re: #57 Captkirk35

Does this sound ok to you?? :

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think 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 in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Maybe fraud is the wrong word. Please find another that you’re comfortable with.

It sounds like the sort of divide we’ve seen in other areas. The deniers took over a journal to promote their views and CRU was planning to respond by ignoring it until they got rid of an editor who was a hard-core denier. I don’t see anything wrong with that. When someone is out to get you, the smart play is to avoid interacting with them or giving them legitimacy.