The Guardian finally gets climate skepicism! Lengthy article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...ws-peer-review

A close reading of the hacked emails exposes the real process of science, its jealousies and
tribalism
Read mo doubts about "hockey stick" graph revealed


Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies,
rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results
that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end.

But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the
real process of everyday science in lurid detail.

Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside
observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions
about the effectiveness of peer review - the supposed gold standard of scientific merit - and the
operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in
upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way,
when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts
of interest that would not be allowed in most professions.

[rest at URL]

On Feb 3, 6:48*pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
The Guardian finally gets climate skepicism! Lengthy article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...d-climate-emai...

A close reading of the hacked emails exposes the real process of science, its jealousies and
tribalism
Read mo doubts about "hockey stick" graph revealed

Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies,
rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results
that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end.

But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the
real process of everyday science in lurid detail.

Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside
observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions
about the effectiveness of peer review - the supposed gold standard of scientific merit - and the
operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in
upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way,
when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts
of interest that would not be allowed in most professions.

[rest at URL]

Global warming geenhouse will put an end to ice ages and we will not
live through thousands of years of winter.
In the words of Murray Gell Mann: Eternal spring!

Mitch Raemsch

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 20:56:23 -0800 (PST), BURT
wrote:

On Feb 3, 6:48Â*pm, "Eric Gisin" wrote:
The Guardian finally gets climate skepicism! Lengthy article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...d-climate-emai...

A close reading of the hacked emails exposes the real process of science, its jealousies and
tribalism
Read mo doubts about "hockey stick" graph revealed

Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies,
rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results
that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end.

But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the
real process of everyday science in lurid detail.

Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside
observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions
about the effectiveness of peer review - the supposed gold standard of scientific merit - and the
operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in
upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way,
when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts
of interest that would not be allowed in most professions.

[rest at URL]

Global warming geenhouse will put an end to ice ages and we will not
live through thousands of years of winter.
In the words of Murray Gell Mann: Eternal spring!

Mitch Raemsch

Don't we all wish.