Roger Pielke Jr: A whistleblower shares shocking details of corruption of peer review in climate science
I have been contacted by a whistleblower with a remarkable story of corruption of the academic peer-review process involving a paper published in 2022. The whistleblower has provided me with relevant emails, reviews and internal deliberations from which I recount this disturbing episode — which ends with an unwarranted and politically-motivated retraction of a paper that some climate scientists happened to disagree with.
The paper at the center of this story is not particularly significant, as it mainly reviews the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on trends in weather extremes. The paper does venture a bit too far (in my view) into commentary, but that is neither unique nor a basis for retracting a paper – if it were we’d have a lot of retractions!
To be clear, there is absolutely no allegation of research fraud or misconduct here, just simple disagreement. Instead of countering arguments and evidence via the peer reviewed literature, activist scientists teamed up with activist journalists to pressure a publisher – Springer Nature, perhaps the world’s most important scientific publisher – to retract a paper. Sadly, the pressure campaign worked.
The abuse of the peer review process documented here is remarkable and stands as a warning that climate science is as deeply politicized as ever with scientists willing to exert influence on the publication process both out in the open and behind the scenes.
I think the big take away here is that those corrupting the process have the resources, personnel, and motivation (time) to challenge seemingly insignificant papers. Which means that they likely are even more invigored and motivated when something comes along that really is at odds with their chosen course. It makes you wonder how effective they have been in keeping the opposing views out of the public eye.
After all, their chosen course has been to insist that “the debate is over” and there is a consensus of scientists and experts supporting only their position.
Sadly, been happening for years. Nothing much has changed since the dark ages. Those who have power will seek to control those who don’t.
Human nature it seems, is somewhat “sticky”.
“Sadly, been happening for years. Nothing much has changed since the dark ages. Those who have power will seek to control those who don’t.”
Not new at all…ClimateGate exposed them years ago. Most people focused on the “tricks to hide the decline”, but for me the real outrage was these supposed ‘scientists’ banding together to threaten the publishers of their papers with boycotts if they published papers that did not support The Narrative ™. Disgusting, and the end of the legitimacy of peer review.
Can anybody here put me in contact with Sarah Hoyt? – she’s a sci-fi author and regular commenter on Instapundit.
I’m gonna’ have to borrow her shocked-face for this one…
What do you expect from the cult of Mann-Made Global Warming (of one tree in Siberia)?
I am a climate expert; those who disagree are not, and cannot be published.
Peer review is a farce. It is better described as “group think” or “pal review”.
Much peer review is now double blind. The author does not know who the reviewers are, and vice versa.
Hey Killer, there is your precious peer review. Scientists are just as vain, corruptible, and immoral as anyone else, and also stunningly naive.
Lies and spin to promote a united cause because they hate people. Eat your bugs and shut up!
“Round up the usual suspects.”
– RCMP
Peer Review has become like our dominant media … who simply repeat everything told to them by our leftist government … they never question, challenge, or process the information. They just repeat it. They endorse it. They “certify” it without question.
Just saw on American TV and ad for “Save the Children”. The whole thing was about how children are starving because of the current climate crisis.
Climate change is not a environmental problem.. Its a industry.. Just what do you think the Minister of the Environment does with his time? Same with climate scientists.. No critical eye on the golden goose..
The Catholic Church was heavily criticized for accepting money to absolve sins.. What they don’t talk about is the people begging them for this service.. Hell was very real and nobody wanted any part of it.. Everybody involved meant well and it ended up breaking the Church into two forever.. The business plan had about as much integrity as our environmental movement has..