By Dr. S. Fred Singer
An essay in the current issue [Oct 2017] of Eos [house-organ & newsletter of the American Geophysical Union (AGU)] is titled “Red, Blue – and Peer-Review PR].”
The essay asserts that p-r is superior to a debate between a [red] team of climate skeptics and a [blue] team of alarmists. I disagree strongly, and will point to prominent cases where PR is misused to keep contrary opinions and facts from being published, thereby trying to enforce a “consensus.” A classic case is described by Douglass and Christy at
D&C are my coauthors; we published a research paper in the International Journal of Climatology [IJC] in 2007, showing a vast difference between climate models and actual observations. Based on leaked emails, Based on available Climategate emails, D&C recount the conspiracy of nearly 20 members of an alarmist “team,” led by Dr Ben Santer, trying to nullify our paper – with the shameful cooperation of the IJC editor.
I can cite many more examples — assuming that IPCC [UN-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] represents a kind of PR – as constantly claimed by alarmist IPCC proponents.
I have shown, and convinced many others, that the “evidential facts” in support of anthropogenic global warming [AGW], cited by the first three Assessment Reports [AR] of 1990, 1996 and 2001 are based on spurious analyses and data.
Recently, I discovered that the evidence used by AR4  and AR5  does not really exist; it is fake, an artifact of incomplete data analyses. I refer here to the reported surface warming of 1978-1997 [for details, see http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/a_global_warming_surprise.html].
There I show that during the 1980s and 1990s, data-gathering instruments underwent drastic changes: ocean temperatures from floating buoys went from zero to 60%; land temperatures from stations at airports went from 30 to 85%; both of these changes coincided by chance—and both produced a fictitious warming.
But publication of such a result is very difficult. It involves finding a sympathetic and courageous journal editor who will not send the manuscript to unfriendly, biased reviewers.
Obviously, a red-blue debate might rapidly settle any controversies – or at least, bring them to light. Thus one understands why consensus enforcers try to keep out inconvenient facts, avoid debates, and prefer Peer-Review.
The writer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia. He earlier served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service, now in NOAA.