http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... l-warming/
This isnt just some whack job fringe guy, it is Michael Mann who is right at the heart of this, the lead author of the paper that developed the "hockey stick graph".
I got ripped by some on here when I suggested that GW scientists could change and alter their data to fit their beliefs.
Manipulation of evidence:
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.
but then was assured that it didnt happen because it was peer reviewed.
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.
“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 !”
I am not in the mood to get in to a big discussion over this, I just wanted to hear opinions on it.... mainly aoxo and erie because you guys are the ones I have gotten in to it with about this in the past.