To Charlie Martin:
You and the others should be advised that I tend to click on links and read what’s on the other side of them. Wigley referred to some “statements” that were never described. However a little further down, you get this somewhat more telling exchange:
****
>
> In touch with Wei-Chyung Wang. Just agreed with him
> that I will send a brief response to Peiser. The allegation by Keenan
> has
> gone to SUNY. Keenan’s about to be told by SUNY that submitting this has
> violated a confidentiality agreement he entered into with SUNY when he
> sent the complaint. WCW has nothing to worry about, but it still
> unsettling!
> All related to a paper in Nature from 1990! Keenan ought to look at the
> temperature data (which he has) rather than going on and on about
> site moves.
>
> See the end of this email and the response about E&E and the 3
> reviewers.
> Amazing! We all knew the journal was awful.
>
> On something completely different – just agreed to review another
> crappy
> paper by Chappell/Agnew on Sahel Rainfall. Chappell is out of a job –
> and still
> he tries to write papers saying the Sahel drought might not have
> happened!
>
> Both are just time wasters – but necessary to do unfortunately.
>
> Weekend away with the family now – back Monday!
>
> Cheers
> Phil
****
Note that comment about Keenan’s hubbub (apparently in 2007) was in regards to a 1990 paper and apparently involving a minor issue at that. This is a common right wing tactic — go back and look at everything and anything someone you don’t like has done, said or written, and if you find anything “useful,” even if you have to give it an extra spin or twist, do your darndest to make it into the biggest BFD you can.
And to klrtz1: You wish.
