The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it.
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 !
I'm not so sure---I mean, I've sure read some papers that I'd love never to have been published, even if that means tweaking peer review a bit.
EDIT: in a sense that the results are obviously false and come from either some ideological stand by the author or from some crude conceptual mistake that is hard to respond to.
Evil climate scientists conspiring to prove global warming.
Yeah right, this all looks like a private correspondence expressing personal opinions, and how the hell this thing could be treated as sinister?
