Peer Review

The controversy over the email correspondence between various scientists involved in research on human-caused global climate change points to an important matter of facts and assumptions, that peer review assures the reliability of a published research project.

But the record of this email traffic appears to refute that assumption. Scientists with a point of view, colluding with enough peers, can instead assure that peer-reviewed research contains a multitude of flaws: analysis that confounds cause with effect, that relies on doctored or fabricated data, and that describes the world in ways unsupported by the full weight of the evidence and even contrary to the simple application of logic.

I'm a lawyer, so I know something about this. My profession's shame is the way its members tend to manipulate the truth to suit the ends of their clients. We punt issues of fairness to a judge or jury, claiming that our job is to make the strongest case we can -- as long as we don't lie or cheat (as defined by our own special rules) -- and not to be fair to the other side.

But at least in litigation one side seldom has the power to keep the other side from presenting its case. That is not the case when scientists run amok. Telling the world to ignore "deniers," that "skeptics" are just shills for evil corporate interests, that the "science" is so "established" that no intelligent person could possibly disagree with certain conclusions, is the approach taken by leaders of a lynch mob, not of investigators of truth.

Lynch mobs are convinced they already know everything they need to know, that there is no other evidence they need to consider, and that they themselves have both the authority and the duty to act immediately. All of which is false.

Anyone presenting conclusions have a duty to present their facts and assumptions, and not only to accept but to seek out contrary views to evaluate and validate their understanding. Truth and wisdom stands on its own against all attacks, as long as the people examining the issue are themselves honest and sincere.

If the scientists investigating how the world's weather works were honest and fair, they would never have felt the need to hide their data, make false claims (the "hockey stick" fraud), attack other scientists, or propogandize the public.

It seems that in this age our culture has lost its moral compass. Lawyers and politicians may be more obvious examples of this, but they are not alone.

If peer review is to have a positive function, the purpose should be to validate the analysis and findings in the paper, to point out weak or faulty logic, clear misinterpretation of data, and so on. A paper should never be rejected simply because it doesn't fit in the existing doctrine -- in fact, an intelligent, coherent examination of matters from a perspective differing from the common wisdom can serve a solid purpose in either confirming what is known and accepted, in correcting errors in the common wisdom, or in highlighting issues that need further investigation. If this is not the point of peer review, then it serves no useful purpose.