RE: "I wonder if this attitude about FOIA from Citizens would interest The Committee run by Rep Issa"
I would be very surprised if someone on his committee are not carefully watching what is un folding.
another kind of example of dishonesty from the AGW "team".... One thing that struck an ignorant non-scientist like me as obvious from the first time I was reading about tree-ring issues and paleoclimate is that an elementary test of the tree ring data would be to see how it correlates (or doesn't) with temperature records of the past 50 years.... I mean if they don't have even that initial level of calibration they don't have ANYTHING, one might think.....
well now it is exposed that vaunted "peer review" was totally subverted by these scumbags for years, as they spread black ink like squid to obscure any serious questions and answers, even with "friendly" climate scientists.
The exchange reported on below is with a friendly and sympathetic climate scientist, Severinghaus, who simply wanted to get clear on why the tree ring data should be trusted over a millenium or more when it could not even replicate the past half century??!!! Severinghaus did not even know at the time of this exchange that Mann & co. where "hiding the decline" and a sharp divergence, he simply picked up that even the altered, fabricated graphs were not showing an appropriate "sensitivity" to the supposedly important tree ring data. Mann and Jones are FRAUDS, not honest scientists:
Mann and Jones Subvert Elementary 'Peer Review' With Dishonesty
"Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test." [climate scientist Jeff Severinghaus, questioning Mann and Jones & co. about tree ring data in pvt email]
note: this was not a formal "peer review" process for a pending journal article, but this was attempted "peer review" in the larger more fundamental sense, a highly expert peer scientist attempting to understand apparent anomalies in the work which was being used to influence public policy and potential expenditures of billions and trillions of dollars.... there was stonewalling, deception, obfuscation.... but not honest explanations and DATA that would help advance the science and "peer review"....