Climategate: Peer Review This

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Dec. 3, 2009

Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. There's a consensus that it's going to change, so they've decided to keep us in the dark.
− James Taranto

The global-warming scandal is in the news. Oh wait, it isn’t in the news. It is a hot topic on talk radio and Fox News. But the mainstream media have given it scant mention, and then only to minimize the scandal.

Why do I have to listen to Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt and Dennis Prager, or watch Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, or visit conservative websites to discover this crucial information? If anyone had doubts about the leftist bias of the mainstream media, those doubts have been removed. If anyone questioned whether the media censor news unfavorable to their leftist agenda, this question has been answered.

E-mails hacked from some of the leading “scientists” who advocate the man-caused global-warming hypothesis reveal a web of deceit, cherry-picking favorable data, and “losing” unfavorable data. But the New York Times belittles the incriminating e-mails as “spicy,” as if they involved sexual peccadilloes, and as “red meat,” as if those who uncovered the conspiracy were wild beasts.

Meanwhile, the U.N., which hopes to use climate-change hysteria to further world government, belittles the scandal and, Titanic-like, steams full speed ahead into the moonless night of fabricated results and predetermined conclusions.

But if the computer models of the climatologists were reliable, why did they “predict” the one degree of global warming that had already occurred in the 20th century, yet were unable to predict the slight cooling that occurred in the first decade of the 21st century? In case you forgot, “predict” means to “say before,” not after. Any fool can concoct a theory that explains what already happened. It takes a real scientist to formulate a theory that predicts what will happen.

In the ironic words of Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics, “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” And in the accurate words of anonymous, “If you torture the data long enough, they will tell you anything you want to hear.”

Crucial to this question is peer review − the process by which a scientific article is reviewed by experts in that field before it can be published in a reputable journal. Actor Ed Begley claims that global-warming deniers’ views are worthless, because they were not subject to peer review. But what does “peer” mean − a scientist of known status, or one who is known to agree with you?

For two decades, peer-reviewed journals reported studies which “proved” that hormone-replacement therapy after the menopause: (1) reduced osteoporosis, which it did; (2) reduced heart disease and stroke, which it didn’t; (3) reduced dementia, which it didn’t; and (4) did not increase breast or endometrial cancer, which it did.

But in the last few years, further studies, also published in peer-reviewed journals, reported the correct data. As a result, recommendations were changed, and many fewer women now receive hormone-replacement therapy.

During the years that hormone replacement was recommended, billions of dollars were made by selling these drugs. Could drug-company dollars have influenced the results of these favorable studies?

How could so many researchers publish so many erroneous studies in so many peer-reviewed journals? This question has not been answered, because it has not been asked. Researchers and journal editors simply ignore this huge anomaly.

During the long period of error, I wrote a letter to the editor of a leading cancer research journal. I raised the possibility that hormone-replacement therapy might increase breast cancer. My letter was not published. The reviewer returned it with a sarcastic note, implying that I was an ignoramus for mentioning such a ridiculous idea.

Like most reviewers, he was anonymous, and free to vent his personal and professional prejudices.

During this time, I was active in a group of medical researchers, studying new therapies for cancer and funded by the National Institutes of Health. Among the new drugs we studied was one touted to be effective in lung cancer. But another group published its report first. They claimed the drug was indeed effective. Their report appeared in a leading cancer journal. The peer reviewers failed to note that all patients whose tumors were unchanged during the brief period of the study were reported as “responders,” rather than those whose tumors actually shrank.

We found that the drug produced few responses, and in addition was quite toxic. We submitted our report to the same prestigious journal. It was rejected. One anonymous reviewer complained that our study “contradicted previously reported data.” By this standard, Galileo was mistaken − previous reports claimed that the sun revolved around the earth.

Eventually our negative study was published in a second-rate journal, where it attracted little attention. Later, our grant was not renewed. But an oncologist in practice told me, “It’s too bad − I used to wait for your reports to see what the real story was.”

The pattern is clear: Positive study = prestigious journal + more grants. Negative study = lesser journal + fewer grants. Which path would you follow if your goal were advancing your career rather than advancing science? But when we add a political agenda to the mix, things get even worse.

A leading medical journal favors strict gun control. It publishes studies claiming to show that strict gun control reduces homicide and suicide. When serious flaws in these studies are pointed out, the letters are either belittled or not published. When Dr. John Lott published a book demonstrating that strict gun control is counter-productive, the editors chose an ardent supporter of gun control to write the book review. Surprise! The review was unfavorable. So much for objectivity.

This same journal shows a leftward bias. Hardly an issue arrives without an article proclaiming the alleged virtues of government-controlled health care. And the journal publishes articles favoring assisted suicide. But it rejects brief letters to the editor holding the contrary view. It rejects mention of the Hippocratic Oath, which forbids assisted suicide and euthanasia.

When we combine the urge to obtain government and foundation grants, the urge to be promoted and gain tenure, and the urge to be politically correct and have colleagues sit with you at lunch, we get an almost irresistible urge to “go along to get along.”

● Postmenopausal hormone therapy? Why not? Almost everyone says it’s good for women. Besides, most researchers are men.

● Pushing barely effective drugs while minimizing their side effects? Why not? We’ll get more publications, more grants and more prestige.

● Pushing man-caused global warming, even if this means cherry-picking favorable data and “losing” unfavorable data? Why not? We want to keep our government jobs. Almost everyone is doing it, and we’ll get more publications, more grants and the satisfaction of “saving the planet.” But be sure to mention which planet. Mars and Pluto are warming too, and the last time we checked, there were no SUVs there. Might variations in the heat output of the sun be responsible? Shhh! Someone might hear you.

After all, it’s “settled science.” “The debate is over.” Al Gore said so. Besides, if the whole thing proves to be a hoax, we’ll just go on to the next topic for research. No one will examine what went wrong. At least, no one has yet.

Corrupt science for a political or a personal agenda? Shake people’s faith that any scientific study is objective? Why not? Who will complain? Surely not the peer reviewers. We selected them carefully − they really are our peers, in all possible senses.

The mechanisms of science are designed to detect error, not fraud. We have a conspiracy to obtain government and foundation money by using fabricated data transmitted by mail and e-mail − that is, mail and wire fraud. Now is the time for a congressional investigation. Now is the time for subpoenas, grand juries, and federal agents seizing records before more are “lost.”

A politically correct crime is still a crime. Corrupting science is a terrible crime. We must restore the integrity of science itself.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com