- Culture & society (71)
- History (27)
- Notable Quotes (17)
- Personal story (12)
- Politics (29)
- Science and faith (103)
- Uncategorized (36)
- March 8, 2010: Reply to Ruse
- March 7, 2010: Another Bio-Language
- March 5, 2010: Global Warming and Religious Objection
- February 12, 2010: The Language of Life
- January 30, 2010: The Power of Pride
- January 18, 2010: Emissions and Omissions
- January 10, 2010: What Would it Take?
- January 2, 2010: Signature in the Cell
- December 13, 2009: Climategate and the Survival of the Politically Correct
- November 24, 2009: Climate Hackers and other Non-Believers
Blogroll
Chat
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
Climategate and the Survival of the Politically Correct
Despite “Climategate,” and a growing number of outspoken scientific skeptics, the global warming summit plowed ahead. What else could they do? There is a lot invested in the idea that man is causing global warming: Grants are less likely to be issued for what man cannot change, and how can he change it if he did not cause it? I’m hearing some common liturgy, like “Show me the peer reviewed opposition,” when the opposition is not allowed through the peer review process. The deaf ear of the politically correct is scary, but not as scary as what lies at its heart. I am afraid that the political bulldozing of free scientific inquiry into questioning Darwin has bled into other areas of science. That once “scientists” discovered that funding and publication could be protected for one dominant opinion in one area of science, it could be done for another. Who cares about finding the truth? It can only slow down fame and fortune. Who cares about stifled enterprise and joblessness when the appearance of a united front is more valued? I just heard a quote I love: “The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.”~Flannery O’Conner.
December 13, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Regarding perversion of the peer-review process, Dr Philip Lloyd, a coordinating lead for the IPCC wrote this on 11/23/09:
http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=87726
“I was a co-ordinating lead author [or the IPCC]… [I]t gave me insight into the flaws behind the whole process.
The IPCC claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists’ work to produce their reports. There are two problems, however. In the scientific world I move in, “review” means that your work is scrutinised by several independent, anonymous reviewers chosen by the editor.
However, when I entered the IPCC world, the reviewers were there at the worktable, criticising our drafts, and finally meeting with all us co-ordinators and many of the IPCC functionaries in a draftfest.
The product was not reviewed in the accepted sense of the word — there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.
The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.”