re: #282 Dragon_Lady

Hmm, I can’t even try to read that post until my new bifocals come in! I’ll have to wait on that one I’m afraid… :-(

Here’s a summary. A leading “skeptic” climate scientist - one of those promoted by “skeptics” as proof that there is valid scientific controversy about AGW - published a paper.

Subsequent to it being published, there was much questioning about the paper - both because of fairly apparent political influences on the part of the author, but also because ”fundamental methodological errors” and “false claims.”

The editor of the journal, in response to the subsequent analysis of the paper, resigned because of his failure to conduct his duties thoroughly (by virtue of publishing the paper).

Hope that helps.