andrewcriddle

I can't really speak of the process in general, but from my own experience I have had a paper published despite the anonymous reviewer disagreeing with its conclusions.

I suspect (and hope) that this is quite common.

The problem with the leaked climate emails is that they seem to show an attempt to prevent publication of papers simply because the people concerned disagreed with their conclusions.

Andrew Criddle

youngalexander

Despite being a meteorologist with a doctorate in atmospheric science I'll leave technical comments to the science forum - some generalities here.

GW is a given for most atmospheric professionals. Like any experimental science, gathering, processing, discussing and reporting data is a messy business. Throw in a highly charged political/economic environment and there is ample potential for disputation. However, in the case of science in general, there are the self-correcting mechanisms of peer-review, repeated experimentation, continuous data acquisition, and alternate explanations, etc. which will eventually provide a resolution. Advocacy, always present in human endeavour, will be overcome. In the current hubub, measures have been undertaken to investigate and hopefully resolve the matter - as we write.

This is much less the case in biblical studies because fresh data is not readily available. Consequently there is an emphasis upon the minutiae of what data is available and the explanation thereof. This no doubt leads to a higher degree of advocacy in some quarters. I do not reckon the two spheres as particularly comparable.

With regard to GW in particular, doubters will merely have to wait, and not for long.

PhilosopherJay

Hi andrewcriddle,

I believe this is a wrong characterization of what actually took place. As I understand it, an editor of a scientific journal was going to publish a single badly researched and rather silly paper, written by a conservative economist with no background in and little knowledge of climatology, simply to provide balance in the debate. The scientists involved threatened to boycott the magazine if the editor gave in to conservative political pressure and did such a thing. This was not suppressing science. This was suppressing politics intruding in science.

This is a good site to find out what actually happened and not what the mainstream media and ultra-conservative media reports happened: http://swifthack.com/

This article especially tells us what the whole affair is all about

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Johnny Skeptic

Regardless, well-known climatologists who oppose global warming have pretty easy access to the media.

Would you say that some early Christians (through the time of Constantine) suppressed opposing views?

ApostateAbe

I figure it is good and productive to advocate what reasonable and truthful. Your comparison seems between two different fallacies. They are not the same fallacy.

1. Going to extremes to advocate what is correct. This is the fallacy of the "climategate" fiasco.
2. Advocating what is incorrect from an agenda. This tends to be the fallacy of atheist activists who get notoriously involved in Bible scholarship. They tend to take minimalist and radically skeptical positions on the Bible and history. Generally, they don't go to extremes in their methods of advocacy. They go to extremes only in their reasoning.

andrewcriddle

Occasionally yes.

Andrew Criddle

Iskander

According to the flesh

mountainman

Consistently yes as evidenced by the establishment of the Orthodoxy supported by the pathological output of literature from the imperially sponsored pure Christian "Heresiologists".