Referring to Gunnar comment, dated May 27, 2011 at 9:17 AM

I’d rather click on a link to an article than having to Google it, more so when this article serves as a “backstory” to a blog post. Not including a link to a resource that is being critiqued is quite intriguing, condering the many resources being handwaved: Bouville, Clarke, Loui, etc. Perhaps this resource is the-One-to-which-we-should-not-link?

Readers that will consult that link above will see that the quote is not in the article itself, but in the standfirst. Incidentally, the conflation has not appeared in the main body of the article. Here is what Vergano says:

> The study, which appeared in 2008 in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, was headed by statistician Edward Wegman of George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. Its analysis was an outgrowth of a controversial congressional report that Wegman headed in 2006. The “Wegman Report” suggested climate scientists colluded in their studies and questioned whether global warming was real. The report has since become a touchstone among climate change naysayers.

Considering that the article contradicts it (“being and outgrowth” not preserving identity), one must presume that somebody else than Vergano wrote it. That might explain why the false “claims” are said to be “by USA Today” and not “by Vergano”.

The “claims” are distinct only if we decompose the proposition itself, analysis which was the subjected to an update in this blog post. The extent of the update might deserve due diligence. In any case, if we’re to accept Glen Raphael’s analysis, it comes from only one mistake: conflating Said & al 2009 with the Wegman Report.

This should be enough to show the that my questions were justified and that the quote deserved due diligence stands.

Anyone who follows bender’s advice might appreciate the rhetorical effect of the lack of the complete quote, the absence of a link to the resource, the exactness of the term “USA Today” and the plural of “claims”.

Which of the criteria satisfies this conclusion?

This discussion is getting off track. The definition of the word “Independent” is irrelevant. Let’s review the facts at hand:

1) Scientific truth is not determined by peer review.
2) Peer review is merely a QA process used by scientific magazines.
3) AGW advocates have been deceptive, directly implying that truth is determined by passing peer review.
4) Wegman offered the hypothesis that AGW advocates operate as a clique, self reviewing.
5) Steve M has pointed out that ClimateGate has provided empirical confirmation of Wegmans hypothesis.

Conclusion: AGW advocates have conspired to positively review their own papers and obstruct ‘skeptic’ papers. Note that #5 proves #1. If Reviewer Independence matters, then #1.

>> But perhaps the most telling is there continual unjustified reliance on using ‘peer-review’ to imply complete scientific truth.

If the goal is trying to avoid the scientific method, then it’s quite justified to push an alternate means to judge scientific truth, which is under the control of fellow AGW advocates.

>> MikeN: Having Congress trampling academic freedom and demanding the names of reviewers

There is absolutely no connection between anonymous review of papers for a magazine and “academic freedom”. Everyone is completely free to advance whatever scientific theories they wish, and research whatever they want to. Saying that reviewers have to be anonymous is like saying that software testers need to be anonymous. It’s an unsupportable assertion.

>> j ferguson: shouldn’t the meaning of “peer review’ be instead limited to “worth publication in this journal, no obvious internal inconsistencies, theses supported?”

Exactly.

Glad to acknowledge this concession, even though the quote was leading with “that the authors are not independent”.

> However, my original point – that I hadn’t done a post on Wegman’s social network thing and had never mentioned Said et al 2008 – reamins.

We heartily agree: any reader that followed bender’s advice can concede that, before this post, there never was no mention to Said & al (2008), and that Wegman’s social network analysis has never been a main topic.