http://www.newscientist....-breaks-his-silence.html

Question to P. Jones -
Climategate has highlighted conflicts between climate scientists and some of their critics. Is there a value in having critical voices contribute to scientific discussions?

P. Jones replies -
Yes, provided they do it through the normal processes, which is through peer review. I say that not because there's no value in the blog sites, but because it's necessary. Unless the alternative views are in the peer-reviewed literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change cannot refer to them.

This is IMO, in conflict with what the IPCC has already done - and that is in using climate science reports and research that hasn't been peer reviewed (including Greenpeace stuff?)
And didn't some of the hacked emails discuss the necessity to prevent alternative views and research being peer reviewed/published?

Is my interpretation wrong?

"Is there a value in having critical voices contribute to scientific discussions?"

P. Jones replies -

Yes, provided they do it through the normal processes, which is through peer review ...

... [reply continues silently] ...

... where we initiate our first step in blocking those critical voices ... more steps are used later if this does not work ... even though the climategate emails clearly demonstrated we were using this strategy, we can probably continue using it ... we just need to say the critical voices need to publish in peer-reviewed journals and then we block them ... it is a brilliant strategy really.

Tom will know better, but I assume most letters and other submissions to Journals in response to published papers are being critical of them?  Certainly that is my understanding based on what I've seen. 

That I do not know.  I assume it's down to editorial discretion?   

But I've seen plenty of correspondence from Journals criticising papers previously published in said Journals, so I know it happens. 

(I'm guessing if you wrote a letter to Nature in response to a paper published by Mann & Jones saying that Mann & Jones were crooks and liars and made up the data to fit their predetermined conclusions then it probably would not be published!   If you wrote explaining what you believed was an error in their methodology, demonstrating how the occurred and the consequences of it, then I would hope it would be published.  Mann & Jones would then normally be expected to respond.)

Conspiring blighters eh?

Rancourt's dissent on man-made climate fears has not set well with many of his fellow green friends. “When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me -- they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines,”

from -

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=31553

Perhaps Ulric can tell us who this guy is?

There's a excellent editorial in NS linked to this topic.

It's worth quoting in full:

IF ONE of the aims of the persons unknown who stole thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) last November was to bring a fellow human being to his knees, they almost succeeded.

As our exclusive interview shows, Phil Jones, then the director of the unit, has suffered terrible personal torment as a result of the vitriolic campaign against him and his colleagues.

For years, ruthless climate sceptics have harassed scientists, drowning them in freedom of information requests and subjecting them to vicious personal attacks. Climategate was merely the public face of this insurgent war. In that hostile climate, some scientists fired off personal emails that occasionally lacked decorum. The CRU accepts this. When will their opponents apologise for their own excesses?

Yes, questions need to be asked. Healthy scepticism is vital. But the climate sceptics need to play by the rules. For all their bleating about being excluded, science is not a closed shop. If their criticisms of climate science have merit they will be heard. These issues will be resolved only by reasoned debate, not vitriol and harassment.

Which bit is wrong?

The bit about a vitriolic campaign against Dr Phil Jones? No, that's right there has been such a campaign.

After climategate broke and sceptics found how much falshood there had been

The bit about fredom of information requests? There has been a torrent of them.

Only because jones.mann,briffa,etc refused data to be released under FOIA law  preferring to delete rather than share

The bit about personal emails (private emails that were stolen and made public) lacking decorum? That's (YES!) true as well - but who here will make their sent email folder public?

Sceptics are not paid by public purse,and they are not private emails if used on your employers computers

The bit about scepticism being vital? That's true.

 Wow thats a refreshing new tack from you Peter

The bit about reasoned debate not vitriol and harrassment being the answer? That's true as well

Sceptics want reasoned debate,but the group is closed and openiness in non existant

So, which bit is wrong?

depends which side of the fence you sit......science which is open and sceptical/or the "we're not going to show you our

method's because your going to find somthing wrong with it club"

i know what i prefer.....

 EDIT; my post in bold