when Steig got his antarctica paper published in Nature (or was it Science) complete with a cover page diagram showing warming over the whole continent, the skeptics immediately poked huge holes in the shoddy data collection and demonstrably incorrect methodologies. Gavin Schmidt and other hockey team members at Real Climate laughed at them, thumbed their noses and taunted them to write their own skeptical paper if Steig's paper upset them so much. So the skeptics did. the hockey team thought they could bury any efforts to discredit one of their own because they had done so many times in the past. this time was different. even though the gang at Real Climate were able to force many changes to the skeptic's paper through onerous peer review that would have been unheard of with proAGW articles the skeptics were finally published in a less prestigious journal. the warming in the penninsula was shown to have been spread throughout the continent only because of faulty methodology, just as the sceptics had originally claimed. in a pointed example of how corrupt peer review can be Steig(the author of the original paper) actually attacked the new paper for a change that he FORCED to be made with his authority as one of the reviewers. peer review may work in other areas of science but it is just a weapon to enforce concensus in climate science.
people like Old Rocks will point to the original article in a top tier journal and totally dismiss the refutation because it was only in a second rate journal. but sooner or later the larger scientific community is going to get tired of ignoring blatant errors in climate science because of professional courtesy and undefined 'greater good' and start cleaning up the mess of politcal interference by the old boys club that control climate science and the IPCC right now.
people like Old Rocks will point to the original article in a top tier journal and totally dismiss the refutation because it was only in a second rate journal. but sooner or later the larger scientific community is going to get tired of ignoring blatant errors in climate science because of professional courtesy and undefined 'greater good' and start cleaning up the mess of politcal interference by the old boys club that control climate science and the IPCC right now.