Here's How "Science" Works Now — Pathetic

SEE HERE Based on this resignation of the editor of "Remote Sensing" because he published a paper that the global warming crowd found didn't correspond to their bias, we now have a science review system that is agenda driven. I'm sorry but that isn't science at all. Why bother doing research if the answer is already dictated by the bureaucracy? Here is Spencer's response to this outrage: RESPONSE Here's what he says at the end: "Apparently, peer review is now carried out by reporters calling scientists on the phone and asking their opinion on something most of them do not even do research on. A sad day for science."

Indeed it is a sad day for science. BTW, if you're interested be sure to read the comments on Spenser's response which I think are quite a tissue of name calling devoid of scientific merit. Has science devolved to the point where scientists just sit around throwing invectives at each other? I frankly wouldn't consider answering most of these kind of comments. They are not substantive. When you do something scientific it is about data and principles. The disagreements are about applicability and limits. When invective comes into play it is an indication that the agenda, some intended goal, some interest outside the realm of the science, has come to the forefront. That's bad science. Science is always about data and principles. If different principles are advanced then the correspondence with the data is used to decide which is doing a better job. That's it! Indeed, a sad day for science.