To: tejek who wrote (534421 ) 12/4/2009 10:14:36 PM From: Tenchusatsu 2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) | Respond to Ted, there's plenty of other evidence that the CRU's motives were compromised, as your own linked article mentions:So in terms of the larger "debate" on global warming, the emails just don't appear relevant. But that's not to say they don't show some seriously improper conduct by some of the climate scientists. In one message, Jones refers to two papers by global warming skeptics, and writes "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" It's certainly possible that Jones was just talking trash here, loosely suggesting he would do something he had no intention of doing. But given the contentiousness of the issue, the quote on its face seems indefensible. It would be one thing for Jones to argue that the papers don't meet the scientific standards of evidence necessary for publication. Indeed, one of those papers, published in the journal Climate Research, "turned out to be so badly flawed that the scandal resulted in the resignation of the editor-in-chief," according to George Monbiot of The Guardian, who calls the emails "very damaging." But manipulating the review process -- "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is" -- in order to obtain a specific desired result is close to the very definition of putting ideology over scientific integrity.
