I wouldn't comment until I know more about the process in those particular journals. That said given how much of those stolen emails have been quote mined for the juicy bits taken out of context, I still trust the peer review process far more than what the climate change deniers would have in place. In other words I prefer the peer review process over faith based science like your ilk seems to prefer.
>From what I've read on the cherry picked emails, it would appear that the peer review worked quite well, given that at least one editor was a skeptic. that said all the crud that the wing nuts are pissing and moaning about the raw data being edited is pure crap. There are a lot of artifacts in the data that have to be dealt with. This is quite acceptable in research. In my own EEG work we typically had to throw out about a quarter to half of an individual's data because of artifacts - i.e., head or boding moving, radio interference etc. So the fact that some climate data had to be discarded because of artifacts is not surprising. On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Larry, > > I'm dying to hear your thoughts on the peer review process taking > place with this group of highly respected scientists. > > > > On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> A WSJ opinion piece is not data either, its more blather. >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Want to reach the ColdFusion community with something they want? Let them know on the House of Fusion mailing lists Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:308914 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
