Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Peer Review takes a hit

The Wall Street Journal has an article titled, "Most Science Studies Appear to Be Tainted By Sloppy Analysis."

It seems like the peer review process is not all that it is made out to be. Then again, since it took 6 years for the 2000 temps to be audited even partially, this does not surprise me.

Hi John,
This article was already posted up in the General Science forum
http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=23461#Post23461

But I agree with you - I think most people would be shocked if they knew what "peer review" really entailed to get many papers published.
Review of papers are largely focussed on the logic behind the papers, it isn't focussed on the application of the logic (the actual calculations). This is how we get Hanson's 2000 mistake being carried forward for almost 7 years. Or the "hockey stick" mistake.

Have you been reading Climate Audit lately? It seems Hanson is going back and adjusting the 1930's temps downwards (after all, we have to keep 98 as the hottest year).....it really is laughable.