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

From: Schwarzwald <>
Date: Wed Nov 25 2009 - 17:31:43 EST


Respectfully, you did not limit your view to the "hide the decline" email:
You said "I don't think the emails "speak for themselves".", and that's
precisely what I was responding to. Nor do I think that the line about
"hiding the decline" is regarded as the most controversial part of these
emails - who's coming up with that measure, and why should I take their
judgment as the proper standard? It's not like there was just a single
shocking line in this email dump, even with the sifting-through of them
apparently not yet complete. There were multiple... let's be nice, and call
them "points of considerable interest".

As for the AiG example you give, I really have trouble seeing where you're
going with bringing it up. Are you saying that sometimes it's okay for
scientists urge a boycott of a (in this case, apparently previously- and
currently-respected) journal on the grounds that they don't like the sort of
papers being peer-reviewed? That it's pretty common course to do this, or to
encourage contacting the editors (the "good ones" anyway) to try and snuff
out submissions that aren't liked? That you don't see a problem with
encouraging skeptics to publish in peer-reviewed journals, and then trying
to bar them from being published in those journals? Or is it that these
things are all bad... unless, I don't know. The journal has it coming to

Mind you: I don't think you believe as much. But I also don't see what the
AiG reference can be taken for otherwise.

On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Iain Strachan <>wrote:

> 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
> review.
> Iain

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Nov 25 17:31:56 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Nov 25 2009 - 17:31:56 EST