@BTS: <i>So VP what do you have to say regarding refusal ter release
yr workings and gate keeping, well documented on Climate
Audit?</i>
(Sorry to be slow disambiguating "yr". A senior moment there, many more to come, no doubt.)
This is presumably in the context of my comment on your "Proper skeptics promote open debate and testing and do not hide declines or refuse ter release data or seek ter gate-keep journals to limit critical debate and research because it is contrary ter consensus thinking". What I had in mind had nothing to do with the hockey stick wars per se (other than that they too confuse me) but rather that it left me confused as to whether you were taking the position of a climate denier, climate skeptic, or "proper skeptic", or conflating two, or all three.
As far as "proper skeptic" is concerned, all reputable journals, whether of climate, chemistry, mathematics, etc., practice "gate-keeping" in the form of skeptical refereeing, which is how I interpreted your "proper".
Should the skepticism of a climate journal referee be the same as that of a climate skeptic? I'd imagine this is more so at <a href="http://www.eenews.net/" rel="nofollow">Energy & Environment</a> than at say <a href="http://www.nature.com" rel="nofollow">Nature</a>. Should Nature behave more like E&E?
