The other true scientists don't have a Rush Limbaugh overdose powered seeing eye dog like Sagebrush does, or a Babelfish like Ottawa, so they cannot post answers here.

Gee-Oil-Oh-Jest JimZ is away for the weekend in his abiotic hybrid, but he doesn't understand climate change, so nobody else does either, except the for teacher's pets who get As because they repeat leftist chants and wear hippy headbands to class.

If they could answer here, they would point out that all you need to know is that Al Gore's beach mansion cost more than .02% of his net worth, and that Obama's middle name is Hussein.

Mike, in your first link, I didn't see even 1 reference to an article in an honest peer reviewed journal.

There were lots of complaints, but none of them had to do with peer reviewed science.

In any field.

The 2nd link seemed to be a "Let's be nice and honest" request.

btw, I'd intended this to be in a comment to your post.

Again, I hit the wrong button.

And, I have had some coffee, so I can't blame that this time.

If you want to read through a list, this site keeps a good track of happenings in peer review. Check out this page: http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/23/we...

Clearly, peer review abuse is widespread in science.

And it's more than being just about peer review, it's also about the more general area of questionable research practices. These can include:

? Neglecting negative outcomes

? Using inappropriate statistics to support one’s hypothesis

? Inappropriate research design

? Leaving out relevant controls

? Inappropriate re-use of controls

? Removal of ‘outliers’

? Conscious bias

? Unethical experimentation

? Peer review abuse

http://www.vib.be/en/news/Pages/Research...

Now how many examples of those do we have in climate science?

of course not

but some people with strong opinions are paid to lie