Truth in science isn't established by peer review, but rather by replication of results. Peer review is simply about managing the limited space available in the journals and the limited attention span of the journal readers.

I don't think there is any justification for the withholding of *all* information necessary to replicate a claimed set of results--including original data, detailed description of algorithms/models, and actual computer code used to implement same. (Possible exceptions in cases of proprietary business data and classified military information, but in those cases it is necessary to reserve judgment--even more so than usual--about the validity of the claimed results)

Didn't phrase the above very well: what I meant to say was that *all* information necessary to replicate a given set of results *should* be released if the publication is to have any credibility.

Erin,

Your valid critique of academic misconduct, in both this post and the preceding ones, loses some of its force when it is coupled with partisan talking points: scare quotes, the unwarranted implication that the entire climate science community is complicit in this, etc.

This episode *should* make people more skeptical about anthropocentric global warming. But I think there's a difference between healthy skepticism and dogmatism masquerading as skepticism.

David Foster wrote:

Truth in science isn't established by peer review, but rather by replication of results.

Forgive the quibble, but it seems to me that the peer review process is intended to lead to truth, by fostering the replication of results. That's not to say that having passed peer review, any given paper is "truth."

Also, in this case the peer review process was perverted. It was used to sabotage what the purpose of peer review is intended to accomplish.

So I agree that:

Peer review is simply about managing the limited space available in the journals and the limited attention span of the journal readers.

And this is precisely where the perversion of it lies — it was used to serve the agenda of the AGW Warmists rather than truth. At least IMO.

Peter Shoemaker wrote:

This episode *should* make people more skeptical about anthropocentric global warming. But I think there's a difference between healthy skepticism and dogmatism masquerading as skepticism.

Another quibble . . . well . . . two.

1) Skepticism should never have been abandoned in the first place, much less that skeptics should be demonized as "deniers" and made to seem equivalent to holocaust deniers and flat-earthers. Given how new climate science is and how many variables need to be sorted out and balanced to understanding it, the proclamations any scientist (or politician . . ) who denied the importance of skepticism ("There is a scientific consensus . . .") and claimed that the science is "settled" should be immediately viewed skeptically.

2) Also — the correct term is "anthropogenic" — not "anthropomorphic" or anthropocentric."

And please forgive the scare quotes . . .

the unwarranted implication that the entire climate science community is complicit in this

Ordinarily, I would agree with Peter's complaint. But this is a special case. The climate science community has been diligent and ruthless in rooting out and shutting out any dissenting viewpoints. It has self-selected for this particular ideology and mode of operating. So Erin's sweeping comment is, in fact, justified.

BTW, there's been LOTS of discussion at the Volokh Conspiracy.

Minerva,

Thanks for correcting an embarrassing use of anthropocentric where I of course intended to type anthropogenic.

My response to both you and Laura (and Erin, I guess) is quite simply that this not just a matter between you and me, or even a skirmish in the cultural wars. I agree that healthy skepticism is always warranted (as I think I acknowledged in my original post). But dismissing climate science out of hand could have grievous consequences, as (for that matter) could jumping the gun in the *other* direction.

The appropriate response to scientific controversy is not talking points but more science.

There is a long history of scientists & technologists in various fields making excessive claims for the state of knowledge in their subject areas. For example..

1)Psychology...early 20th century
2)Sociology...late 1950s & 1960s
3)Computer science/artificial intelligence...1950s thru 1970s

To a certain extent, this is a *good* thing..progress depends on enthusiastic advocates. But politicians and business executives need to maintain a certain practical skepticism toward these claims: unfortunately, the typical CongressCreature has no understanding of science & technology, and the same is true of the typical journalist. (See my blog post "Journalists and Rocket Scientists" for an amusing if dated example)

I wonder what the average CongressCreatures pictures when he hears the term "mathematical model." Does he think it's like a model ship or a model plane? Or like the kind of "model" who provides relaxation to tired CongressCreatures, for an appropriate fee?

Also...on my list of fields of knowledge that made unrealistic claims about themselves, I should have included economists & financial analysts who perpetrated the models used for valuation of collateralized mortgage obligations. Also deserving of discredit, of course, are the executives who were way too eager to accept the conclusions of these models--usually without, I suspect, understanding them in any depth.

Peter Shoemaker wrote:

I agree that healthy skepticism is always warranted (as I think I acknowledged in my original post). But dismissing climate science out of hand could have grievous consequences, as (for that matter) could jumping the gun in the *other* direction.

I couldn't agree more. Which is why I find it bewildering that, when faced with the kinds of questions raised by the CRU documents (and questions that arose even before their publication), so many AGW advocates (including the media) are so dismissive of those of us who are skeptics, up to and including demonizing them as being akin to holocaust deniers or believers in a flat earth!

I mean, if their case is as rock-solid as they profess, why would scientists advocating AGW NOT release their data and methods of analysis?

It might take a little longer to make their case, but at least they'd