QuoteOriginally posted by: trackstarIn one e-mail, the center's director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University's Michael E. Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science. "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report," Jones writes. "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow -- even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal," Mann writes.This is blatant scientific fraud and the perpetrators should be discredited and fired. All science should be judged on the quality of it's methods, NOT on whether the results agree or disagree with any prevailing theories du jour. In fact, peer review should be changed so that reviewers can't even see the results of the experiment. (A recent experimental study found clear human bias in peer review processes -- papers with positive findings were judged to be of higher quality and fewer errors than were IDENTICAL papers that had negative findings).Climate science is both far too complex and far too important to allow the filtering of research using preconceived notions of what that research should show. If some study finds less temperature increase than expected or finds evidence of other contributing causes, we need to know that. We need both the positive and negative outliers to get an unbiased view of what's actually happening in our atmosphere. And if different pieces of research produce conflicting results, then we need to understand whether: 1) different methods introduced a positive or negative bias (and we then correct those biases with better methods); 2) natural variance induced the span of observed outcomes (and we should take the mean of the results or gather more data); or 3) some unexplored third variable explains the variance (and we need more research on that newly discovered climatological phenomenon). In contrast, filtered, biased research will decrease the quality of our methods, decrease the accuracy of our estimates, and decrease our understanding of the climate. The end results will be seriously flawed behaviors and policies.Worse, revelations of bias (such as we have here) will damage the credibility of the science such that consumer/voter behavior and government policy becomes even more a function of emotion/politics and less a function of knowledge/science than it is now. In other words, to Jones and Mann, I say, "Thanks a lot, assholes."
Last edited by Traden4Alpha
on November 21st, 2009, 11:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.