Understanding Peer Review

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

I 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

CRU Emails – Searchable

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Understanding Peer Review

  1. Robertv says:

    Peer Pressure

  2. miked1947 says:

    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.

  3. rw says:

    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.

  4. Dave N says:

    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.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s