From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Recent Comments
Real Science 
Peer Pressure
They redefined “Peer-Review” years ago! Peer-Review was not about results being valid, it was just about the paper agreeing with the “Peers”! They tried to claim Peer-Review is something more than it ever has been.
Their form of peer review means sticking with the narrative.
Peer review is fine if the peers are serious people who are expert in the given field. But when a field is broken then so is its peer review.
Reblogged this on CACA.
Hide the decline! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAlMomLvu_4
Many alarmists attempt to defend climategate by claiming the emails were “taken out of context”. I’m curious as to what context that particular email was taken out of. That particular one should have resulted in Jones’ immediate dismissal.
Mann disciple Mr Chris Turney can peer review this!
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-23/federal-government-to-seek-costs-over-antarctica-rescue/5214846