The following was brought to my attention as an example of how a lot of bad science passes the so-called peer review process at well respected publications like Nature. It’s specifically about pencil-whipped temperature data in global warming but is more broadly about a flawed peer review process in general. Especially flawed when the paper under review is supportive of consensus science like Global Warming or Neo-Darwinian Evolution. Can you say “rubber stamp”?
FLAWED NATURE PAPER ON GLOBAL WARMING
Douglas J. Keenan, November 2006