Bugsy says:

"Getting rid of anonymity is a recipe for disaster."

No, there are too many disasters now, especially in climate science; and the emails have told us why; the subject is ideologically and financially driven.

The choice is between secret spite and spite out there in the open.

Anyone who argues against transparency in the process of evolution of scientific knowledge is obviously a disciple of the 'science is settled' mantra.

And again, it all comes down to 'climate science' doesn't it cohenite. Nobody ever cares about genetics, or materials science or quantum physics. No, peer review in those fields is uncontroversial for all you 'true science' defenders.

You guys can make the case to the general population that peer-review can be ignored when it is inconvenient (as Don has previously), but you would be hard-pressed to convince most actual scientists that should be the case. As to loss of anonymous review, many would not agree to review others work because they do not want anything they about a fellow scientists work say to become the subject of a public slagging match. Which all guys really do isn't it?

Knowing who reviewed your unsuccessful grant application would be even worse.

No, I think the peer review system is fine for science in general for reasons that are obvious to people who actually work in the area. The abuses are generally sporadic and few, not systemic.

But deep down I suspect you just want to know who rejected you don't you? I still can't understand why you haven't tried another journal?

"And again, it all comes down to 'climate science' doesn't it cohenite.'

Of course it does; the state of peer review and scientific process in AGW is dreadful. Another recent example is the new paper by Anastassia Makarieva, Victor Gorshkov, Douglas Sheil, Antonio Nobre, Larry Li:

http://judithcurry.com/2013/01/31/condensation-driven-winds-an-update-new-version/

They describe a hitherto ignored fundamental atmospheric process which goes to the heart of the manifest defects in AGW modelling; their experience with the peer review is typical of every 'heretical' paper over the last decade.

Yet instead of having an open mind about it you attempt to personalise it; I have never said peer review should be ignored but right now it has been subverted by such concepts as the consensus, authoritative declarations and personal smears of disbelievers by the likes of Lewandowsky.

This is not science and is at a level in AGW which is different in kind rather than degree with the problems of peer review in other areas of science which you name.

I don't have an agenda with AGW except a desire that the crucial area of scientific service offered by climate studies should be as objective and accurate as possible.

This has not happened up to now and this failure will continue until the AGW advocates discard the ridiculous idea that climate science is 'settled'.

LOL Cohenite,

Your posts are becoming bizarre.

Makarieva and Ghorshkov proposed their "biotic pump" in 2006. See my post on this forum on 20 January 2010 9:00:55 AM.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9946&page=0

The issue is by not as clear cut as you suggest. Nobody doubts that the mechanism Makarieva et al propose exists; but there is considerable doubt that the effect is as significant as they think.* I can imagine that this was a very difficult paper to review and that the editors of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics would have proceeded with caution. And perhaps they were overcautious.

But once again the paper was published and it was published in one of the leading specialist journals on the topic. This does not sound like a failure of peer review in climatology.

Note that if Makarieva et al are correct the implications are ALARMING.

People who want to read more about Makarieva et al's latest paper may find popular descriptions on the following "warmist" sites:

Environmental News Network: http://www.enn.com/wildlife/article/45539

And Mongobay:

>>Given what's at stake, Sheil notes that part of the pushback on the theory may be due to "a fear that opening up such a debate about the core climate principles is a gift to global warming deniers.**" But if the biotic pump turns out to be true, it would not change the fact that the climate is changing and herculean efforts are needed to mitigate both the causes and the impacts, whether that focuses on greenhouses gas emissions, forests, or, as it happens, both, since forests ability to store carbon is just one of the many services they provide.>>

http://news.mongabay.com/2013/0130-hance-physics-biotic-pump.html#DTBdtUw6tsBVMYC2.99

This is the way science progresses. We learn more, debate, and constantly improve our understanding.

And maybe we can solve all our climate problems by planting trees. Now there's a cheerful thought.

Bugsy

Have you seen anything on this thread that suggests a systemic failure of peer review in climate or anything else?

I haven't.

*Full disclosure. I think Makarieva et al are right.

**I think that's you they have in mind Cohenite :)

You're a joke steven, a shill for AGW; Makarieva is an expert on condensation and the fact that condensation DECREASES pressure. ALL the AGW models are based on an assumption that condensation INCREASES pressure.

With such an assumption you get higher temperature, positive feedback and complete unreliability in predicting hurricanes and storms; all of which are features of AGW modelling.

Such an assumption was the basis of the idiotic Lascis et al paper 'proving' CO2 was the "control knob" of climate:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356.abstract

And look at the time Lascis needed to get his abomination published; 2 months!

It took Makarieva et al 2 years and her paper is based on known basic science unlike the rest of AGW!

AGW peer review is a joke.

I don't think I can add much to the discussion, and I'll let the ad hominems pass to the keeper.

The point about publication in PNAS is that a member of that body can ask for his or her paper to be reviewed. That is a considerable advantage not shared by the ordinary researcher, and had not one of the lead authors been a member of PNAS they might still be looking for a journal that would publish them.

That peer review failed in this case doesn't mean that the peer review system is a failure. I can't think of a better system, and have said so in my own essays, but it does suffer from the ordinary human failings. Editors and editorial boards in particular need to think hard before they reject papers that challenge the orthodoxy, whatever the discipline or field. This is both more difficult and more necessary in fields like pre-clinical medicine and climate science, where the orthodoxies are strongly supported by corporations and/or governments.