peer-review

Peer review is not 'the foundation of the scientific process' as a NASA scientist claims. And climate scientists have no business telling the public where scientific arguments can and cannot be conducted.

A report I wrote for the Global Warming Policy Foundation was released today. It explains that peer-reviewed research is as likely to be wrong as right. Basing public policy on findings that haven't yet been reproduced is nuts.

Academics insist that peer-reviewed research is sound and that everything else is inferior. But scholarly journals are actually littered with muck.

As a journal guest editor, IPCC lead author Andrew Challinor approved the publication of 9 research papers that are now being cited as evidence in his IPCC chapter.