From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <[email protected]>
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!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Mission Accomplished
- Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- “pushing nature past its limits”
- Compassion For Terrorists
- Fifteen Days To Slow The Spread
- Maldives Underwater By 2050
- Woke Grok
- Grok Explains Gender
- Humans Like Warmer Climates
- Homophobic Greenhouse Gases
- Grok Explains The Effects Of CO2
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2027
- Red Hot Australia
- EPA : 17.5 Degrees Warming By 2050
- “Winter temperatures colder than last ice age
- Big Oil Saved The Whales
- Guardian 100% Inheritance Tax
- Kerry, Blinken, Hillary And Jefferson
- “Climate Change Indicators: Heat Waves”
- Combating Bad Weather With Green Energy
- Flooding Mar-a-Lago
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2020
- Colorless, Odorless CO2
Recent Comments
- Gordon Vigurs on Mission Accomplished
- Disillusioned on Mission Accomplished
- Bob G on Mission Accomplished
- James Snook on Both High And Low Sea Ice Extent Caused By Global Warming
- czechlist on Mission Accomplished
- arn on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Disillusioned on Record Sea Ice Caused By Global Warming
- Gamecock on “Rapid Antarctic sea ice loss is causing severe storms”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
- Disillusioned on “pushing nature past its limits”
Peer Pressure
http://littleguurrl.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/peer-pressure.gif
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