The simple fact that is sitting in the open here is that the peer-review system turns academic scientists into cowards. Why challenge the prevailing opinions when you have to submit your grant application and journal article to those that hold the prevailing opinions? Better to toe the line, get your studies funded, continue with your career advancement, and bash Steve M for bringing up uncomfortable facts. The “everyone knows which studies are good” statement is iconic, sad and pathetic.

Those in the know, who really know the science, know not to use that chronology and know who still use that chronology. The work that uses that chronology for a temperature reconstruction is less-respected than others

I’ve asked this before: Please, please: Can we lay readers have a reference? So we too can see both sides? Please?

You claim that those “in the know”, know which papers are faulty and don’t cite them, so there is no need to tell the rest of the world.

The problem is that the rest of the world assumes that any paper that is peer reviewed must be good. Then they use these faulty papers
as a basis for their own work. Such as the in the climate change debate.

The result is that your desire to protect your peers from criticism that might hurt their feelings ends up being support for bad policy
based on bad data.

That’s not good. The implications of Kyoto go way beyond the feelings of a handfull of dendroclimatologists.