Global warming and peer review

Dr. John Christy

An essay in the current issue (Oct. 2017) of Eos, the house organ and newsletter of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), is titled “Red, Blue – and Peer-Review” (P.R.).

The essay asserts that P.R. is superior to a debate between a (red) team of climate skeptics and a (blue) team of alarmists.  I disagree strongly and will point to prominent cases where P.R. is misused to keep contrary opinions and facts from being published and thus enforce a “consensus.”  A classic case is described by Douglass and Christy here.

I can cite many more examples – assuming that the IPCC (U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) represents a kind of P.R., as constantly claimed by alarmist IPCC proponents.

I have shown, and convinced many others, that the “evidential facts”  in support of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), cited by the first three Assessment Reports (A.R.s) of 1900, 1996, and 2001, are based on spurious analyses and data.

Recently, I discovered that the evidence used by A.R. 4 (2007) and A.R. 5 (2013) does not really exist; it is fake, an artifact of incomplete data analyses.  I refer here to the reported surface warming of 1978-1997 (for details, see this).

But the publication of such a result is difficult.  It involves finding a sympathetic and courageous journal editor who will not send the manuscript to unfriendly, biased reviewers.

Obviously, a red-blue debate might rapidly settle any controversies – or at least bring them to light.  Thus, one understands why consensus-enforcers try to keep out inconvenient facts, avoid debates, and prefer peer review.

Read more at American Thinker

Trackback from your site.

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    “evidence used by AR 4 (2007) and AR 5 (2013) does not really exist ”
    The question is who ordered the fake evidence and who produced it ?
    Who oversaw the insertion of fake, supposedly scientifically credible data, to create the deceiving fraud . $Billions have been wasted and stolen on the illusion that the “science” used to justify it was actually sound . The con artists promoting the scam knew full well what they were doing and should be in jail .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    The anti-nucular popppycock the Hollywood crap like The China Syndrome the lies of Carson and company against pesticides the lies of Bore,DiCaprio,Suzuki, and the hypocricy of Prince Chucky and Luarie David and Al Bore as well as DiCaprio stands out like a sore thumb

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    The red team / blue team debate should proceed apace. The AGW hypothesis is vulnerable but continues to thrive, driving public policy.
    People generally distrust politicians. It shouldn’t be too hard to convince voters of the fraud and who benefits from it.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    The knowledgeable climate alarmists are well aware that their “science” is full of holes. They are terrified of true debate because they know they don’t have a chance of prevailing. As such they are doing everything they can to avoid it.

    Peer review in AGW is as corrupt as the rest of the “science.” It is like having the fox guard the hen house. Remember that the first article about polar bears was reviewed by the

    Reply

    • Avatar

      David Lewis

      |

      My copy and paste fell short. The last sentence reads,

      Remember that the first article about polar bears was reviewed by the author’s wife.

      Reply

Leave a comment