Wednesday, 20 June 2012

Inside peer review: a (top science)^3 case

I just found a very interesting exercise of transparency in peer review on a top scientific topic (climate change) in a top scientific journal (PNAS) by a top researcher (Prof Lindzen, MIT). Note that Prof Lindzen portrays a minority scientific view, he thinks climate change forecasts are uncertain and might be overestimating warming:


I found this after reading the NYT article "Clouds’ Effect on Climate Change Is Last Bastion for Dissenters" by J Gillis, April 30, 2012.

Disclaimer: I post this becuase it is a very interesting and unique case of how peer review works inside a top journal (for good and for bad). This does not mean I support Prof Lindzen's scientific work (my expertise is in fire dynamics).