Climate Audit: McKitrick and Nierenberg 2010 Rebuts Another Team Article
Steve McIntyre exposes yet another damning example of how key members of the "climate science" community are dishonest brokers, at best.
As we saw in the CRU Emails, peer review for "climate science" is broken, and continues to be. Those of you who said the emails were taken out of context (even though plenty of proper context was provided), here you go. Context, and an apparent biased journal editor for the International Journal of Climatology, Andrew Comrie.
Essentially, an outside reviewer, and primary author of the paper being rebutted, was allowed to provide comments to the journal, but the paper's authors (McKittrick and Nierenberg) were not given the opportunity to reply, and their paper was rejected. They were forced to publish in another (non-climate) journal over which the "Hockey Team" had no control. According to McKittrick, none of the criticisms of the paper showed technical flaws, but merely dismissed the paper.
And, get this, Gavin Schmidt, the adversarial outside reviewer, asked McKittrick for his data and code, and McKittrick gave it to him. Why doesn't this happen in the opposite direction? There are STILL climate papers out there, which are used by the IPCC, that have no been replicated by anyone outside "the Team", and are therefore suspect and should not be considered for major policy decisions.
Remember Phil Jones' response to Bishop Hill when asked for data:
“Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”
Recent comments
1 year 41 weeks ago
1 year 41 weeks ago
2 years 4 weeks ago
2 years 4 weeks ago
2 years 8 weeks ago
2 years 9 weeks ago
2 years 9 weeks ago
2 years 10 weeks ago
2 years 10 weeks ago
2 years 10 weeks ago