Share this...



An attempt by a group of climate science skeptics to perhaps bypass climate-science gate-keeping and marginalization used against their scientific hypotheses has taken a turn for the worse, with accusations of “nepotism” within the peer-review process at the PRP journal.

Jo Nova has a new post on the situation, implying that peer-review is a mere formality that’s subject to corruption and that in the end “science is not done by peer or pal review, but by evidence and reason.”

Given the corruption and gate-keeping we’ve seen in climate science over the past 2 decades, We can be glad that we have real data and observations. But even some of those are being massively tampered with. Such is the sad state climate science has devolved to.

Roger Tattersall, one at the centre of the controversy, has reacted to the accusations of peer-review “nepotism” at the PRP journal as follows:

Pierre, thanks for adding the links. Martin Rasmussen’s excuse for shutting down the journal have shifted from “PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate sceptics.” to “the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice” This grubby accusation remains a vague and unsubstantiated smear. The Handling Editor, Nils-Axel Morner is mystified, and has made an official complaint to the EGU, which publishes many journals through Copernicus. We await developments. Meanwhile, lukewarmer website Wattsupwiththat has rushed to judgement, finding the editors of the PRP special edition, myself included, guilty. Watts has emailed me to say I am ‘now a Pariah’. Mother nature will be our judge, when in due course she shows whether our dynamical model, which successfully hindcasts 1000 years of solar variation, remains on course or not in the future. Experimentum summas judex – Albert Einstein.”

I can certainly understand the frustration on the part of some scientists with regards to the known pal-review corruption and gate-keeping at some renowned journals and at the IPCC, and the overall difficulties encountered to get alternative views out. And God knows the hostile environment skeptics in Germany have had to deal with. Yet I agree with the expectation that the ethics of peer-review process must be upheld and lived by on all sides. There’s no other way.

But on the other hand, let’s not forget that peer-review is not the universal Stamp of Final Truth and that the real test is time and scrutiny. As I said, damn good thing we have data and observations.