Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[CapelDodger]

Does he have a lawyer and is he in court? Because that's "on trial" where I'm from. It's a pretty simple metric and I'd be shocked if it's not the same just about everywhere in the English speaking World.

You're not on trial in a Divorce Court and yet there you are, in a court, with a lawyer. Or, more likely, your lawyer's there without you.

You're using "on trial" as a figure of speech to evoke a response, not because you're concerned for (or even aware of) the legal niceties. You used "guilty" when you brought this subject up (why did you bring it up? Oh yes, it's high-profile in the denier world, like Cuccinelli now is, and you're open to that kind of manipulation), and with the same intent. Monckton said that Mann was "subject to criminal proceedings" for that same intent.

The intent, of course, is to associate a fine scientist with such negative terms, thereby influencing susceptible minds. I don't mean to imply that you're doing it deliberately; yours seems clearly to be one of those susceptible minds.

 

[CapelDodger]

This would qualify you for the MDC, unless of course you're on the UVA legal team and have read the emails. Or you're Mann himself.

All it requires is a look at the grant application. There's nothing on there which could be called into question by anything in the emails.

You seem (but it's hard to be sure) to believe that there is "data" involved in the grant application, but there isn't. First comes the grant application, then comes the research, then comes the data, then come the papers reporting and interpreting the data.

Look at the grant application form and imagine where fraud might lie; then imagine how the emails might reveal it in this case. It'll take some imagination.

 

[CapelDodger]

This is typical of the hyperbole coming from warmists. If anything is challenged it's "evil harassment". You may be unaware but in North America harassment is illegal. Until there is court action at least initiated by those representing Mann claims of "harassment" are smoke screen and handwaving.

Harrassment through the US court-system has been a constant of US history. It is a nation created by lawyers, for lawyers, and hag-ridden by lawyers. The idea that harrassment doesn't exist unless a private citizen with normal resources takes it to court is ridiculous.

Cuccinelli is doing it on the public dime; the ATI has large funds, rich funders, and could just fold its tent if damages were ever awarded. They can keep it going for decades while Mann was paying for lawyers, in court, and therefore "on trial" and potentially guilty (in susceptible minds).

Check out the real world. It's clearly not like you think it is.

 

[Reality Check]

...OJ stuff...
They don't have a case against Mann, that's entirely different from being cleared of any wrongdoing.

Forgot abut the second part of this comment.
They don't have a case against Mann, therefore he has done no wrong. If he has done no wrong then there is no need for him to be cleared of wrongdoing!

There is a thing called presumption of innocence. It is a bedrock of law in many countries including the USA. A prosecutor having unfounded ideas about the guilt of someone does not mean that that person is automatically guilty. That prosecutor has to actually get a guilty verdict in a trial. AFAIK the presumption of innocence also applies in civil cases in the USA.

Ken Cuccinelli's fishing expedition under FATA did not even get to trial. An unbiased or competent lawyer would have stopped at the circuit court level:
Virginia Supreme Court Rejects Subpoenas of Climate Scientists’ Emails

Today’s decision follows a circuit court judge’s motion in August 2010 to set aside Cuccinelli’s request. The circuit court judge ruled that the attorney general had failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing by Mann or any other climate scientist. Several independent investigations have cleared Mann of any research misconduct, and Mann’s data and methods are publicly available.

Instead he pursued the matter to the VA Supreme Court where a basic flaw in the case was pointed out - the FATA applies to people, not universities.

 

[Trakar]

Does he have a lawyer and is he in court? Because that's "on trial" where I'm from. It's a pretty simple metric and I'd be shocked if it's not the same just about everywhere in the English speaking World.

What leaves you "shocked" is increasingly irrelevent, what is of importance and significance to veracity are the terms we choose to use and why we choose them.

"On trial," implies "stands accused of a crime" "just about everywhere in the English speaking World." If you did not mean to imply that Mann was accused of a crime and defending himself from those charges in a legal setting, then stating that Mann was "on trial" was at best, an inept choice of words.

 

[Trakar]

Originally Posted by Furcifer
Well "technically" they weren't going after someone, they were going after the emails. The reality is they're going after the emails to go after Mann. Even I know this.

Well, you can't go after the emails, without probable cause. You don't get to just investigate people and rummage through their personal papers and communications because you don't like them and want to see what you can find to gin up and harass them with, that is an abuse of power, and a statutory crime in itself,...even (and especially) if you are the Attorney General of the State.
Well, you can't go after the emails, without probable cause. You don't get to just investigate people and rummage through their personal papers and communications because you don't like them and want to see what you can find to gin up and harass them with, that is an abuse of power, and a statutory crime in itself,...even (and especially) if you are the Attorney General of the State.

Nonsense. Show me anywhere in the FOI act it says anything remotely to that effect.

I see you've located your error regarding the issues involved in the Virginnia legal hearings, namely that this case was about FOIA request rejections and not about prosecuting Mann for fraud. Very good! What was it that clued you in, my quoting of Virginia FOIA statutes, or the continual questioning of your assertions regarding Mann being on trial for fraud?

As to the rest of your understandings, isn't this the same "conspiracy theory" you just rebuked Capel for?

FOIA is not a tool to be used for harassment because you don't like someone and want to find dirt on them, this is an abuse of FOIA.

If you are seeking supporting evidences of a crime, you demonstrate probable cause and sopena the records. Lacking probable cause you cannot conduct a fishing trip by harassing individuals and institutions with FOIA requests. In my reading of the Virginia FOIA statute, Mann's emails are not subject to FOIA as they are personal communications and not "public records." The law specifically defines public records as:

..."Public records" means all writings and recordings that consist of letters, words or numbers, or their equivalent, set down by handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostatting, photography, magnetic impulse, optical or magneto-optical form, mechanical or electronic recording or other form of data compilation, however stored, and regardless of physical form or characteristics, prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees or agents in the transaction of public business. Records that are not prepared for or used in the transaction of public business are not public records.

(empahsis underlining in original statute)

 

[Trakar]

This is typical of the hyperbole coming from warmists. If anything is challenged it's "evil harassment". You may be unaware but in North America harassment is illegal. Until there is court action at least initiated by those representing Mann claims of "harassment" are smoke screen and handwaving.

Seems to be a lot of the "typical hyperbole" from extremists on both sides of this issue. Personally, I wish such had their own specific area in the political or social discussion sections so that we wouldn't have all the muddying of the waters here in the science discussion forum. Not that I wouldn't participate there with you, but at the least this forum could be kept more directed toward the science and technical discussions of areas of AGW and AGW remediation.

 

[Furcifer]

No - because there was never a case brought against Mann so he was never on trial !

Nonsense, he had a lawyer representing him in court.

It may be semantics, Furcifer but it is quite simple: All of the leagal stuff has involved the UVa, not Mann.

Nonsense. They were after his emails, not the UVA email archive.

I don't believe you understand the process.

 

[Furcifer]

Then, there's a problem. Which one is the "complete list" as you told? Pick one, please.

It's irrelevant really, but if you insist look for the most recently updated.

If you make a convincing argument that such list is a serious list and not a dialectical tactic called saturation (self explanatory, but its base is to provoke a no-response by limitations of resources, then enlarging the list to claim a no-response by lack of arguments), then, you'll have some answers.

The list isn't serious, it's inane. I said that already.

I don't think that'll happen. Those lists are not very different that speaking badly of Johnny: "Johnny is a bad person; Johnny kicked a puppy; Johnny almost kicked a puppy; Johnny killed a puppy because it had kicked Johnny accidentally; that puppy-kicking scum of Johnny broke a window; ..."

I don't understand this analogy.

 

[Furcifer]

It is not a conspiracy theory, it's something which is glaringly obvious to anyone with an ounce of political understanding.

Think for a moment: had you heard of Cuccinelli before he got into this project? I very much doubt it - I hadn't, and I keep well-abreast of current affairs. Why would I (or you) notice Virginia's State's Attorney unless alerted to his nipple-covering hilarity?

I hadn't heard of Mann before his hockey stick. Does the same logic apply?

This is as much a conspiracy as any politician's career is. Itis, in fact, perfectly normal politics. Cuccinelli wanted to raise his profile in the GOP; AGW denial is a great way to achieve it, but how's a lawyer to get on that platform? Voila! Start a case against one of the great demons of the denier-world, Mann of the Hockey-Stick. He even gets to press the "activist judges" button, which is difficult in Virginia.

Your alleged motivation is not based in fact but speculation.

This may seem revelatory to you, and far less difficult to believe than that Mann may have revealed a conspiracy in his emails in a way that the SlimateItGate selection failed to (such a disappointment to so many that they'll never accept it), but it's pedestrian stuff. Nobody's going to write a historical thesis on Cuccinelli's motivations, and the notion that he actually suspected Mann of fraud is laughable.

Proving it's fraud is laughable. I don't think you can prove Mann used questionable statistical methods to secure funding, but the fact remains his methods have been quiestioned under peer review.

 

[Furcifer]

Forgot abut the second part of this comment.
They don't have a case against Mann, therefore he has done no wrong. If he has done no wrong then there is no need for him to be cleared of wrongdoing!

He's participated in a campaign to prevent transparency in climate science research. That's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, it was the fidning in all of the major investigations on the hacked emails

There is a thing called presumption of innocence. It is a bedrock of law in many countries including the USA. A prosecutor having unfounded ideas about the guilt of someone does not mean that that person is automatically guilty. That prosecutor has to actually get a guilty verdict in a trial. AFAIK the presumption of innocence also applies in civil cases in the USA.

That's a common misconception. It depends on the severity of the crime, which causes a shifting of the burden of proof. Just because the evidence is lacking doesn't constutue absolute proof of innocence. The OJ trial is a classic example of where the change in burden of proof supports both an innocent and guilty verdict.

Ken Cuccinelli's fishing expedition under FATA did not even get to trial. An unbiased or competent lawyer would have stopped at the circuit court level:
Virginia Supreme Court Rejects Subpoenas of Climate Scientists’ Emails


Instead he pursued the matter to the VA Supreme Court where a basic flaw in the case was pointed out - the FATA applies to people, not universities.

Persecution complex noted.

 

[Myriad]

Just a little skit inspired by the "it was much warmer in past geologic eras" argument for the alleged benign or beneficial environmental impact of global warming:

"Hey, want to go to lunch across the street?"

"Sure."

"OK, follow me out this window."

"Are you crazy? We're on the 50th floor."

"So?"

"Do I really have to explain this? If we jump out the window we'll fall fifty floors to the street and die."

"Nonsense. I have here considerable evidence that you were on the street yourself, just a few hours ago. In fact, you were several dozen feet below the street prior to that, as you traveled here by subway. You suffered no ill effect. This proves that being at street level is harmless. You have no rationale for objecting to jumping out the window."

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Trakar]

...Proving it's fraud is laughable. I don't think you can prove Mann used questionable statistical methods to secure funding, but the fact remains his methods have been quiestioned under peer review.

Questioned, and found to be both reasonable and in accord with standard field specific practices. More importantly, Mann's applications were substantiated by agreement in subsequent analyses utilizing a variety of statistical analysis evaluation techniques. Not surprising given Mann's acknowledged training and expertise in statistical and mathematical analyses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann

 

[Trakar]

He's participated in a campaign to prevent transparency in climate science research. That's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, it was the fidning in all of the major investigations on the hacked emails...

Please cite and reference these findings and the specific wordings in the findings which you feel support this assertion.

 

[Reality Check]

He's participated in a campaign to prevent transparency in climate science research.[/qupote]
That is totally wrong. That's been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt, it was the finding in all of the major investigations on the hacked emails.
You need to actually learn about what is happening instead of appearing to parrot denier conspiracy theory fantasies:
Investigations of the Climate-gate emails cleared Mann of any wrongdoing
This is a Wikipedia article but I hope that you a capable of following the citations to the actual sources

That's a common misconception. It depends on the severity of the crime, which causes a shifting of the burden of proof.

That's your misconception. The presumption of innocence applies to all criminal cases in the USA. The burden of proof is alway on the prosecution in criminal cases.

There is a shifting of the burden of proof in civil cases.

Just because the evidence is lacking doesn't constutue absolute proof of innocence.

I never siad that.
You are assuming that Mann is guilty of fraud just because people have accused him of fraud without any evidence unless someone (e.g. Ken Cuccinelli) is ignorant or biased enough to think that the Climategate emails are that evidence.

The OJ trial is a classic example of where the change in burden of proof supports both an innocent and guilty verdict.

The OJ trials are a classic example of the different burden of proof between a criminal trial (his innocent verdict) and a civil trial (his guilty verdict).
The OJ trials have nothing to with Mann since Mann has never been on trial.

Persecution complex noted.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Ken Cuccinelli's fishing expedition under FATA did not even get to trial. An unbiased or competent lawyer would have stopped at the circuit court level:
Virginia Supreme Court Rejects Subpoenas of Climate Scientists’ Emails
Instead he pursued the matter to the VA Supreme Court where a basic flaw in the case was pointed out - the FATA applies to people, not universities.

Inability to understand that I am not the UVA or Mann noted .

But seriously: Here is an AG who has ignored some of the basics of state law ! That makes him biased or incompetent.

If you read the VA Supreme Court finding then it is not complex law.
The issue was whether the FATA definition of a person (a "person" is defined as "any natural person, corporation, firm, association,organization, partnership, limited liability company, business or trust.") might include the UVA.
But the Commonwealth of Virgina is exempt from laws passed for citizens of the Commonwealth (the 'persons' in FTA). Interesting citation:

Whiteacre v. Rector, 70 Va. (29 Gratt.) 714, 716 (1878) ("It is old and familiar law . . . that where a statute is general, and any . . . interest is diverted or taken from the king, . . . the king shall not be bound unless the statute is made by express words or necessary implication to extend to him.");
​

A question was whether "corporations" includes governmental entities such that UVA. One reason that this was rejected were that there are other acts that include "corporations" but not governmental entities

"The Code is replete with definitions of "person" that include the term "corporation" but do not otherwise include governmental entities."
​

Even the "necessary implication" is lacking in FATA since the person definition is a natural person and related private sector entities.

 

[Reality Check]

Furcifer, Who is named in the ATI FO

Nonsense, he had a lawyer representing him in court.

Nonsense, he has a lawyer representing his interests in court.
He has not been charged with anything thus he is not on trial.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
It may be semantics, Furcifer but it is quite simple: All of the leagal stuff has involved the UVa, not Mann.

The dismissed FATA case was gainst the UVA.
The FOIA case is against the UVA.
Mann does have la awyer representing his interests but this was his choice: Timeline: Legal Harassment of Climate Scientist Michael Mann

November 1
Virginia Circuit Court Judge Gaylord Finch grants Mann standing to challenge ATI's attempts to access his private correspondence.QUOTE]

These are basic facts that you need to learn, Furcifer.

I don't believe you understand the process.

I don't believe you understand that the actions are being taken against the University of Virginia.
I know that you cannot understand that is is the UVA that is on trial, not Mann.

 

[CapelDodger]

I hadn't heard of Mann before his hockey stick. Does the same logic apply?

The same logic regarding what? If you're claiming that Mann et al produced their temperature reconstruction to increase their profile in the scientific world, you're quite right - that's why scientists publish. They have careers and ambitions, and their status depends on the work they do and publish.

As usual, you've missed the point. Cuccinelli makes no secret of the fact that he's an ambitious career politician, and his spurious pursuit of Mann raises his profile in exactly the way he requires. To progress as a US Republican politician these days it is necessary to explicitly deny AGW and attack climate science and scientists. You'd have to be a troglodyte not to recognise that fact.

Your alleged motivation is not based in fact but speculation.

It's a fact that Cuccinelli is an ambitious politician, who made no secret of his desire to run for Governor. It's also a fact that he is now running for Governor, and his new-found role as a hero of the denier cult makes him a front-runner for the nomination.

Since no alternative explanation for his assault on Mann has ever been presented (by you or anyone else) the obvious reason stands unchallenged. Or perhaps you do have a credible alternative which you've kept to yourself?

Proving it's fraud is laughable. I don't think you can prove Mann used questionable statistical methods to secure funding ...

How do you imagine he might have "used questionable statistical methods to secure funding" ? Where do you see the use of statistical methods in his grant application? I'll answer that: you don't, becaue they aren't in there. No data, no statistical methods.

... but the fact remains his methods have been quiestioned under peer review.

And found to be valid. It's perfectly normal for published results to examined for their methods and conclusions (it's known as post-publication peer-review) and sometimes papers are published taking issue with them. The fact that Mann's methods were questioned is of no significance.

You'll no doubt recall that McIntyre rose from complete obscurity on the basis of his questioning of Mann's methods, and McIntyre's efforts were largely demolished. Those points which were arguable made no significant difference to the results (despite the claims of McIntyre and the denier cult).

As to the Wegman report, it's Wegman who's been exposed as a fraud and serial plagiarist. So you have nothing to go on except your fading hopes that AGW really is a house-of-cards, that it depends utterly on the Hockey-Stick, and that trashing Mann's reputation will demolish that.

 

[Gwynpaine]

My MP and the "Cool" Decade

As the scientists become more worried, the voters become more complacent. In English-speaking countries a majority have now come to believe that global warming has mainly natural causes. The spread of denial or scepticism among our legislators is a notable factor. UK readers see the fascinating memoirs of Chris Mullin, who finds himself persuaded by Nigel Lawson and, more significantly, cannot find a colleague who was capable of unpersuading him. There are as far as I know, no trained scientists in the Commons. It would be useful for readers to monitor their legislator to see where he stands. The following correspondence may be of interest.

ABERGAVENNY CHRONICLE, Letter 19 APRIL 2012.

“One expert in ten says that Snake Oil is good for you!” Anyone reading that advertisement would steer clear of snake oil. But they might be suckered by the salesman who says “I am no expert myself, but there do exist qualified experts who have proved that snake oil is beneficial; here is what they say....”
David Davies, our Member of Parliament, is such a salesman. He peddles the snake oil of climate change skeptism, which might seriously damage our grandchildren’s health. On his website he promotes the familiar claims of climate skeptics (the globe has now stopped warming, there is a conspiracy to suppress the truth... etc)

There do indeed exist some properly-credentialled experts who are outside the scientific consensus. But they are not so numerous as to be one in ten. The Proceedings of the [US] National Academy of Sciences in 2010 published a study reviewing the stance of those climate researchers with the most publications and citations in prestigious peer-reviewed science journals . The study found that 97–98% of those actively publishing in this field believed “that most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”
David Davies has admirable qualities. Scientific expertise is not among them. It is not impossible of course that our local MP in his amateur researches has got it right, and hundreds of top climatologists have got it all wrong. But that is not the way to bet.
Yours etc
Gwynne Paine

LETTER TO ABERGAVENNY CHRONICLE 27 APRIL


Sir,
I am disappointed that our member of Parliament David Davies did not reply to my letter 19 April. This scourge of the Greens seems to be a recent convert to climate scepticism. In October 2009 he voted in Parliament to call on the government and other public bodies to achieve a 10 per cent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions within a year. Yet in 2011 he has written on his website:


“Furthermore, as they struggle to meet rising energy costs many people are stumbling across a very inconvenient truth indeed. Average global temperatures have stopped rising. Yes that is a fact.

I found it out by going through the Met Office website and looking closely at the graphs. It takes a while to find the relevant one, but persist and you will be rewarded. The figures used by the Met Office come straight from the Hadley Centre whose employees are so committed to the theory of global warming that they tried to suppress evidence which contradicted their view”

Without result I wrote privately to Mr Davies asking him to specify the published Met Office graph that convinced him that average global temperatures had stopped rising. I have not yet managed to “stumble” upon it. But that may be because I know how to distinguish a long-run trend from a short-run variation. Mr Davies hints, without specifics, that there has been a suppression of evidence for recent cooling. Possibly he is referring to Professor Jones’ famous “Climategate” email referring to a “trick’ made in order to “hide the decline.” But that e-mail was dated November 1999. Thanks in some part to a huge El Nino event, the previous year was up to that point the undisputedly hottest year of the hottest decade on record. There was no decline to hide.

Yours etc Gwynne Paine

The study I cited was Anderegg Jacobson and Schneider , Proceedings 2010 Easily googled. This study of opinion is simple sociology, not abstruse climate science. Anyone join in. Anderegg has been attacked by sceptics such as Bordenstein, Aarstad, Pielke pere et fils. For my part I find their critiques too feeble to support any notion that meritorious skeptical articles have been denied peer review on any significant scale. True, it is generally harder to get articles published if you are challenging a prevailing orthodoxy with a new point of view. But skepticism is an old point of view, and other surveys show that it has only gradually lost out the prevailing orthodox. I stand ready to discuss the matter in greater and even more boring detail, if asked.

My conservative MP did not of course really pursue his own “amateur researches”. He took his opinion from Nigel Lawson, who took them from Professor Richard Lindzen. Lindzen led a team of sixteen skeptical scientists/engineers in a Wall Street Journal op ed Jan 27 2012 “No Need to Panic about Global Warming”. Skeptics do not lack outlets. Their central point: “the inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over ten years now” They clearly play this as their strongest card.

 

[CapelDodger]

As the scientists become more worried, the voters become more complacent. In English-speaking countries a majority have now come to believe that global warming has mainly natural causes.

That's very questionable. Opinion follows weather (consider how a very wet April has led to "Where's this drought, then?" talk over in England) but generally stays above 50% in normal countries, and in the US a very warm winter has the numbers up as well.

The spread of denial or scepticism among our legislators is a notable factor.

Not really. There are more Tories in Parliament so there's more apparent denial, but they don't have much of a voice. The Mail, the Excess and the Torygraph are far more influential.

My conservative MP did not of course really pursue his own “amateur researches”. He took his opinion from Nigel Lawson, who took them from Professor Richard Lindzen.

Lawson is related by marriage to Monckton; that's what got him onto the team. "Lord" Lawson had fallen into complete obscurity for years before that, while Monckton had never risen out of it. It was Lawson who employed Monckton as an adviser because Monckton needed the money (having blown his inheritance on grandiose schemes). Lawson was Chancellor, the Chancellor lives at No 11 Downing Street, so Monckton was a "Downing Street adviser", from which he has promoted himself to science adviser to Margaret Thatcher. Grandiosity again - it's a symptom of a genetic disorder he claims to have cured.

Monkton discovered AGW-denial late in his career, via one of his many strange friends, and almost immediately became a star in the denier cult's firmament. They do love aristocrats in the US and Australia, oddly enough.

Lindzen led a team of sixteen skeptical scientists/engineers in a Wall Street Journal op ed Jan 27 2012 “No Need to Panic about Global Warming”. Skeptics do not lack outlets. Their central point: “the inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over ten years now” They clearly play this as their strongest card.

They're thrashing it while they still can, which the likes of Lindzen know won't be for much longer. The next El Nino year will knock that crutch away. All their graphs will end at or before 2011 for years to come, mark my words .

 

[Trakar]

The same logic regarding what? If you're claiming that Mann et al produced their temperature reconstruction to increase their profile in the scientific world, you're quite right - that's why scientists publish. They have careers and ambitions, and their status depends on the work they do and publish.

As usual, you've missed the point. Cuccinelli makes no secret of the fact that he's an ambitious career politician, and his spurious pursuit of Mann raises his profile in exactly the way he requires. To progress as a US Republican politician these days it is necessary to explicitly deny AGW and attack climate science and scientists. You'd have to be a troglodyte not to recognise that fact.

It's a fact that Cuccinelli is an ambitious politician, who made no secret of his desire to run for Governor. It's also a fact that he is now running for Governor, and his new-found role as a hero of the denier cult makes him a front-runner for the nomination.

Since no alternative explanation for his assault on Mann has ever been presented (by you or anyone else) the obvious reason stands unchallenged. Or perhaps you do have a credible alternative which you've kept to yourself?

How do you imagine he might have "used questionable statistical methods to secure funding" ? Where do you see the use of statistical methods in his grant application? I'll answer that: you don't, becaue they aren't in there. No data, no statistical methods.

And found to be valid. It's perfectly normal for published results to examined for their methods and conclusions (it's known as post-publication peer-review) and sometimes papers are published taking issue with them. The fact that Mann's methods were questioned is of no significance...

To anyone who has ever been published the fact that you need to bring this up regarding peer-review seems to be all too commonly bizarrely distorted and misunderstood.

Pre-publication peer-review is merely the "doorman enforcing the dress-code," it's not the big event itself. Most pre-publication peer-review is more of a proof-read technicality to keep the journal from being embarassed, rather than the ultimate judgement of the merit of the assessments and considerations of the paper's subject matter.

Real peer-review comes after publication when all of one's professional peers read through your paper and start writing letters to the journals and to you requesting clarification, justification and support for your findings.

Many papers that are written each year in most science fields are either challenging, or finding additional support for, previously published papers. This is how science works in an organic fashion, with ideas and evidences building upon themselves in an attempt to model and understand the universe we perceive around us. Mainstream science is the evolving composite of that process.