Then I think there is a certain disconnect between how scientists understand science and how it is presented to the public at large. It certainly doesn't help in this regard that many scientists involved in Environmental Science are also passionate political activists. Maybe it is understood by scientists that peer review has flaws, but when they appear on morning talk shows the term "peer review" is wielded as a holy sword.
Regardless of the state of the current process, how could review become anything but better from increased openness?
>"And since reviewers know that they can't verify correctness, they tend to look for theoretical papers that very closely reproduce experimental results."
This seems to be part of the problem. "We'll use this data series for the 60 years that it agrees with everybody else, then throw it out for the 40 years where it doesn't, then not show anybody the 40 years we threw out".
But then again, I'm no climate scientist. Although, one would think that no harm would be done by releasing the data, even if there were legitimate statistical reasons for truncating it.
>"Ultimately, you have a system where a lot of genuinely smart, skeptical people are attacking ideas from all sides until either a consensus emerges, or the idea is destroyed."
If you're a smart, skeptical person attacking a paper that shows global warming to be severe, Michael Mann will get you fired. Or ignore your ideas. Mann just published a paper that appears to use an inverted data series after McIntyre already correctly pointed out that it was inverted, out of pride I suppose. Fine science, that.
Regardless of the state of the current process, how could review become anything but better from increased openness?
>"And since reviewers know that they can't verify correctness, they tend to look for theoretical papers that very closely reproduce experimental results."
This seems to be part of the problem. "We'll use this data series for the 60 years that it agrees with everybody else, then throw it out for the 40 years where it doesn't, then not show anybody the 40 years we threw out".
But then again, I'm no climate scientist. Although, one would think that no harm would be done by releasing the data, even if there were legitimate statistical reasons for truncating it.
>"Ultimately, you have a system where a lot of genuinely smart, skeptical people are attacking ideas from all sides until either a consensus emerges, or the idea is destroyed."
If you're a smart, skeptical person attacking a paper that shows global warming to be severe, Michael Mann will get you fired. Or ignore your ideas. Mann just published a paper that appears to use an inverted data series after McIntyre already correctly pointed out that it was inverted, out of pride I suppose. Fine science, that.