Comments on: Climategate and the Survival of the Politically Correct http://academicfreedomblog.org/2009/12/13/climategate-and-the-survival-of-the-politically-correct/ An opportunity to discuss the interface of faith, science, and culture Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:31:08 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: jallen http://academicfreedomblog.org/2009/12/13/climategate-and-the-survival-of-the-politically-correct/#comment-14608 jallen Mon, 14 Dec 2009 01:31:38 +0000 http://academicfreedomblog.org/2009/12/13/climategate-and-the-survival-of-the-politically-correct/#comment-14608 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.” 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.”

]]>