Over at my colleague Ben Hale's blog deep in the comments of a receding thread, Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate and NASA GISS and I have been having an exchange over my recent post on CRU emails and what they suggest about peer review. In that post I criticized Gavin's defense of the comments made in the CRU emails with respect to peer review and he took exception to that criticism. So in the interests of giving Gavin a forum to set the record straight I have asked him the following questions:1. Was there anything in the emails with respect to peer review specifically, that you find troubling or of concern? A yes or no is just fine.
2. If yes, please explain.
Gavin, I look forward to your responses, and I am sure many others do as well. This comment thread will be strictly reserved for Gavin's responses, questions directed specifically to Gavin and his subsequent responses.
2 comments:
I have just seen this Schmidt chap on a CNN interview. Just like other warmists I have seen, he was brash and arrogant. He had a lot more time to say what he wanted to than John Christy did. He defended the indefensible as far as I was concerned and trotted out the now well rehearsed lines that 'the trick' was not something unusual among scientists. I felt he knows that the public in the US and the UK are largely sceptical and that their funding is under threat.
@thespecialone: "Just like other warmists I have seen, he was brash and arrogant"
Agreed. But he is like the king of arrogance. They damage climate science. Maybe they're invadors paid by oil-companies?
gosh, it makes all sense now...
Post a Comment