A Peer’s Review of Peer Review
May 15, 2011 Leave a comment
Climate alarmists often brag that all information coming out of the UN International Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) has been “peer-reviewed.”
However, a recent examination of so-called UN IPCC “peer reviewed” articles has exposed that lie.
This has raised a number of questions, not the least of which is “How much faith can the public put in the “peer review” process?
The Lancet is one of the most prestigious medical journals on the face of the planet. Listen to what it’s Editor in Chief has to say about the “peer review” process:
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.” – Richard Horton, Editor in Chief, Lancet
(Source – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Horton_%28editor%29 )
So, the next time you hear “peer review,” be skeptical…be verry, verrry skeptical.
PS – Skepticism (or scepticism) has many definitions, but generally refers to any questioning attitude of knowledge, facts, or opinions/beliefs stated as facts, or doubt regarding claims that are taken for granted elsewhere