Imagine if you will, someone like me arguing evidence for AGW
coming to CFACT and citing an article from, not a top - tier journal, nor even a second - tier, but more like a third - tier journal like the Asia - Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences (which people
generally publish in when they can't pass the more rigorous peer review of the more reputable journals), and if that paper were written by a person who's work has had
to be corrected by others, not once, not twice, but FOUR times
to my knowledge, and every correction takes it back in the opposite direction of what that person was arguing, and if the paper I was citing was this guy making the
same old tired argument he's been corrected on before, and if this paper already had evidence of data tampering
to get it's
conclusions... just imagine the uproar from the usual crowd here.