Re: [asa] Ottawa Citizen: The Skeptics Are Vindicated

From: Iain Strachan <>
Date: Wed Nov 25 2009 - 17:06:15 EST

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 9:41 PM, Schwarzwald <> wrote:
> Iain,
> "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing
> in the ‘peer-reviewed literature.’ Obviously, they found a solution to that
> – take over a journal! So what do we do about this? 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 …What do others think?"
> Does this speak for itself? This being just one example of a number.

I'm not going to waste much time on this as it wasn't the email I was
citing, which you have chosen to ignore, despite the fact that it is
cited as the most "controversial" and the explanation shows it not to
be controversial at all when the context is considered. Why did you
not at least acknowledge the validity of this point?

As regards the quote you give; on the face of it, I'd say "fair
enough". I don't consider the AiG "Tech Journal" to be a legitimate
peer-reviewed journal and would not encourage folks to publish in it
or to cite papers from it. For a while I considered myself a
creationist as I got totally deluded by it, and I used to peer-review
articles for TJ. Eventually I decided I had to come clean and decline
further reviews from them as I couldn't consider myself to be a
creationist any more and they only allow other creationists to do peer


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 25 17:06:25 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 25 2009 - 17:06:25 EST