Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose
This bit did make me uncomfortable, but it's difficult to make a complete assessment from a few lines of explanation. I wish I had time to search for peer-reviewed articles which might explain in full why the tree ring data is discarded during this period.
As for your other example, that doesn't bother me as much since their results are in agreement with those from two other organizations. There can be several paths to the same answer in science. More transparency in the methodology would be nice, however.
Thank you for taking the time to respond.
|
Unfortunately Rose peer review is not to be for "poor" papers, we have to guess what makes a paper "poor".
"I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn't this called freedom of speech?"
The first part is the most damning. Some people believe that AGW means the end of the world as we know it, a tipping point that we cannot come back from, and yet the leading scientist will not show his work, will not tell us how he changed the raw data to make his charts and conclusions. The lives of 6 billion people are at stake. Does this sound credible? Remember he says he's 100% certain there is warming, he has zero doubt.