Actually Graham, that's your narrative. There are actually no such assumptions about peer-reviewed literature.

Noone for a second believes that peer reviewed literature is always right. I cannot possibly be. But it does have an element of quality filtering before being published which other forms of publication do not.

Of course people who don't publish in peer reviewed literature are good enough to do science, however publication on non-peer reviewed scientific media is not science, nor does it have a scientific purpose, nor can it reasonably be used in scientific discussion.

Publication in non-peer reviewed literature is mostly either for entertainment educational or political purposes. Most 'skeptic' literature I would put in the last category.

As for Marohasy, I know her history and her publication record. She's a good critic, but not a great scientist.

>>How about you engage?<<
When there's something worth engaging, I will. At the moment it's like asking me to engage with Aliens at Area 51 or the Moon Landing being faked.

So the anti comments are basically ad hominem. Uhuh.

Corrupt science conceals the data and methods. Honest ones publish it.

And those who obstruct transparency by using political power to interfere with audits are - what? The conclusion is obvious.

Max and Warm Air,

What is happened is that the dept of Meteorology (DOM) publishes raw data, then produced a "homogenized" set of data that appears to give significantly different trending from the raw data with little to no explanation. Given the hugely political nature of the results, this unilateral action might well be justified, but certainly merits a detailed explanation of the reasons for this manipulation of data with solid scientific reasons.

While I believe that global warming is large man made, given the vast complexity of climate science, (and having a science background) I would be hugely surprised if the margin of error in predictions was less than 50%.

It is therefore with some disdain that I view the attitude of many greens that the IPCC has descended from mountains with the climate models carved in stone. (usually the same greenies suffer from a complete lack of science training), and the reason for the failure to engage is more because WA and MG can't.

Just out of interest ChrisPer, in a choice between:

1) a publicly funded scientist that obtains funding through rigorous competitive granting schemes

or

2)a privately funded scientist who obtains direct funding through a private Discretionary Investment Trust

which of these examples would most likely produce 'corrupt' science?

Which of these scientists do you think would be more likely to produce results/publications that would potentially be used for political gain?

Anyway, that's just an academic exercise anyway. Pay no attention to it.

Someone should tell Jennifer to google "Sophistical" though. An exceptionally ironic (Fruedian slip?) use of the word on her climate lab homepage. http://climatelab.com.au/

Bugsy, your are right, your comparison is foolish.

Who is going to report results that dry up a river of money that all their colleagues livings depend on?

We in other privately funded scientific disciplines do that all the time, when we cannot justify the expenditure for rewards. Negative results are important results. Publicly funded bodies on the other hand apparently develop a different mindset.

In any case, the snide ad hominems above are just the quality of discussion we expect from unshakable believers.

My expectations of climate science have been repeatedly proven right over the years; and the public can judge them by integrity of the arguments and tactics they use