Saturday, November 21, 2009

CRU hacked emails and Peer Review Corruption

I have been skeptical for a long time about the criticism of global warming advocates to allow skeptics to publish. Then they turn around and claim that the skeptical science is no good because they don't publish in reputable journals. Emails from the Hadley center confirm this

For anyone wanting to peruse all the emails go to

The interesting thing as I am perusing, there is almost no way this could be a hoax. 62 mb of data is 62 books worth of information, a book being about 1 meg worth of writing. But there is another interesting thing. Phil Jones admits that CRU was hacked and in an interview does not deny the emails are legitimate. here

I am looking into statements about peer review. This allegedly from

From: "Michael E. Mann" To: Phil Jones ,,,, Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500 Cc:,,,,,,

Thanks Phil,

(Tom: Congrats again!)

The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...

The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:

What is hilarious is that he wants climate journals to have a different purpose--the exclusion of skeptics while he complains about skeptics finding a way to publish.

Then at the end of the email Mike Mann says this about the criticism of skeptics that they can't get published anywhere. Of course that was because, as I have said several times, the peer review process is stacked against them. These emails prove it.

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?


Attached to the alleged Mike Mann email was an email allegedly from Phil Jones. He too is against free expression of scientific thought

Dear all,

Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don't let it
spoil your day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of editors. [B]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 !



NOPE, skeptics need to try to publish because they won't be allowed to. And then when they are denied access to publishing, they are then criticized for not publishing. Phil Jones even went so far as to try to talk to an editor about not publishing anything skeptical. This isn't how science is suposed to work.

1 comment:

  1. Try to follow this reasoning:

    1. A paper is seen to be seriously substandard, i.e., one that would not pass peer review;
    2. this paper is published in a journal which appears to be claiming that it is peer-reviewed;
    3. Researchers who understand why the paper is rubbish talk about having that publishing journal dismissed from consideration as being "peer reviewed". (In fact, a number of the editors of that journal actually quit in protest at that particular heap of rubbish being published. They didn't want to be associated with it.)

    Context is everything.