Canadian Politics Today

They said in the emails they would work to keep papers they don't like out of peer review even if they have to redefined what peer review is. They also discussed boycotting journals that published papers they did not like. Those statements on their own establish that those scientists lack the professionalism and ethics we would expect of any scientist.

Have any links to that?

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004

Mike,
... 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 !
Cheers
Phil

Mann further stated, "I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board

Like I said. Willfully blind. No reasonable person could read those email and not question the ethics and professionalism of the scientists involved. If you don't see it then it is willful blindness.

Similar nonsense has been going for 20 years involving multiple scientists.

in a field like climate science there is no objective way to determine which papers are bad and which are good. It all comes down to a question of whether other scientists see the paper as a help or a threat.

That is why the lack of objectivity among influential academics in the field matters. It leaves us wondering what is really going on because we don't have anyone able to be a contrarian for the sake of being contrarian to find holes in our knowledge and protect against group think.

The trouble with climate science is there is no way to "replicate" any claim because experiments cannot be done. "replication" in climate science typically means using a different way to look at the same data and getting the same answer. Except that kind of replication is extremely subject to reporting bias because researchers tend to assume that results that fail to replicate are some how "wrong" and never publish them (or never being allowed to publish them).

It doesn't matter if there's no objective way.  Subjectivity is a fact of life.  We aim for objectivity and we count on it, knowing that true objectivity is impossible.  You must be horrified with the idea of a judicial system also.

It is a current problem as long as there are people who refuse to acknowledge the systematic problems with the field and enable scientists who act unprofessionally.

You make a claim which is simply not possible to know. The only thing we can do is look at how climate scientists act and what they say and pass judgement over whether these are the type of people that would ignore or suppress evidence that did not fit their preferred narrative. It is simply not plausible to argue that a person who spouts over heated rhetoric about a planetary emergency would not hide evidence that undermines their rhetoric. People who have the integrity to follow the evidence wherever it would lead would be much more careful about the claims they make in the first place and would most certainly not refer to people who disagree as "deniers".