James opens his piece with a quote from the Climategate emails. (The alarmists are still trying to say that they are in Cabal code)
“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!” Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.
Just like their "Hide the decline" stuff, the Climate Cabal Clowns are trying to hide anything that doesn't conform with the falsified CO2 caused AGW.
So, was Newton peer reviewed when an apple fell on his head and he said: It's gravity?
Was Einstein peer reviewed when he said E=MC2?
In both cases that is a NO. So, do we mistrust these scientist because there was no peer review? When Ferenc Miskolczi' paper was published in an Hungarian Science Journal, the Australian Government tried to counter it with "Miskolczi’s paper was not published in a high impact peer-reviewed journal"
Oh really? Not a high impact peer-reviewed journal? What a load of balderdash from a Government Department. Oh, sorry, that's a government Department's job, isn't it?
Back to James:
With me so far? Good. Now we can move on to an incredibly complicated story which is causing much excitement at Watts Up With That?, Climate Audit and Bishop Hill at the moment. Some are saying its as damning of the “Consensus” as Climategate. It involves two people you’ve probably never heard of – Eric Steig and Ryan O’Donnell.
Well, rather than repeat the whole sorry episode here, the you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-yours system of peer review leaves a lot to be desired. Read the whole story here
Also, we should remember how the Climate CabalCRU fought the Science magazine editors. to suppress any anti AGW papers:
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”