Understanding Peer Review

Posted on January 22, 2014 by Tony Heller

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: “Michael E. Mann” <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

Cheers
Phil

CRU Emails – Searchable

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Understanding Peer Review

  2. miked1947 says:
    January 22, 2014 at 4:57 pm

    They redefined “Peer-Review” years ago! Peer-Review was not about results being valid, it was just about the paper agreeing with the “Peers”! They tried to claim Peer-Review is something more than it ever has been.

    Reply
  3. rw says:
    January 22, 2014 at 9:02 pm

    Peer review is fine if the peers are serious people who are expert in the given field. But when a field is broken then so is its peer review.

    Reply
  4. Climatism says:
    January 22, 2014 at 11:27 pm

    Reblogged this on CACA.

    Reply
  6. Dave N says:
    January 23, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    Many alarmists attempt to defend climategate by claiming the emails were “taken out of context”. I’m curious as to what context that particular email was taken out of. That particular one should have resulted in Jones’ immediate dismissal.

    Reply

Leave a Reply