Peer review appearances can be deceiving

Nov 30, 2009

By Mark Steyn

My favorite moment in the Climategate/Climaquiddick scandal currently roiling the “climate change” racket was Stuart Varney’s interview on Fox News with the actor Ed Begley Jr., star of the 1980s medical drama “St. Elsewhere” but latterly better known, as is the fashion with members of the thespian community, as an “activist.”

Mr. Begley currently is in a competition with Bill Nye (“the Science Guy”) to see who can have the lowest “carbon footprint.” Pistols at dawn would seem the quickest way of resolving that one, but presumably you couldn’t get a reality series out of it.

Anyway, Mr. Begley was relaxed about the mountain of documents recently leaked from Britain’s Climate Research Unit in which the world’s leading climate-change warm-mongers e-mail each other back and forth on how to “hide the decline” and other interesting matters.

Nothing to worry about, folks. “We’ll go down the path and see what happens in peer-reviewed studies,” said Mr. Begley airily. “Those are the key words here, Stuart. ‘Peer-reviewed studies.’ ”

Hang on. Could you say that again more slowly so I can write it down? Not to worry. Mr. Begley said it every 12 seconds, as if it were the magic charm that could make all the bad publicity go away. He wore an open-necked shirt, and, although I don’t have a 76-inch high-definition TV, I wouldn’t have been surprised to find a talismanic, peer-reviewed amulet nestling in his chest hair for additional protection.

“If these scientists have done something wrong, it will be found out and their peers will determine it,” insisted Mr. Begley. “Don’t get your information from me, folks, or any newscaster. Get it from people with Ph. D. after their names. ‘Peer-reviewed studies’ is the key words. And if it comes out in peer-reviewed studies … .”

Got it: Pier-reviewed studies. You stand on the pier and you notice the tide seems to be coming in a little higher than it used to and you wonder if it’s something to do with incandescent light bulbs killing the polar bears? Is that how it works?

No, no, peer-reviewed studies. “Peer-reviewed studies. Go to Science magazine, folks. Go to Nature,” babbled Mr. Begley. “Read peer-reviewed studies. That’s all you need to do. Don’t get it from you or me.”

Look for the peer-reviewed label! And then just believe whatever it is they tell you. The trouble with outsourcing your marbles to the peer-reviewed set is that, if you take away one single thing from the leaked documents, it’s that the global warm-mongers have wholly corrupted the “peer-review” process. When it comes to promoting the impending ecopalypse the Climate Research Unit is the nerve-center of the operation. The “science” of the CRU dominates the “science” behind the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which dominates the “science” behind the congressional cap-and-trade boondoggle, the upcoming Copenhagen shakindownen of the developed world, and the now routine phenomenon of leaders of advanced, prosperous societies talking like gibbering madmen escaped from the padded cell, whether it’s President Obama promising to end the rise of the oceans or the prince of Wales saying we only have 96 months left to save the planet. But don’t worry, it’s all “peer reviewed.”

Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael E. Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review.” When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Mr. Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor” and Mr. Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”

Read more at: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/30/censoring-contradictions/

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment