You Keep Using That Word….

… I do not think it means what you think it means. Mark Steyn looks at what “peer-reviewed” means in the world of climate change true-believer thuggery:

But don’t worry, it’s all “peer-reviewed.”

Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review”. When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.”

So much for Climate Research. When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. Mann, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Which, in essence, is what they did. The more frantically they talked up “peer review” as the only legitimate basis for criticism, the more assiduously they turned the process into what James Lewis calls the Chicago machine politics of international science. The headline in the Wall Street Journal Europe is unimproveable: “How To Forge A Consensus.” Pressuring publishers, firing editors, blacklisting scientists: That’s “peer review,” climate-style. The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the “peer-reviewed” “consensus.” And gullible types like Ed Begley Jr. and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times fell for it hook, line and tree-ring.

The sad thing is that the media types who have willingly suspended their disbelief and bought into regurgitating their regurgitated peer-reviewed “science” do not understand that they will not have a place in the new order. They will have done their only useful service in selling the new order. After that, only a few will be needed.

Most will be discarded.

Not so many years ago, responsible journalists would have followed the money and seen that global whoring pimp-in-chief Algore stands to make ridiculous amounts of money if governments and economies bow to his “science”. And they would have been more than a bit jaundiced in looking at his antics. Now, not so much.

They’ve swallowed the proffered kool-aid and puked it back on their diminishing readership.

There is now some very compelling evidence of a conspiracy to suppress data, crush dissent and force government policy into a certain direction. Most of the media is uninterested. That says a lot about them and what they stand – or rather kneel – for.

This entry was posted in Environment, Media. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to You Keep Using That Word….

  1. Mwalimu Daudi says:

    The more their echo chamber shriveled, the more Mann and Jones insisted that they and only they represent the “peer-reviewed” “consensus.” And gullible types like Ed Begley Jr. and Andrew Revkin of the New York Times fell for it hook, line and tree-ring.

    I disagree with that last statement by Mark Steyn. Begley and Revkin are dedicated to finding and getting the truth on global warmi-, ah, climate change the same way a mouse is dedicated to finding and getting a hungry cat.

    Like most journalists working for the state-run media, they know little real science. They do not analyze data and draw conclusions and base their opinions on those conclusions. Rather, they have opinions and assume that the facts that will automatically fit. Whatever they believe to be true (global warming, health care reform, socialism) is from their point of view “settled science”, the overwhelming consensus of intelligent people, etc. In other words, it is true because it fits their world view. Anything that contradict that world view is by definition false, since liberalism is never wrong.

    Global warming cultism hold out the promise – long ago discredited, but never totally discarded – of “scientific socialism”, of vast government control of the citizenry working towards a rational, scientific goal. In reality it means absolute government power over the lives of the ignorant unwashed heathen, the anti-intellectual rabble called the public. The public must be shown what is Right and Proper for their own good.

    And if the reactionary heathen do not believe voluntarily, they will be made to believe by force. This is what all cultists eventually fall back upon.

Comments are closed.