Peer Review or Pal Review ?

The true state of scientific peer-review in modern science is sad.

Peer review was never better than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding.

"Peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed [jiggered, not repaired], often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
    Horton, R. C., 
Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up, Med.J.Aust. 172(4), 2/21/2000, 148-9.


In industry, computer models actually have to work.

In "climate science" the models can make wrong predictions for 40 years, and the modelers don't care.

And the mainstream press does not care.

But I care.

This blog offers freedom from peer-review. 



If science was based on peer review, there would be little progress!


The science "consensus" is repeatedly proven wrong as science advances!


The consensus slaps down any paper / research that comes to a conclusion contradicting their own conclusion, and character attacks the author leftist-style.


That’s a primary reason why there has been so little progress in understanding / measuring the REAL effect of CO2 on temperature since 1896.


In climate science, peer review is “pal review”.

The sad current state of what is called “climate science”  is that the most visible subset -- the wild guess computer models -- is not science at all.

Models have made wrong predictions for 40 years because they are really nothing more than personal opinions based on the wrong climate physics model (CO2 is the climate controller).

Peer review in many areas of “science” is grossly defective.

In climate studies, the science is going backwards.