Gabriel writes: >These days, peer-reviews don't seem to amount to much if there is a collusion >between scientists, as the Univ of East Anglia fiasco indicates - cash seems >to be the most important thing "cash-strapped researchers need to present >convincing cases of the imperative of their research proposal". Sorry if I >upset modern scientists, but such is the case that too many "mistakes" and >"coverups" do make one a skeptic.
I agree with Gabriel on this one. In may fields, there is a research/academic mafia out there who decides whose papers get published and whose get rejected. You dont have a 'godfather' behind you, and it is very difficult to get something published many a times. However, I cant comment if the above is the case on this particular issue of climate change as I dont know enough. regards, Samir
