On 10/12/2010 6:28 PM, Bill Sloman wrote:
On Oct 10, 7:05 pm, "David R. wrote:

Is there anything about the pro AGW stance that you question?

I leave that to the peer-review mechanism - climate scientists knw a
lot more about climate science than I do.

Doesn't everyone? "No" would have required less typing.

Do you
have any problem with AGW activists preventing opposing views from being
published in journals, as the intercepted emails indicated?

The intercepted e-mails showed that a couple of climate scientists
were concerned that an inadequate scientific paper looked as if it
might slip through the peer-review process without being sent back to
the authors to have its errors corrected and its inadequacies
addressed.

The emails I saw indicated it was a continuing effort against dissenting
scientists, not a single instance.

My wife gets to referee papers like this from time to time, where one
journal knocks back an inadequate paper and the authors send it to
another journal without correcting the defects and she gets asked to
referee the same paper again. It generates a few acid e-mails. Not all
referees are equally thorough or well-informed.

The emails were about suppressing views and writers, not just pointing
out minor errors.

David