From divulged emails regarding ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’, ie, Climategate:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes.
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor,” Jones replies.
From US Congressional Committee Report: INTOLERANCE AND THE POLITICIZATION OF SCIENCE AT THE SMITHSONIAN (full report):
In a series of emails on August 30, Dr. Ferrari and Dr. Sues discussed the Smithsonian’s procedures for hiring and firing a Research Associate and how Dr. Sternberg was approved for his RA position. Sues lamented that “The Sternberg situation could not have been prevented by senior management because his CV looks credible and does not reveal his interactions with the creationist movement.”44 Dr. Sues seemed to be suggesting that if Sternberg’s supposed interactions with the “creationist movement” were known, he would not have been approved as an RA, and the “situation” would have been prevented.
Dr. Ferrari’s comments also suggested a very real bias in the selection process: “I wonder, however, if we might consider a more open process of vetting nominees? For example, while a post doc here Sternberg was listed in an advertisement in the NY Times as a scientist at the Smithsonian Institution who did not believe in evolution. I saw that page and certainly would have spoken up had I known he was a prospective research associate.”45 Ferrari seemed to be suggesting that questioning evolution would disqualify a candidate for a position.
Similarly, in an email on September 9, Dr. Sues blamed the scientist who nominated Sternberg as a Research Associate for not adequately investigating his background. “Sternberg is a well-established figure in anti-evolution circles, and a simple Google search would have exposed these connections.”46 The clear implication was that had a background check been conducted on Sternberg’s non-governmental activities, he would have been barred from being a Research Associate.
Given the attitudes expressed in these emails, scientists who are known to be skeptical of Darwinian theory, whatever their qualifications or research record, cannot expect to receive equal treatment or consideration by NMNH officials. [Emphasis theirs]
For a little background, read this paragraph from the executive summary:
In January 2005, an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal first raised public awareness about disturbing allegations that officials at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) had retaliated against museum Research Associate (RA) Richard Sternberg because he allowed publication of an article favoring the theory of intelligent design in a biology journal.1 A well-published evolutionary biologist with two doctorates in biology, Dr. Sternberg claimed that after publication of the article, his colleagues and supervisors at the NMNH subjected him to harassment and discrimination in an effort to force him out as a Research Associate. [emphasis mine]
In debates about the merits of evolutionary theory it is customary to hear snide dismissals that opposing viewpoints are not published in ‘reputable’ ‘peer-reviewed’ journals. The congressional inquiry exposes what skeptics of evolution have known for a long time: there is systematic persecution of those who do not toe the evolutionary party line. Of course there won’t be peer-reviewed journal articles when it is dangerous to one’s professional career to submit them or approve them. Of course.
Contrary to allegations that acceptance of global warming is like acceptance creationism, the truth is exactly the opposite. As the quotes regarding Climategate show, in fact, this is the modern day ‘scientific’ method in action.
The Climategate emails shouldn’t arouse skepticism only about global warming, but anywhere we see the same kind of tactics. The Sternberg situation is just one example. I offer it here chiefly because the revelations come by email exchanges, concern a journal entry, and are thoroughly investigated and documented by no less an authority than the Congress of the United States. But there are many other examples. If you believe otherwise, you’ll believe anything.
And that, of course, is the problem.