Put Up, or Shut Up!
|November 20, 2009||Posted by PaV under Intelligent Design, Culture, Global Warming|
There’s breaking news today about the Hadley CRU in England which had its emails and data banks hacked into. CRU is the acronym for ‘Climate Research Unit’. Seems that some of the emails show some possible collusion when it came to producing and supporting data that didn’t fit into GW science. Some interesting quotes. How about this one:
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think 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 in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
Isn’t this ineteresting: the way to marginalize the critics is to keep them away from the journals and claim that none of the critic’s views have been “peer-reviewed”. Doesn’t this sound familiar?
Speaking of sounding familiar, how abou this . . .
Climatologists say they will only take Mr. McIntyre seriously if he creates his own temperature reconstructions and submits them for peer review. But the best science should stand up even to outside scrutiny. And if Mr. McIntyre has a credibility problem with climatologists, climatologists’ predictions are increasingly viewed skeptically by the public.
That’s right: Put up, or shut up. That is, unless someone can come up with a “theory” which can replace Darwinism, their criticism will never be taken seriously.
Looking at these quotes, is it any wonder, then, that we here at UD have steadily pointed to what is going on in climate science as a proxy for what is happening in the evolutionary debates? Maybe it’s time to “take over a journal”!
But, of course, then they’ll just simply collude in saying that the journal has lost all its value—it’s lost its credibility. Humpf!