This is why we can ignore Anna

Russ Steele

Anna has changed her introduction to what she calls the "climate contrarians" column at NCVoices:

This is why we have peer review.

Scepticism's Limits, in The Economist:
"Why do these people keep bugging us like this? Does the spirit of scientific scepticism really require that I remain forever open-minded to denialist humbug until it's shown to be wrong? [No]... So... my response to any and all further 'smoking gun' claims begins with:
'Show me the peer- reviewed journal* article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.'"

This paragraph in it's original form was take from an anonymous Economist article:

Well, here's my solution to this problem: this is why we have peer review. Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand. So for the time being, my response to any and all further "smoking gun" claims begins with: show me the peer-reviewed journal article demonstrating the error here. Otherwise, you're a crank and this is not a story.

This  Economist author lacked the class to sign this article attacking the work of Willis Eschenbach posted at Climate Audit.

Here is Willis's reply to this cowardly attack:

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE ECONOMIST
On Dec 11th, the Economist published an unsigned article attacking both me and my work. This open letter is my reply.

TO: The Person Unwilling to Sign Their Economist Article
Dear Sir or Madam;
Recently, you wrote a scathing article about me in the Economist discussing my post called  The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero. Some of it was deserved, but most was undeserved and false. The URL for your unprinicpled attack is http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists … trust_scientists? Trust_scientists?? Full Letter is here. 

So, Anna demands peer reviewed science all based on the words of an author who refused to sign their name.  Note that all the articles listed under the Climate contrarians heading at NCVoices are signed. We stand behind what we write.

The idea that one has to have a PhD in climate science to "reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies" is unadulterated crap! As demonstrated in the Climategate emails, the PhD Climatologist who wrote the emails demonstrated they have a very poor understanding of statistics.  Points that Steve McIntyre, with an in depth understanding of statistical manipulation, has demonstrated time and time again at Climate Audit.