|
|
 Originally Posted by CoccoBill
Originally Posted by mcatdog
I do think there's evidence of the Climategate people having tried to bias the peer-review process, for example from one of the links that CoccoBill posted,
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!
You can't argue that "jargon" is responsible for a statement like that. In any case, the person who wrote that just resigned today so hopefully it'll be a non-issue from here on out.
Let's look at the whole snippet with the aforementioned quote in the article:
It is true that much of what has been revealed could be explained as the usual cut and thrust of the peer review process, exacerbated by the extraordinary pressure the scientists were facing from a denial industry determined to crush them. One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
One of these papers which was published in the journal Climate Research turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief. Jones knew that any incorrect papers by sceptical scientists would be picked up and amplified by climate change deniers funded by the fossil fuel industry, who often – as I documented in my book Heat – use all sorts of dirty tricks to advance their cause.
Again, taken out of context it may look bad, but all he is saying is that they want to stop publications that have been proven faulty from appearing in a report that's used pretty much as a definitive guideline for how to deal with climate change. They're having a hard time convincing world leaders to act as it is, they don't need any additional distractions. Unethical/unprofessional? Somewhat. Condemning or making anything related to their research questionable? Hardly.
Headshot!
This is why I like logical principles and fallacies so much. They provide an excellent guideline by which to not get fooled. For example: quote-mining is a logical fallacy. Knowing this immediately tells me that any time I ever see a quote being mined without a ton of context, it is logically false for me to give heed to the assertions of said quote
It makes figuring stuff out so much easier when you have a basic outline. I recall hearing in a lecture once something along the lines of 'You wouldn't spend time in the jungle without understanding the basics of what to eat, where to sleep, how to not get killed, etc; so why would you engage in logical discussion without a basic understanding of logical principles and fallacies?'
|
Reply With Quote