![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sDcpP6k7SUOYfWEN6hlqub6hKmbC-KDpvqCAP2vsbbmHIvK-ChJfA19nBK6zFbQMLhl5UTmWSNPB7Hh2GwZ1sXCkGVL2DzK9E_Wms1Eaqvpgs1LamN34ilWJhuNttoKPWLR6iuT_n2tLqXcKVHFdp35O0zR7QPJ6zFJxnAcyMoBe2yYAxeZNJrTnqncyRq9SgO665Z=s0-d)
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.