supamark wrote:your last quote Lens, he's talking about sceptics "buying" one of the peer reviewed journals (Climate Research) and that there's no point publishing in a journal owned by people with a set agenda (climate change denial) because it can no longer be considered a reputable or unbiased source.
That's his opinion. It's clearly not an opinion based on reality, because he then goes on to say he's going to try to pressure the journal in question to fire one of its editors, and implies that if they do, he'd be willing to work with them again.
In other words, he has a personal axe to grind with this one editor, and he's willing to use his influence to ask his colleagues to help him gang up on this one guy.
Which is pretty much what a lot of those climatologists who refuse to be part of the so-called "consensus" have been complaining about, innit?
And in case you didn't notice: That is pretty clear evidence of a conspiracy to suppress non-"consensus" climate science.
well, if that editor was injecting his bias into the journal, then he does/did in fact need to go. ANY bias from journal editors (beyond a bias towards truth) is bad, and that was what I was trying to convey.