| HappySqurriel said: One of the most damaging elements of the Climategate scandal which seems to get the least attention paid to it is the evidence that suggests that a handful of scientists are able to manipulate the peer review and publishing process. While the data manipulation should bring into doubt all of the work of these scientists and those that based their research off of their findings, the manipulation of the peer-review and publishing process should bring into question the science of the entire field. Edit: Just to add to Sqrl's point on calling people "Climate Change Deniers" ... The term is also entirely inaccurate of the position of climate change sceptics. The vast majority of sceptics actually believe that the climate is constantly changing, and the only thing they uniformly doubt is the unproven hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming which needs to be prevented rather than adapted to. The reasons people doubt the hypothesis are varied, and range from the science being questionable to looking at how the medieval warm period was once called the medieval optimum and doubting that warming would be detrimental; and there are even sceptics that fully believe that global warming exists, is man made, and is detrimental but believe that attempting to avert global warming would be far worse than adapting to it. |
I imagine that's why pretty much all the skeptiscism comes out in other scientific journals that's on the peripherary of climate change. Like chemical engineering trade magazines and the like.
