
Here’s what Phil Jones of the CRU and his colleague Michael Mann of Penn State mean by “peer review.” When Climate Research published a paper dissenting from the Jones-Mann “consensus,” Jones demanded that the journal “rid itself of this troublesome editor,” and Mann advised that “we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers.” So much for Climate Research.
When Geophysical Research Letters also showed signs of wandering off the “consensus” reservation, Dr. Tom Wigley (“one of the world’s foremost experts on climate change”) suggested they get the goods on its editor, Jim Saiers, and go to his bosses at the American Geophysical Union to “get him ousted.” When another pair of troublesome dissenters emerge, Dr. Jones assured Dr. 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!”
Source/Fonte
+++++
NOTA IMPERTINENTE DESTE BLOGGER:
A julgar pelo andar da carruagem - já deleteram vários documentos - acho que a Nomenklatura científica vai terminar o caso em pizza a la políticos brasileiros, e a Grande Mídia vai limpar a boca como se nada de criminoso tivesse ocorrido.
Uma despudorada relação incestuosa!