re: #186 Jimbouie

Excuse me, but while methane released from permafrost might or might not be important, what does that have to do with Jones “going to town” on scientific papers critiquing his Siberia data, especially considering later revelations of cherry-picking? Perhaps you’ve wandered away from the topic.

No you are the one wandering. Papers get rejected. You have not read those papers. Since we do not have them, you have no reason to say that they were good papers. Since most journals have more than one reviewer look at submissions, and since people with actual PhD.s who actually know the field are the reviewers, in general, that means that the peer review process is likely much more fair than you would be. You are already assuming that teh science from CRU must be wrong and that any paper on Siberia by them must be wrong and that any paper that contradicts them must be right.

That is not how science works. Science works by actually using those little things we call consistent application of facts and data.

You are simply being a propagandist - and not a very good one at that.