In the American Thinker, Davide Douglass and John Christy follow the saga of the publication of one of their papers (referred to in the article as DCPS for its four author’s initials) and a response by Santer, et. al. To be clear, the DCPS paper was a critique in certain flaws in then-current climate models and how they do or don’t accurately match actual observations, while Santer et. al is a sort of who’s-who of climate alarmist scientists in the inner core who were rallying the troops to defend the mother ship.
The article needs to be read in total to get the gist of the whole sorry story, but it is very clearly a tale of two entirely different publication and review rules — one set for skeptics, and another far more congenial set for alarmists. I think the article pretty clearly tells the tale of a process tilted strongly against one side in a scientific debate.
I hope you will check it out. One of my favorite parts is about 2/3 through the story. Santer et al’s main criticism is that DCPS cherry-picked data sets (basically left one particular set out). Unlike alarmist cherry-picking, though, DCPS had actually clearly stated why the data set had been left out and referred to other peer-reviewed literature that backed their point. The Santer team never addressed these reasons, but simply repeated the original charge. But the rich part is where Santer et al. are uncomfortable using certain parts of the data set themselves that don’t tell their story for them, so they explicitly edit this data out, in a manner very reminiscent of Keith Briffa and his proxy series. Emails from the CRU demonstrate that this removal was for no good reason other than the data did not make the point they wanted it to make.
The whole thing is really frustrating. One side is denied information, while the others are spoon fed their opposition’s work in progress nearly every week. One side’s publication is rushed, while the other’s is delayed. One side gets to essentially pick its own reviewers, and in an incredible breach, have a prickly reviewer simply removed from the process (again for no good reason than he wasn’t giving the answer they want). This is like watching the inside mechanics of an election in North Korea.