makes a publication claiming that evolution is wrong-- should be amusing! On "global climate change" there is no scientific consensus. The idea that there is a "consensus" is a political talking point that lets people who don't understand the science short circuit debate by claiming that the scientific community has reached a conclusion. Worse, given the political nature of that position, government is starting to influence the actual publication of papers to make sure they comply with the AGW political correctness filter. I shudder to think the road this country is going down if political correctness remains in the review system. However, I recognize the right of journals to choose their publication standards as they wish. This is also why I oppose any sort of government "blessing" or requirements for journals. Having made "peer reviewed" a phrase that is code for "legitimate", I don't want to see the politically correct crowd start dictating which panels of peers are "legitimate" and which ones are not. If it is time for a new journal to cover a new branch, then let a new journal form. This is how many of them got started in the past-- people unable to find publication elsewhere, for reasons such as topic, length, nature of the research, formed new journals. PS- FWIW, AGW is really easily disproven if you are familiar with the basic science. The IR absorption of CO2 is below that of water vapor, the CO2 levels in the past have been higher than the "tipping point", etc. AGW, is really a political, not a scientific, movement. This is what is so insidious about the idea that "All scientists agree"- it makes proponents of this theory feel like they don't have to defend their position, and that anyone who disagrees is "rejecting science", when it is the reverse. "collective opinion" is not how science works. Yet, I've never met an AGW proponent who actually understood the AGW theory, and the science behind it, well enough to debate the issue, but I've gotten a lot of hate for failing to regurgitate the party line. I half expect to get banned from this forum for taking this minority view, in fact.