Watts provides a Tips and notes to WUWT for running comments and suggestions. Recommend setting up a similar Tips and notes to UC to highlight such items and papers to examine.

Sveresky
Yes McIntyre makes an occasional mistake, but is quick to apologize and correct it as are others on his site. McIntyre works very hard to openly post all his data and all his programs for others to test and validate. – In contrast to the current CRU email/ClimateGate.

Note that ClimateGate has surpassed Global Warming

Audit should entail a presumption of fairness by which all the data is considered as a whole. There should be no cherry-picking only the data which can be interpreted as supporting a particular viewpoint. In this case that should apply both to the climatologists and their critics.

For example, the OP refers to an instance where a scientist published a correction in response to criticism from Stephen McIntyre, which is as it should be. Do we also know if there have been any cases where Mr McIntyre has himself made errors in his ‘audit’?

You do not have to be a “professional” to critique a paper.

You don’t have to be a professional, but you have to have some understanding of what you’re critiquing. This is as true in Biology as it is in Mathematics or Literature.

There can never be too many people checking the findings of scientists, so long as the people checking actually have some understanding of the material which they are checking. If you can get together a group of qualified people to begin something like this that would be awesome.

I would be remiss if I didn’t add that, unfortunately, I don’t think you’re going to be able to bring together sufficiently credentialed people to pull it off. After all, to have any merit this would need to be done in a scientific manner, at the academic level, rather than the majority of posts here at UD which pander to people like me, the unwashed masses (not to say that’s a _bad_ thing).

But I, and I’m sure any scientists working in the field, would welcome more scrutiny from a qualified group. I’d be interested to see if you find anything.

I think a resurrection of the ISCID’s PCID would be helpful, or something along those lines. I think it was originally published prematurely. We are now starting to get a lot more people friendly to ID who would benefit from such a journal.

I also think a new interdisciplinary journal of origins should be started, which specifically covers the debate of origins theories.

A few friends and I were going to start such a thing, but personal catastrophe got in the way, though we may start again.

Instead of complaining about lack of access to “peer-reviewed journals”, which we know will never happen, why not adopt the Climate Audit paradigm in the ID community?

Isn’t that what this blog, and the various popular press books written by it’s various contributors, purports to be?