Steve McIntyre in Canada has been doing outstanding work of investigating the research of global warming alarmists such as Mann, Briffa, Jones, and many others. He has been met by smears, stonewalling, and outright threats. He doesn't take one cent of public funding. He's just doing this on his own time. Here are some comments on his blogue Climate Audit about the Climategate emails. The Branch Carbonians want to redefine the meaning of 'peer review'.
One of the Climategate texts that has attracted considerable commentary is:
"The other paper by MM is just garbage …I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
The “community”’s response to this has been: move along, there’s nothing to see. A typical defence is that of Ronald Prinn of MIT (e.g. here around minute 48) and others) : that improper peer review activities by CRU and their associates didn’t “matter” because McIntyre and McKitrick were discussed by IPCC after all:
“Five papers by McIntyre and McKitrick were published and then referenced and discussed in the IPCC.”
In yesterday’s post, I showed that the Climategate letters showed gatekeeping incidents that had nothing to do with McIntyre and McKitrick – even preceding our entry onto the scene. In today’s post, I’m going to place the money quote in context, showing that Jones and Trenberth did in fact live up to their threats, breaching other IPCC rules along the way.
If anyone reading this actually believes the 'climate change' mythology, I urge you to consider this. Ask the alarmists what their evidence is and they will say something about a 'scientific consensus', without reference to any facts at all. Ask to see their data, or their computer programs, and they will refuse or stonewall.
Then go to the skeptics like Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick (economist at the university of Guelph in Canada), Richard Lindzen (meteorologist at MIT), or any of the others. They will refer you to the data. They will gladly share their data with you. They will happily share their computer programs used to analyze the data. They will tell you to look at the facts and decide for yourself.