Here's the exchange:
One major way appears to be they peer review each others papers, which is why they keep stressing that those who question are not for the most part peer reviewed.
Comment by Tim Ball — 24 September 2006 @ 12:26 pm
For the most part, those who are criticizing are not bothering to put ass to chair seat and write papers. And when they do, they too often look like BC06 or Steve’s PPT presentation for the AGU: abortions. Let’s ditch the “hating the journals” when people are not even trying to get published.
Comment by TCO — 24 September 2006 @ 7:18 pm
I have to agree. Scientific revolutions are won on the battlefield of scientific journals. What many of the critics are doing is similar to guerilla warfare : don’t face the ennemy in the open, just stay on the fringe and strike here and there, claiming victory each time, but without really making a dent in the established regime. On the other hand, every published paper is another battle won. AGW proponents have understood that right from the start.
Dr. Ball, of course, only ever published four peer-reviewed papers in his whole career, and none directly related to atmospheric climate change. As TCO suggests, Ball has been so busy running his cross-Canada public relations campaign that his a$$ has been nowhere near his chair.