Or never really paid attention or maybe just don't want to believe it because they know it makes them look like fools.
And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority
From Phil Jones:
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
4 comments:
Without even bother using google, I recall that a denier took over the editorship of the journal, and half of the editorial staff resigned over the quality of climate denier articles published. Correct my memory, if you can.
this is why you have ZERO credibility.
I know this guy says he was misinterpreted with his "trick" line and has come up with his own explanations for everything else, but why would anyone just accept that at face value? Every criminal in the world has their own explanation and a lot of them sound pretty reasonable....until you remember that they actually killed someone that is.
also, this is just emails. What are the odds that these were the ONLY conversations on these topics?
You gary have too much invested in this to be objective and let any doubt be acknowledged in your own mind.
You won't admit that this doesn't pass the smell test but it doesn't and deep down you know it's true. You're only fooling yourself.
Every open minded person in the world knows this thing stinks.
If the scientific evidence for AGW wasn't so completely overwhelming you might have a point.The emails prove that scientists can be petty. The don't prove that their research was a fraud.
Thank you for making my point for me.
Good day.
Post a Comment