Lori Goldstein writes about a book written by a believer in climate change. Perhaps the chicken littles will listen to one of their own. Peer review is meaningless when all those doing it have an agenda.
In any event, the constant defence of Climategate apologists has been that while climate scientists understandably weren’t willing to hand over their raw data and research to any Tom, Dick or Steve — fearing it would be misused by skeptics — the public could rest assured this research was being vigorously tested and “peer-reviewed” by fellow climate scientists.
Well, here’s Pearce’s account of Jones’ direct testimony before the parliamentary committee on the issue of peer review.
“Jones insisted that what he did, for good or ill, was what his fellow climate scientists did. They didn’t publish all their data and methods because, ‘it hasn’t been standard practice to do that. Maybe it should be, but it’s not.’ Following that came the most startling observation, when Jones was asked how often scientists reviewing his papers for probity before publication had requested to see details of his raw data, methodology and computer codes. ‘They’ve never asked,’ he said.”
Thus, Pearce observes: “The rigour of peer review came crashing down before our eyes.”