re: #187 Charles

This is so silly it makes my head hurt.

Do you even understand what the process of “peer review” is?

And there were NO “revelations of cherry-picking.” None. This is a distortion of the facts, and it’s been conclusively shown over and over and over.

Seriously — is there a point at which you’ll stop repeating propaganda fed to you by ignorant and/or deceptive sources?

There was a good example of Jones’s and Mann’s understanding of “peer review” when Climate Research published a paper skepitcal of their conclusions, 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.”

This show me that they’ve been perfectly willing to use the peer review process to censor their critics.

As far as accusations of cherry-picking, I find Steve McIntyre’s measured critiques of Mann’s “hockey stick” Yamal tree-ring conclusions more convincing than those of his defenders, so far. McIntyre has shown in the recent past he’s no fool, discovering an earlier statistical error by Mann and a Y2K error by James Hansen of NASA, both of which led to corrections.