Denialism

A dirty dozen gems about

Denialism

Not just a river in Egypt


CO2 is Green
Denialgate


Denialism is the culture of denying an established fact; when a person or group refuses to believe or accept a theory, law, fact or evidence of a well established discipline in an authoritative way. Usually this is despite overwhelming evidence, and usually for motives of convenience. Because of these motives, denialism is often subject to and powered by confirmation bias. Denial of fact is one of the methodologies in woo.[1]

In scientific denialism, the denialist can deny a cause (carbon dioxide does not cause global warming), an effect (global warming does not occur), the association between the two (the earth is warming, but not because of carbon dioxide), the direction of the cause-and-effect relationship (carbon dioxide concentrations are increased because the earth is warming) or the identification of the cause-and-effect relationship (other factors than greenhouse gases cause the earth to warm). Often denialists will practice minimization (the earth is warming, but it's not harmful) and will use misplaced skepticism in the veneer of being a scientist when it is unwarranted.

Major targets of denialism include the link between smoking and lung cancer; evolution; the lack of a link between vaccination and autism; and global warming. Often self-interest is the motivation behind denialism, hence targets are often politicised or picked because a denialist can profit from it. For example, tobacco companies denied the smoking-lung cancer link as it would have hurt their profits, and it's been known for some time that Andrew Wakefield had a strong conflict of interest in ensuring people didn't take established and effective vaccines. Similarly, global warming denialists tend to lie on the political right and are ideologically against the solutions that are needed to curb (see the logical fallacy of argument from consequences). Denialism can also fill a deep psychological need, as in the case of answering the question as to why one's child has autism - as, in reality, there is no easy answer.[2]
Contents
[hide]

1 Methods
2 Denialism vs. Skepticism
3 See also
4 External links
5 Footnotes

[edit] Methods

See also Characteristics of pseudoscience

The Hoofnagle boys at Denialism Blog on scienceblogs.com have described (using their "Denialists' Deck of Cards" series[3]) how their tactics are remarkably similar. Denialists often claim that an established set of knowledge or scientific theory is not proven or "sound" and lacks evidence (or enough evidence). They will say it is a controversy, requires balance, or requires both the strengths and weaknesses be considered; these make the denialists appear "fair" (and those who oppose them not) and implies doubt in what is being denied with no consideration of evidence. Denialist groups also create their own research to "study the problem" or produce their own body of "competing evidence" which is often poorly performed (if at all, as many are public relations firms). These groups will encourage people to form their own opinions or do their own tests, rather than relying on studies with appropriate controls. Lists of experts (who may have no credentials in the area) are compiled as testimonials, or public relations campaigns are used to improve denialists' images (and often slime the legitamite scholars). Legitimate errors will often be blown out of proportion.[4] Most denialist rhetoric is focused at the layperson and not the expert, and usually paints a contrast between two positions rather than being about one point-of-view.[5] The use of self-generated content on the Internet ("Web 2.0" contributes to the dissemination of denialist content.[6]

Leah Ceccarelli describes the rhetoric of denialists:[7]
“”First, they skillfully invoke values that are shared by the scientific community and the American public alike, like free speech, skeptical inquiry, and the revolutionary force of new ideas against a repressive orthodoxy. It is difficult to argue against someone who invokes these values without seeming unscientific or un-American.

Second, they exploit a tension between the technical and public spheres in postmodern American life. Highly specialized scientific experts can’t spare the time to engage in careful public communication, and are then surprised when the public distrusts, fears, or opposes them.

Third, today’s sophists exploit a public misconception about what science is. They portray science as a structure of complete consensus built from the steady accumulation of unassailable data. Any dissent by any scientist is then seen as evidence that
there’s no consensus, and thus truth must not have been discovered yet.[8]

Diethelm and McKee have identified five characteristics of denialists:[9]

The identification of perceived conspiracies (including belief of corrupted peer review and inversionism)[10]
The use of fake experts (often with the smearing of real experts)
Selecting or cherry picking sources: picking the weakest papers or only ones that are contrary. Particularly worrisome is looking at only a single study, particularly in medicine, as one study rarely conclusively proves something.[11] Others note that this includes anecdotal evidence[2] and quote mining.[12]
Demanding impossible standards for research
Use of fallacy, including misrepresentation and false analogy.[13] Informally, this can include a witch's brew of half-truths, sob stories.[14], and/or spin to try to force the public to ignore an important issue.

An example of AIDS-HIV denialist rhetoric is from Herbert Vilakazi:
“”"The situation in America is one of intolerance," he [Herbert Vilakazi] continued, never raising his voice. "There are A.R.V.s [antiretroviral drugs]. Only one approach to treating this deadly illness is permitted. You are not allowed to talk about anything else." He said that people are obsessed with whether H.I.V. causes AIDS, but that he considered such arguments "completely academic and not relevant for the treatment of sick people." He went on, "Let us be honest. Who benefits from A.R.V.s? Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars have been spent on research and you have to get a return on your investment. It is the first rule of pharmaceutical companies, and they simply terrorize their opponents. Very frankly, in America there is an official literature-and there are a lot of people in the African-American community who feel maybe there is a conspiracy and that racism has a lot to do with it. Why, for instance, is AIDS the biggest problem that exists in Africa? You start to wonder if there is a social selection for this disease. Is it not a coincidence that Africa is the poorest continent in the world? Did you ever think that it's in the interest of some people for it to stay that way?"[15]
[edit] Denialism vs. Skepticism

It is possible to conflate skepticism and denialism, as proponents of both seem to "deny" that something exists until they're convinced otherwise. However, to say that a skeptic is a homeopathy denier and that a holocaust denier is skeptical would be wrong. While both have a negative or critical tone, the positions are different from each other in how they view and acquire data to support their position.

Skepticism is a method while denialism is a position. The opposite of "skeptic" is not "believer", and it is possible to embrace something while remaining skeptical. This is an important part of the ethos of science as it suggests new experiments to strengthen or falsify a proposition. Skeptics look at experiments to ensure that they were performed properly with the appropriate controls, proper data analysis and so on. The skeptical method involves examining all data and coming to a conclusion that it produces. Denialists, on the other hand, view data slightly differently, as a means to a predetermined end – minimizing its importance if it goes against their opinion, highlighting it if it supports them, or just plain misrepresenting it for their own purposes. Skeptics keep an open mind until data shows that a hypothesis is invalid, while denialists start with the conclusion and look for support. To put it another way, denialism embraces confirmation bias while skepticism seeks to avoid it.

One blogger put it this way:
“”Skeptics also ask questions, but a big difference between skeptics and denialists is that skeptics listen to answers and regard evidence as paramount. Denialists tend to see the piles of evidence against their claim, and see a conspiracy theory to perpetuate a hoax. But skeptics accept good evidence. Skeptics have a lot of respect for science, and denialists are usually out to undermine scientists working in the field where they have an agenda. Denialists will wear the costume of scientific thinking, but they usually show a piss-poor understanding how ... the accumulation of studies and data work. (For instance, they promote the idea that if one study can be found to be flawed, this brings down the whole theory, as if the other hundreds of studies don’t count.)

This distinction is really important, because the role of skeptics is to dispute and even disprove outrageous conspiracy theory claims. Skeptics fight against denialists. That’s why I’m interested in skepticism---I fear that there’s a surge of denialist thinking in our culture fueled by new media (which is great at a lot of good things, but also good at spreading misinformation) and the explosion in both complications in world politics and the everyday person’s awareness of them. As science begins to dictate more and more of what we know, there’s also a cultural backlash that’s related to the overall backlash against modernism. Skepticism is becoming more and more important as the political troops to defend science. So when people who are part of the anti-science backlash call themselves “skeptics”, this confuses the issue.[16]

The scientitific community's response to the possibility of an arsenic-based life form is a current example of skepticism.[17]
“”None of the scientists I spoke to ruled out the possibility that such weird bacteria might exist. Indeed, some of them were co-authors of a 2007 report for the National Academies of Sciences on alien life that called for research into, among other things, arsenic-based biology. But almost to a person, they felt that the NASA team had failed to take some basic precautions to avoid misleading results.[18]

Denialism also differs from legitimate historical revisionism in that the latter acknowledges that a historical event occurred, but uses a different interpretation of evidence. Denialism is usually historical negationism.
[edit] See also

Anti-environmentalism
One single proof
Denial of the victim
A comparative guide to science denial
JAQing off
Gish gallop
Essay:Elisions, in which blogger Stephanie Zvan discusses the use of lying by omission in denialism (specifically in the case of misogyny, but it applies overall)

[edit] External links

Michael Specter's TED talk on science denial
Denialism blog's list of denialist organizations
Naomi Oreskes on denialist tactics and global warming
The Science of Why We Deny Science by Chris Mooney
Skepticism and Denial by Steven Novella, compares AIDS denial, mental illness denial, evolution denial/creationism, and Holocaust denial.
Science Controversies Past and Present by Steven Sherwood in Physics Today
5 Characteristics of Scientific Denialism, Skeptical Science
Ahmed Ezz el-Arab, leader of the Egyptian liberal party Wafd, denies the reality of the Holocaust, the authenticity of The Diary of Anne Frank and the authenticity of Babylonian exile antiquities uncovered in an archaeological excavation beneath the al Aksa Mosque
Climate of Doubt, a Frontline report on climate change denialism

[edit] Footnotes

Yup, that describes you Denialists to a T. You continue to deny the Science which now shows that although CO2 has increased greatly, there is absolutely no "MAN-MADE" Global Warming happening, as was forecast by the Global Warming Alarmists 15 years ago. Maybe you can go to a Denialists Anonymous Meet-Up Group in your area.

Global Warmists Retreating - (Cool Video)

[www.sunnewsnetwork.ca]

***********

Sixteen Concerned Scientists: No Need to Panic About Global Warming - WSJ.com

[online.wsj.com]

"In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere."

*************

(Two articles written in Convoluted Language saying "We were wrong on "Man-Made" Global Warming)

Global Warming: Time to Rein Back on Doom and Gloom? - Telegraph

[www.telegraph.co.uk]

Climate science: A sensitive matter | The Economist

[www.economist.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2013 02:11AM by KidRaw.

”Skeptics also ask questions, but a big difference between skeptics and denialists is that skeptics listen to answers and regard evidence as paramount. Denialists tend to see the piles of evidence against their claim, and see a conspiracy theory to perpetuate a hoax. But skeptics accept good evidence. Skeptics have a lot of respect for science, and denialists are usually out to undermine scientists working in the field where they have an agenda. Denialists will wear the costume of scientific thinking, but they usually show a piss-poor understanding how ... the accumulation of studies and data work. (For instance, they promote the idea that if one study can be found to be flawed, this brings down the whole theory, as if the other hundreds of studies don’t count.)

hmm...hmm (cough). For real science read peer-reviewed papers, not what a talk show host says is science. Some self apointed scientific politicians want to define science when science does not say what they want to hear jeje. They repeat forever on the radio their mantra but the radio is a one way converstaion and not really a place to conduct science. They say to people what they want to hear. Politics should stay out of science.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/18/2013 11:20AM by Panchito.

Panchito Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Politics should stay out of science.


Yes, it should. That's what burns me up - how the Democrats and this Administration want to make money via Cap and Trade and all it has morphed into.

And how the UN wants to redistribute Wealth from America to all those other countries, all in the name of "Man-Made" Global Warming.

And how all the Government Grants are given to all those companies and corporations and universities, etc., in the name of 'Research' on "Man-Made" Global Warming.

Thanks for bringing up that aspect of the "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarmist Agenda.

And I feel some research coming on so I'll be back with more facts on all the Politics and the taxpayer's money that's wasted on the "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarmist Agenda.

Corporate Funders

Powell details the support of ExxonMobil for denialism, but omits the combative Koch brothers, owners of Koch Energy, the world’s largest privately held energy company. ExxonMobil is the biggest funder of global-warming denialism, spending nearly $16 million on more than forty organizations over the period 1998–2005. Powell also mentions in passing funding by ideological conservative foundations, motivated by opposition to government regulation of the economy. Hmm!

Here's an article about the carbon tax scam they have going in Australia - thanks to the "Green" Party -

[planet.infowars.com]

Of course, California - the state that has been ruined by Illegal Alien Amnesty during Reagan, so has been controlled by Democrats ever since and now is on the verge of bankruptcy - is trying to implement Carbon Tax to get more money out of taxpayers -

Boxer Pushes Carbon Tax to Ease Global Warming

[www.usatoday.com]

Sixty percent of the revenue would go to pay monthly rebates for citizens and legal U.S. residents (Wealth Redistribution) who are bound to face higher electric bills as utilities pass on the tax to consumers.

Luckily, the "Man-Made" Global Warming boat has sailed and the public has woken up to the scam that it is - another way for the government to take money from the people.

*****************

These articles detail how the UN wants to Redistribute Wealth through the "Man-Made" Global Warming Scam -

UN Decision Opens Door For Wealth Redistribution Via Climate Change Compensation

[thebellnews.com]

"While the American people were busy licking their wounds from the Presidential elections at the end of last year, the United Nations (UN) was busy creating a vehicle to redistribute wealth utilizing Climate Change.

According to an article from the BBC, in November at the UN DOHA 2012 Climate Change Conference, a decision was made that ‘rich’ nations should compensate ‘poor’ nations for the affects of Climate Change"

U.N. Official Admits: We Redistribute World’s Wealth by Climate Policy

[www.theblaze.com]

"Climate change skeptics have long theorized about ulterior motives behind attempts to legislate and regulate man-made global warming. This speculation reached a fever pitch after data from the University of East Anglia — widely referenced by the United Nations — was found to be flawed and private emails pointed to a broader conspiracy to falsify the so-called evidence.

But this speculation is only likely to grow after a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told a German news outlet, “[W]e redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Billions of cubic feet of poisons gases floating in our atmosphere, untold millions of tons of chemical by-products passed into our water, The destruction of the green cover of the earth. This happens day in day out. It takes a sociopathic state of mind to deny these simple facts.No science is needed. Humans are shitting in their own nest. But not the denialists. They are much nicer than the rest of us

Had to post this again because it rings so f..king true!
because I care about future generations, have grandchildren, have had the best life one could ever want nature, oceans, and would like to see others have that chance but with all these end of the worlders deniailst mad conspicys freaks, AND 12 MILLION BARRELS OUR CHILDRENS FUTURE Real isues on hold.
stick your head in the sand, Like kid raw said you lost. And yes we are all on the same path.

Straw Man Argument. Yes, humans are really polluting and messing up and maybe killing Mother Earth, but CO2 does not cause Global Warming.

Here take your pick of these Google Articles that - CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming.

[fficial&client=firefox-a" rel="nofollow" >www.google.com]

I'll choose some of the better ones myself tomorrow; right now I want to get to bed. Try to calm yourself, Bill.

OK, I will post this one of Alex Jones' -

Al Gore Admits CO2 Does Not Cause Majority Of Global Warming

[www.prisonplanet.com]

"In a new development that is potentially devastating to the agenda to introduce a global carbon tax and a cap and trade system, Al Gore admits that the majority of global warming that occurred until 2001 was not primarily caused by CO2.

Before we get too excited, Gore is not backing away from his support for the theory of man-made climate change, but his concession that carbon dioxide only accounted for 40% of warming according to new studies could seriously harm efforts to tax CO2, that evil, life-giving gas that humans exhale and plants absorb."

Here's a good one which sites the research -

New Blockbuster Paper Finds Man-Made CO2 is Not the Driver of Global Warming

[hockeyschtick.blogspot.com]

(Here is an excerpt, but I'm sure you'll want to read the whole article)

"An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that "CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2" The paper finds the "overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere," in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect of ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming. Prior research has shown infrared radiation from greenhouse gases is incapable of warming the oceans, only shortwave radiation from the Sun is capable of penetrating and heating the oceans and thereby driving global surface temperatures. "

The highlights of the paper are:

* The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

* Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

* Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

* Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

* Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

* CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions. "

Here is the original study -

The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature

[www.sciencedirect.com]

* Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2013 11:11AM by KidRaw.

I like that website - The Hockey Schtick. Here's their latest article --

Sunday, May 19, 2013

New Paper Finds Computer Models are Inconsistent with Temperature Reconstructions of the Past Millennium

[hockeyschtick.blogspot.com]

"A new paper published in Climate of the Past finds that computer model simulations of past climate are not consistent with reconstructed temperatures of past climate. Thus, either the model simulations are erroneous or the temperature reconstructions erroneous, or both."

And here's the paper -

Climate of the last millennium: ensemble consistency of simulations and reconstructions

[www.clim-past.net]

**************

Scientist: Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming

[www.usnews.com]

"Much of the global warming debate has focused on reducing CO2 emissions because it is thought that the greenhouse gas produced mostly from fossil fuels is warming the planet. But Steward, who once believed CO2 caused global warming, is trying to fight that with a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming. What's more, he says CO2 levels are so low that more, not less, is needed to sustain and expand plant growth.

Trying to debunk theories that higher CO2 levels cause warming, he cites studies that show CO2 levels following temperature spikes, prompting him to back other scientists who say that global warming is caused by solar activity."

****************

Here's a good one -

TEN MYTHS of Global Warming

[www.globalwarminghysteria.com]

"MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.

FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming."

I am so tired of pointing out that not all sources of information are valid. Just because it has the word "Science" in the name, doesn't make the blog/magazine legit. Also, industry sources do not equal science-based sources, for obvious reasons, which thus invalidates them.

You seemed to spend a lot of time compiling these, KidRaw. It's a shame you have not examined any of the legitimate sources for this stuff, and feel the need to still quote the East Anglia University statistical non-scandal and other outdated made-up controversies as a counter-argument in the year 2013. If you Google it, being careful to avoid the first two or three pages, which contain scads of not valid, non-science "skeptic" websites, in a matter of seconds you will get access to reams of actual first level legitimately scientific data on climate change that will tell you all you need to know about this issue once and for all.

A caution: Your side--the anti side--likes to exploit what is called the Consensus Gap: those scientists/scientific organizations that study climate change that haven't committed to the anthropogenic argument yet, as though this 3% or so acts as a clear contradiction to the anthropogenisis hypothesis. Of course, this 3% or so is not. Taking a page from the book of business, they are what I believe is called "statistically insignificant."

Hi Tamukha,

I see you couldn't resist jumping in

OK, forgetting about your criticism of my 'sources', (which seems to be the only technique left) which we've discussed on other topics, would you tell me if I am incorrect in stating that --

It has been found that there is an increase in CO2 in the last (I don't know how many) years.

And --

It is a fact that there is no Global Warming in the last 15 years?

So that would mean that although there is an increase in CO2, there is no corresponding "man-made" Global Warming, so therefore --

An increase in 'man-made' (burning of fossil fuels) CO2 does not equate to an increase in 'man-made' Global Warming.

*********

So jumping ahead - if that basic premise is correct, then all the 'Scientific' mumbo-jumbo is moot at this point.

*********

And as far as 'consensus' is concerned - LOL - it means that 97% of scientists have egg on their faces.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/21/2013 04:12PM by KidRaw.

KidRaw,

This is the primary problem of the anti side: The premise that the planet has not been increasingly warming for the past several hundred years, and due to human activity, is not supportible[except by non-scientist denialists] so it is wrong, as a hypothesis. Whether the planet has or hasn't been warming in the last 15 years, an increment too small to act as a conclusive demonstrative timeframe, is irrelevant. The arguments of our side are not concentrated around a single tiny slice of recent history, contrary to what the controversy-mongers of the anti side say. In any case, there is no dispute that we have reached and are exceeding 400 ppm, that this is unprecedented in hominid history, that industrialized, rapidly reproducing Homo sapiens populations must have contributed to this, and that in summary, this is qualifiably not beneficial to the biosphere.

I really don't understand how the vast majority of the data in toto can be so misrepresented(for it is not misinterpretation at work here) by the anti side. It's as though they do not understand that the primary information is in the public realm and we can see it and scientists can tell us about it. Why anyone would listen to a non expert instead of an expert about something like this is what really baffles me and other people I know.

I did find this amusing:

Quote

97% of scientists have egg on their faces.

Yet another statistical improbability. The supply is endless, it seems.

[www.naturalnews.com]
Global warming debunked: NASA report verifies carbon dioxide actually cools atmosphere
Wednesday, May 22, 2013 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

<<<For real science read peer-reviewed papers>>>

Panchito,

Don’t be FOOLED by PEER REVIEW!!!

“The idea that all scientific experiments are replicated to keep the process honest is also something of a myth. In reality, the number of findings from one scientist that get checked by others is quite small. Most scientists are too busy, research funds are too limited, and the pressure to produce new work is too great for this type of review to occur very often. What occurs instead is a system of “peer review,” in which panels of experts are convened to pass judgment on the work of other researchers. Peer review is used mainly in two situations: during the grant approval process to decide which research should get funding, and after the research has been completed to determine whether the results should be accepted for publication in a scientific journal.

Like the myth of the scientific method, peer review is also a fairly new phenomenon. ...As government support for science increased, it became necessary to develop a formal system for deciding which projects should receive funding.

In some ways, the system of peer review functions like the antithesis of the scientific method described above. Whereas the scientific method assumes that “experiment is supreme” and purports to eliminate bias, peer review deliberately imposes the bias of peer reviewers on the scientific process, both before and after experiments are conducted. ...peer review can also institutionalize conflicts of interest and a certain amount of dogmatism.” "Trust Us We're Experts!" p. 198

“’The problem with peer review is that we have good evidence on its deficiencies and poor evidence on its benefits,’ the British Medical Journal observed in 1997. ‘We know that it is expensive, slow, prone to bias, open to abuse, possibly anti-innovatory, and unable to detect fraud. We also know that the published papers that emerge from the process are often grossly deficient.’

In theory, the process of peer review offers protection against scientific errors and bias. In reality, it has proven incapable of filtering out the influence of government and corporate funders, whose biases often affect research outcomes.” "Trust Us We're Experts!" p. 199

A 1998 study from the New England Journal of Medicine found that 96% of peer reviewed articles had financial ties to the drug they were studying. (Stelfox, 1998) Big shock, huh? Any disclosures? Yeah, right. This study should be pointed out whenever somebody starts getting too pompous about the objectivity of peer review, like they often do.
[www.thedoctorwithin.com]

Peace and Love..........John