4 ms·

[citation needed] All joking aside, the CRU e-mail hack revealed no such thing. To say otherwise is either ignorant or dishonest.

hga 16y ago
A little quality time with searches like http://www.google.com/search?q=redefine+peer+review+site%3Awww.eastangliaemails.com http://www.google.com/search?q=redefine+peer+review+site%3Aw... will provide all the citations needed. Here's the ones I can find in a few minutes with just the phrases I can remember off the top of my head and one or two leads from those: Phil Jones to Michael Mann: "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 !" http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filen... From Mann (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295): "The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. [...] The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at 'Climate Research'...." [...] "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." The end result was that half the editorial board resigned, I think all "non-skeptics". Two quoted items in one email (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484); first this from Mann: "It's one thing to lose 'Climate Research'. We can't afford to lose GRL. I think it would be useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and potentially Mackwell (I don't know him--he would seem to be complicit w/ what is going on here)." Followed by a Tom Wigley writing to I think Mann: "If you think that [GRL editor] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary 1evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." And then nearly a year later Mann reports Mission Accomplished: "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there...." http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=591 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=591 Saiers was in fact removed from dealing with the paper in question, although he insists he wasn't himself ousted: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/grl-and-james-saiers.html http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/grl-and-james-saie... Anyway, that's what I can find from the original sources in 15 minutes. There's a lot more, "The Truth Is Out There".

hga 16y ago

A little quality time with searches like http://www.google.com/search?q=redefine+peer+review+site%3Awww.eastangliaemails.com http://www.google.com/search?q=redefine+peer+review+site%3Aw... will provide all the citations needed. Here's the ones I can find in a few minutes with just the phrases I can remember off the top of my head and one or two leads from those: Phil Jones to Michael Mann: "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 !" http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filen... From Mann (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295): "The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. [...] The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at 'Climate Research'...." [...] "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." The end result was that half the editorial board resigned, I think all "non-skeptics". Two quoted items in one email (http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484); first this from Mann: "It's one thing to lose 'Climate Research'. We can't afford to lose GRL. I think it would be useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and potentially Mackwell (I don't know him--he would seem to be complicit w/ what is going on here)." Followed by a Tom Wigley writing to I think Mann: "If you think that [GRL editor] Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary 1evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted." And then nearly a year later Mann reports Mission Accomplished: "The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership there...." http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=591 http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=591 Saiers was in fact removed from dealing with the paper in question, although he insists he wasn't himself ousted: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/grl-and-james-saiers.html http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/grl-and-james-saie... Anyway, that's what I can find from the original sources in 15 minutes. There's a lot more, "The Truth Is Out There".