"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=2952

Some of the "refutations" of the IPCC findings have initially sneaked
past peer review, only to be caught later:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...t-do-not-post/


"Thus, while un-peer-reviewed claims should not be given much credence, just
because a particular paper has passed through peer review does not
absolutely insure that the conclusions are correct or scientifically valid.
The "leaks" in the system outlined above unfortunately allow some
less-than-ideal work to be published in peer-reviewed journals. This should
therefore be a concern when the results of any one particular study are
promoted over the conclusions of a larger body of past published work
(especially if it is a new study that has not been fully absorbed or
assessed by the community).

Indeed, this is why scientific assessments such as the Arctic Climate
Impact Assessment (ACIA), or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) reports, and the independent reports by the National Academy of
Sciences, are so important in giving a balanced overview of the state of
knowledge in the scientific research community."

Guess you didn't read the Q&O article, huh?