re: #188 LudwigVanQuixote

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.

Science works best when theories are presented honestly and with raw data and methods available so that others may try and duplicate the results. It doesn’t seem that’s been what’s going on with climate science. As for the Siberian question…I’m waiting to see if and how it’s refuted, and then I’ll make up my own mind. Seems to me you’re dismissing any skeptical argument out of hand, saying that all questions have been answered and any voice that “contradicts them must be” wrong.