I think he means peer reviewed as in the IPCC where you get a bunch of guys collaborating on the same piece of research then they peer review each others findings. Or, you feed a different bunch a scientists, selected data then ask them what they make of it.
I think you'll only find It's only properly peer reviewed if it supports the IPCC dogma. Unless of course you are the IPCC and then you don't have to use peer reviewed....
After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate – Telegraph Blogs
More integrity from the robust, peer-reviewed IPCC. Not. – Telegraph Blogs
And of course if your name's Mann and there's a couple of papers that don't support you particular view, just have a word with Phil Jones...
From: Phil Jones
To: "Michael E. Mann"
Subject: HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
Date: Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004
Mike,...
I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them
out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
-------
BTW, did anyone watch those interviews I posted earlier?
Global Warming: The Other Side - Segment 4 | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner FULL UNEDITED INTERVIEW WITH JOE D’ALEO... | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner
I'm still wondering what the temperature in Bolivia should be...
From someone else who perverted science for their own ends:
YouTube - Glaciergate: Hitler's Last Straw

I've done some digging this morning and found some further info. A paper was published by Arthur P Smith which claimed to refute Gerlich's paper. However analysis of his paper appears to suggest he was wrong - see HERE
So with all this confusion how do we know who to believe? given the nature of this subject it can only get even more confusing and opinions further divided.
So in a nutshell, any prediction is no more than a guess. Furthermore, any prediction which states "it may get warmer in a certain region" is biased unless it also says "but it may get colder". Therefore, the MET office is exhibiting extreme bias in it's predictions.
Now from the Met office web site under "What do we do", we see
"Helping Govenrnment
We work with decision makers across Government to ensure our science focuses on addressing their questions on climate change"
That to me is fairly damning. It doesn't take much imagination to work out how these political questions are being phrased. Their science is not focussed on climate change but on politics.
Also from their web site we see under "Policy"
"Information on some of the reviews and policies that act as the foundation of Government strategy on climate change. A number of these, such as the Stern Review, are based on climate science from the Met Office Hadley Centre"
So now we know why the discredited Hadley Centre did what it did with selective use of, and manipultaion of, data. To satisfy their political masters.
Now I will readily accept scientific information providing it comes from an unbiased source. But, this is becoming increasingly difficult, if not downright impossible. The more I look into it, you more evidence I find of bias, which seems to be driven by a political agenda.
The science is being screwed with by politics and that is why there is such a back lash against it. Click to expand...
This thread started out as a creationist vs scientific evidence equivalent thread, and has got worse ever since. I'm simply not prepared to fight the massed ranks of pseudo-scientists, conspiracy theorists, head in sand merchants and wishful thinkers any more.
Fortunately for me and for most people reading and posting on this thread, we personally will be spared the worst of what the nay-sayers are determined to leave behind.
Unfortunately, my granddaughter will not.
Just remember: stupidity and ignorance are capital crimes.
Just to comment on a couple of other points mentioned earlier on this thread....
Do they? Klotzbach et al: http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf
5. Conclusions
We find that there have, in general, been larger linear
trends in surface temperature data sets such as the NCDC
and HadCRUTv3 surface data sets when compared with the
UAH and RSS lower-tropospheric data sets, especially over
land areas. This variation in trends is also confirmed by the
larger temperature anomalies that have been reported for near
surface air temperatures [e.g., Zorita et al., 2008; Chase et al.,
2006, 2008; Connolley, 2008]. The differences between
surface and satellite data sets tend to be largest over land
areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination
because of various aspects of land surface change, atmospheric
aerosols and the tendency of shallow boundary layers
to warm at a greater rate .
Which brings us back to the UHIE...
How, exactly, is that accounted for? Do they just knock off a percentage to compensate? Or maybe it's a complicated formula? When a Finnish climate scientist kept asking Phil Jones at CRU for details of what calculations he used to account for this, Jones repeatedly ignored him. There's a surprise.
It must be very difficult to work out for every location and over time as an urban area is developed. An airport for instance, 40 years ago may have just 20 flights a day using one runway, now maybe 100 flights a day on two runways with bigger planes. Or a station by a quiet road which over time becomes much busier with traffic. Wind factors. There are so many variables. So if you have the details of how they account for it, I would be interested to see it.
Like this sort of thing: Melbourne Temperature Hottest in 100 Years
Melbourne, as a city, has grown enormously over the past 50 years. So it wouldn't be that surprising if a weather station in the middle, now surrounded by ever taller buildings that helps to retain heat better, is going to give a warmer reading. But is that 93 degrees a straight thermometer reading or has it been adjusted (accounted for)? If this is not UHI effect, why weren't there record breaking temps outside of Melbourne? http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=463
Surface temperature records are valuable in the long term, but wouldn't it be better to only use weather stations that aren't affected by UHI. Which is strange given the GISS and NOAA have dropped most of the rural station data and now only use, in California for example, only 4 stations, 3 in LA and one SF airport.
Is it that difficult to see why some people might become sceptical?
Truly awesome.Melbourne has its hottest night ever and that proves it is all a conspiracy.
Who mentioned conspiracy? People are merely pointing out that data is/has been scewed, misused, ignored, manipulated or whatever. There are flaws in the reasoning behind AGW and more especially in the effects that AGW may have.
Well as you ask........
Sounds like those 'Scientists' are up to no good.
....which are being covered up and/or ignored by 'The Scientists' in the multi decade, multi-institutional, pan-Governmental, global conspiracy.