Page history
October 8, 2025
June 26, 2019
April 9, 2019
→Abuses by the IPCC: HTTP --> HTTPS #3, replaced: http://www.forbes.com → https://www.forbes.com
m+1
September 2, 2016
July 25, 2016
June 24, 2016
June 23, 2016
February 14, 2016
August 17, 2012
September 5, 2011
→Academic publishing and commercial publishing: ref
+29
University presses and other academic publishers routinely put scholarly works through a rigorous peer review. But that is not necessarily true of commercial publishers
+327
August 15, 2011
February 6, 2011
August 16, 2010
February 23, 2010
→Abuses by the IPCC: The IPCC review process is fatally flawed
+172
the climate reconstruction of Mann passed both peer review rounds of the IPCC without anyone ever really having checked it.
+264
abuses
+22
December 3, 2009
December 1, 2008
October 31, 2008
July 1, 2008
June 30, 2008
March 23, 2008
February 2, 2008
October 14, 2007
July 27, 2007
July 15, 2007
July 3, 2007
Peer review is no guarantee of correctness. It just means an article is good enough to be read by other scientists.
-2
Some Thoughts on Disclosure and Due Diligence in Climate Science, by Steve McIntyre
+151
Undo: please discuss your POV first
-35
inexcusably wrong information on what qualifies an article as 'peer-reviewed.'
+35
→Peer review and [[due diligence]]: It is unheard of for a peer reviewer to actually check the data and calculations!
+10
as a form of due diligence, journal peer review in the multiproxy climate field is remarkably cursory
+933