peer pressure is bad, but peer review is supposed to be good? the logic escapes me, tbh. What's real sad is that errors will in all likelyhood remain in the compilations, whether the original paper is purged or not.
slightly related thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
crucial GW studies based on selective sampling
network.nationalpost.com...
But an even more disquieting discovery soon came to light. Steve searched a paleoclimate data archive to see if there were other tree ring cores from at or near the Yamal site that could have been used to increase the sample size. He quickly found a large set of 34 up-to-date core samples, taken from living trees in Yamal by none other than Schweingruber himself! Had these been added to Briffa’s small group the 20th century would simply be flat. It would appear completely unexceptional compared to the rest of the millennium.
should we believe that the guy forgot all his real results while forlornly picking mostly fossilzed trees which, coincidentially jived well with GW? i'D also question the wisdom of sampling a couple of trees from the same region, but that's just me. maybe it's true, conmen really *do* make for a better consensus, after all.
