Wednesday
May042011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill SciTech on peer review
May 4, 2011 Journals The House of Commons inquiry into peer review is live streaming from 10:15 this morning. I will not be able to watch, so reports and comments are particularly welcome.
The stream should be here.
Reader Comments (6)
I will not be able to watch either.
I could try, but from experience I would soon become overtaken by an overwhelming urge to cut my own throat.
Unable to watch, as apparently you have to have Microsoft technology installed on your computer to watch this, and as a Linux user, I will not stoop that low.
Why would the UK parliament select a Microsoft patented solution do stream its proceedings to UK citizens?
Well.. I'm afraid I didn't find it very interesting. Truth be told, I only had one eye on it (the other was on Facebook - dual screen computing FTW!) so I can't offer a useful review of proceedings. Mr Stringer did get the boot in, at least a little bit, with mention of Climategate's evidence of peer review corruption. Nobody close to the field present, though, so there was a disappointingly low take-up on the question/issue he raised.
One bright point, which is important to us climate sceptics, was that there seemed to be broad agreement that the public has a faulty perception of the peer review process as a mark of quality and integrity. It was suggested (with nobody noticeably dissenting) that this was something that needs to be fixed. Glad that's on record.
steveta_uk, I'm on Windows and I couldn't even watch it on Google Chrome. It forced me into IE. :(
This is the shift away from Adobe Flash, I think. Pretty sure last time I watched Parliament TV, I was watching on that.
I watched the opening gambit here in france, no problem. BUT after the intros of the 5 witnesses and the chair I got bored. 6 supreme plonkers with the charisma of cold rice pudding.
I'm sorry Bish, I just could not find a reason to waste my time. The first question from the plonker in the chair was could the witnesses provide a description of something to replace peer review. Not exact words but near enough.
From the Ecclesiastical Uncle, an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate with minimal qualifictions and only half a mind.
Some weeks back, I posted that this enquiry would be a waste of time. I now repeat: would not legislators' time be better spent in more careful consideration of matters they can actually legislate on?
If they want peer review shennanigans exposed to scrutiny they should get a retired judge or some other non-parliamentarian to do the job for them. Probably get a better result too!