Quote:
Originally Posted by puckhog
It seems to me that when the AGW side says something was peer reviewed, they mean that it was reviewed by people who already agree.
|
Peer-review means it goes to several world experts in the field. Agree/disagree has nothing to do with it. If the 'disagree' side want to review the high-end manuscripts, well then maybe they should do work that isn't junk.
Science is not journalism. You are confusing the two. There are not 'sides of the story'. There are data. If your science disagrees with my science, it will still get published SOMEWHERE, in SOME decent peer-reviewed journal IF the science is properly done. Maybe not Nature or Science, but a good journal. Journals are competitve, just like scientists. They need to draw readers to stay in business. To do that, they need good papers. If a paper is properly done, people will read it, even if they disagree, if only to figure out how to counter and disprove it. But the papers have to be good, and the science has to be done properly done.