This is from the article Hoz links above:
In several of the emails, climate researchers discussed how to arrange for favorable reviewers for papers they planned to publish in scientific journals. At the same time, climate researchers at times appeared to pressure scientific journals not to publish research by other scientists whose findings they disagreed with.
Wow! So I guess something being Peer Reviewed by your buddies doesn't mean it is necessary correct or even honest. Also, apparently scientific journals can be influenced to not publish research unfavourable to their scientific camp.
More recent exchanges centered on requests by independent climate researchers for access to data used by British scientists for some of their papers. The hacked folder is labeled "FOIA," a reference to the Freedom of Information Act requests made by other scientists for access to raw data used to reach conclusions about global temperatures.
Many of the email exchanges discussed ways to decline such requests for information, on the grounds that the data was confidential or was intellectual property. In other email exchanges related to the FOIA requests, some U.K. researchers asked foreign scientists to delete all emails related to their work for the upcoming IPCC summary. In others, they discussed boycotting scientific journals that require them to make their data public.
Powerline quoted some of these E-mails yesterday(Nov21). I wonder what the penalty in England is for destroying information requested by the Freedom of information act. You would think the government of England would at least try to receive deleted data from the computers of the scientists who sent those e-mails. That might reveal even more than what has already been hacked.
|