Comments on: Climategatekeeping: Michaels and McKitrick 2004

By: BREVE VADEMECUM ALLA CORBELLERIA SCIENTIFICA « FreeYourMind!

BREVE VADEMECUM ALLA CORBELLERIA SCIENTIFICA « FreeYourMind! — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 11:08:36 +0000

[...] il processo di peer review nella scienza climatica è stato, in alcuni casi, dolosamente e deliberatamente stravolto allo scopo di impedire la pubblicazione delle opinioni dissenzienti. Anche in questo caso, gli [...]

By: Global Warming...Fact or Fiction? - Page 100

Global Warming...Fact or Fiction? - Page 100 — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:42:19 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Spin, science and climate change - Politics & Current Affairs Forum

Spin, science and climate change - Politics & Current Affairs Forum — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 22:41:32 +0000

[...] [...]

By: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ « Diagenesis

When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ « Diagenesis — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 15:36:45 +0000

[...] the “peer review” process in climate science has, in some cases, been consciously, deliberately subverted to prevent dissenting views from being published. Again, denizens of the climate blogosphere have [...]

By: Mosher: The Hackers « Watts Up With That?

Mosher: The Hackers « Watts Up With That? — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:37:47 +0000

[...] the following: changing chronologies, altering the appearance of graphics to tell a different story making up science out of whole cloth , and citing non peered reviewed literature when they could not keep contrarian papers out of the [...]

By: Climategatekeeping: Jones reviews Mann « Climate Audit

Climategatekeeping: Jones reviews Mann « Climate Audit — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:29:32 +0000

[...] we also looked at Jones’ soft review of Schmidt (2009) and looked at his attempts to keep Michaels and McKitrick (2004) out of IJC and IPCC [...]

By: UpNorthOutWest

UpNorthOutWest — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 01:50:59 +0000

Oh I don’t know … I’m a non-scientist who only started delving more deeply into all of this after ClimateGate broke. You don’t have to be a scientist to see and understand unscientific behavior. What really struck me was the “Harry Read Me” code (and I’m not a computer programmer, either). The repeated references to missing or blatantly false data; and when the frustrated programmer is instructed to “stay with published data. No clear way to replicate
process as undocumented.” and to apply various tricks (my word) to “approximate the correction needed.” Again, I’m no scientist, and I’m no programmer. And I don’t need to be to understand improper and unscientific things are being done to achieve a desired result. It’s astounding that the A.P.’s rigorous review didn’t notice things like this.

By: statism watch » Blog Archive » Climategate: Al Gore lies

statism watch » Blog Archive » Climategate: Al Gore lies — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 04:23:57 +0000

[...] to Steve McIntyre (go here for his full explanation): The [warmist] “community“‘s response to this has been: move along, [...]

By: Pat

Pat — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:56:46 +0000

A related climategatekeeping story. I’ve been wondering when/if these guys would speak up.

Using their own experience and quotes from the Climategate emails, David Douglass and John Christy deconstruct how the Team rewrote the rules for peer review in response to their 2007 paper in the International Journal of Climatology. Check out their article on the American Thinker site here:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

George Orwell

Steve-sorry if this gets threaded

By: Common Sense and Prosecutor’s Fallacy(s) « the Air Vent

Common Sense and Prosecutor’s Fallacy(s) « the Air Vent — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:53:10 +0000

[...] JeffID has a post relevant to this discussion, as does Steve McIntyre here climategatekeeping and climategatekeeping2. Where these go into technical details, this post is about procedure and [...]