Quote of the day

The anonymous peer review process is the enemy of scientific creativity…peer reviewers go for orthodoxy.

Professor James Black

Quoted in Donald Gillies' submission to the House of Commons Science and Technology COmmittee. H/T Judith Curry.

Comments

[R2]

The 'Pink Diamonds' analogy is excellent.

For anyone interested, a longer, but related, article by Donald Gillies can be found on this link

[Lord Beaverbrook]

Why bother with Peer Review at all, Greenpeace don't find it necessary:

GREENPEACE-GENERATED LITERATURE CITED BY THE 2007 NOBEL-WINNING CLIMATE REPORT

* Aringhoff, R., C. Aubrey, G. Brakmann, and S. Teske, 2003: Solar thermal power 2020, Greenpeace International/European Solar Thermal Power Industry Association, Netherlands
* ESTIA, 2004: Exploiting the heat from the sun to combat climate change. European Solar Thermal Industry Association and Greenpeace, Solar Thermal Power 2020, UK
* Greenpeace, 2004: http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/cop10ing/SolarGeneration.pdf accessed 05/06/07
* Greenpeace, 2006: Solar generation. K. McDonald (ed.), Greenpeace International, Amsterdam
* GWEC, 2006: Global wind energy outlook. Global Wind Energy Council, Bruxelles and Greenpeace, Amsterdam, September, 56 pp., accessed 05/06/07
* Hoegh-Guldberg, O., H. Hoegh-Guldberg, H. Cesar and A. Timmerman, 2000: Pacific in peril: biological, economic and social impacts of climate change on Pacific coral reefs. Greenpeace, 72 pp.
* Lazarus, M., L. Greber, J. Hall, C. Bartels, S. Bernow, E. Hansen, P. Raskin, and D. Von Hippel, 1993: Towards a fossil free energy future: the next energy transition. Stockholm Environment Institute, Boston Center, Boston. Greenpeace International, Amsterdam.
* Wind Force 12, 2005: Global Wind Energy Council and Greenpeace, http://www.gwec.net/index.php?id=8, accessed 03/07/07

http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/01/28/greenpeace-and-the-nobel-winning-climate-report/