"Reviewer A" responds

So he is in fact as cliamtegate and his later actions show him to be:
Deceptive and untrustworthy.

“Reviewer A”. He also complains that he wasn’t allowed to see the final draft.

He shouldn’t have been allowed to see the first draft either. I’ve had reviewers respond with one or two pages of critique or recommendations but “Reviewer A” responds with a total 88 pages? That wasn’t a review, it was a filibuster intended to stonewall the paper.

It looks like the Journal of Climate editors aren’t up to jury selection for a traffic ticket.
Does anyone believe this was not intentional?

Anthony says …

“This whole incident illustrates exactly why authors of competing scientific papers should not be reviewers of other papers critical of their own.”

But this is how it has been … Nothing is real. The whole peer review process is being bastardized to promote the hoax. It’s how you develop credibility from none.
The real scientists need to stand up, NOW!

Broccoli in the tank.

Their ego is certainly like their temperature model… it is anomalous.

Interesting…Will Ryan publish a retraction of his previous allegations? From what I read at RC ES is considering sueing for libel (??) (See comment #4, reply from Stieg).
IMO Stieg simply attempts to exacerbate the row with his “denier” drivel.
No attempt is made to simply put the record straight (yes, I read the RC post and the first few paragraphs appear to me to be obligatory attempts to ‘get off the hook’), he goes way beyond that in the closing paragraphs:
“To those that still don’t get this — and who continue to believe that these people can be trusted to present their scientific results honestly, and who continue to speculate that their may be truth in the allegations made over the years against Mike Mann, Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Stephen Schneider, Andrew Weaver, Kevin Trenberth, Keith Briffa, Gavin Schmidt, Darrell Kaufmann, and many many others, just because they ‘read it on a blog somewhere’ — I’d be happy to share with you some of the more, err, ‘colorful’, emails I’ve gotten from O’Donnell and his coauthors.” (RC post)
…which begs the question; Eric, and how have you and the above named responded to said “allegations? By being forthright and open, or obfuscating and closed? If you need help with the answer please refer to the recent goings-on with the UVA FOIA requests and the VA response…it speaks volumes on the Team’s intent and how the Team really operates.
In closing I see your “O’Donnellgate” comment at the end of your post as ludicrous: beyond ridiculous. Was it a vain attempt at redirection due to the heat the Team has taken over Climategate? How patheitic…

Sorry for cross-posting (Bishop Hill)
It just struck me, and has been touched upon several times before:
It seems quite conceivable to me that designated reviewer A (Eric Steig) indeed wrote and sent his review comments by himself, but that he communicated with other Team-members while doing so, possibly asking for their input and even help.
Both langage and delay-tactics and the multiple and inconsistent requests to address issues and moving goal posts at least suggest that as a possibility.
What I mean to say is that it is fully possible that Steig as reviewer both ‘recommenden to ues iridge instead’ and at RC cirticized the very same practice. But unaware of the contradiction (duplicity?). It has been suggested that this might have been a mistake, a memoryslip etc, and not intentional.
It might also have been the result of him relaying other persons opinions through his review comments, points that he did not completely understand himselft.
Again, this is his own responsibility, and he can blame noone else. But it also makes more sense.
Reading though the defence speech at RC, Steig does not strike me as to versed in statistics or at regarding methodology. In fact, my impression is that he still doesnät comprehend what O’Donnell et al is really about. He keeps talking about different points, about the warming he believes is to come, about O’Donnell not reafuting what he thinks was his ‘bigger picture message’ etc. And of course complaining about people not being nice enough to him.
I have read though his (their?) review comments and it is very hard not to get the impression that the main effort was to thwart the paper, and if that failed delay it as long as possible, and finally to minimze the harm it did to ‘the bigger picture’. Possibly even prepare it for an ‘easy rebuttal’, at least in the public eye.
It was obvious from the outset that this was a very hostile review, and obviously Steig is still more interested in toeing the party- (Team-) line, than conceding that O’Donnel et al have som valid points.
On the other hand, he also strikes me as quite human, with many responses more out of petulance and pique, as from somebody a bit out of balance, than adressing the criticism and defending his version of ‘facts’. Obviously he doesn’t have Gavin’s routine, and I think it shows to more than thos who already knew what is RCs main purpose …
And that is good!
Feb 10, 2011 at 4:29 PM | Jonas N
As to Eric Steig being chosen as a Reviewer:
I would actually expect that to happen, either him or somebody in his vicinity (eg former co-author). I don’t think this is a bad practice. Rather that it would be a bit naïve if the submitting authors expected to go free from scutiny from that side/camp.
But I would also expect the editor to be aware of this and treat it fairly. As Broccoli did here, finally. The criticism there is mainly that it seemed to take so long for him to get a fourth reviewer, and that he should have realiszed what’s going on much earlier. Well, maybe he did!? Actually I would be very surprised if he were completely unaware both of the Team, its reputation, and earlier controversies. And also would I expect him to have been pressured (or at least atempted to influence him) through other channels than the formal review process.
And I agree with those who said that he got it right in the end, and should be commended for it.
(And Steig’s pouting comment at RC, that it was a ‘lousy paper’ and more of the same, might in the end have the opposite effect, as it well should among decent and competent scientists)
….
As to Eric Steig being chosen as a Reviewer:
I would actually expect that to happen, either him or somebody in his vicinity (eg former co-author). I don’t think this is a bad practice. Rather that it would be a bit naïve if the submitting authors expected to go free from scutiny from that side/camp.
But I would also expect the editor to be aware of this and treat it fairly. As Broccoli did here, finally. The criticism there is mainly that it seemed to take so long for him to get a fourth reviewer, and that he should have realiszed what’s going on much earlier. Well, maybe he did!? Actually I would be very surprised if he were completely unaware both of the Team, its reputation, and earlier controversies. And also would I expect him to have been pressured (or at least atempted to influence him) through other channels than the formal review process.
And I agree with those who said that he got it right in the end, and should be commended for it.
(And Steig’s pouting comment at RC, that it was a ‘lousy paper’ and more of the same, might in the end have the opposite effect, as it well should among decent and competent scientists)

I’ve just left the following comment.
In, Borehole or Oblivion?
Adam Gallon says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
10 Feb 2011 at 12:18 PM
Maybe this whole episode shows that a reviewer shouldn’t be selected, who has a profound conflict of interest with the material they’ve been asked to revue?
The O’Donnell et al paper, is statistically based, so wouldn’t it have been better for a statistician to be the reviewer.
The fact that Dr Steig’s review comments, appear to exceed the length of the paper, does suggest that it was rather more than a review to pick up grammar, spelling & mathematical errors

Let’s see if I’ve gotten this straight: Steig looks for Antarctic warming using a flawed statistical technique and finds (presumed) warming. O’Donnell sees the flaw(s), analyzes the data with an improved technique which corrects certain spatial artifacts introduced by Steig’s somewhat naive approach, and his work still shows some warming, albeit with a markedly different distribution. Moreover, O’Donnell tests his method against a number of modified data sets and verifies that it performs as one would expect it to. Steig happily comments that they found warming as well.
But [Correct Answer]+[Wrong method] = [Bad Science]. (Well, unless you’re a post-modernist.) O’Donnell’s paper wasn’t about ‘climatology’ but rather the misuse of statistics in Steig 2009. Steig’s response at RC misses this crucial point and goes on about the ‘climatology’ as if methods didn’t matter, only results.
Steig states that he is not a statistician. Indeed, no one expects him to be. But we do expect that any serious researcher will consult with competent statisticians before attempting to analyse data (if not before collecting it) and will heed their advice. Apparently that was not done in this case. Anecdotal evidence leads one to suspect that, as a rule, climatologists do not feel a need to involve statisticians in their research – which strikes me as peculiar inasmuch as said research depends on statistics.
I’m only a clown and no one need listen to me, but it appears Steig and the rest of the climatology community should be thanking O’Donnell for pointing out a serious flaw which has the potential to invalidate a number of papers in their field.

“David Ball says:
February 10, 2011 at 9:13 am
“…the damage is done, and we are relegated to the back of the hall to fight it out where the general public is unaware that there are any problems with the original S09 paper. I am sooo sick and tired of this BS happening over and over again…”
I know exactly how you feel…but dude: ‘Finalist in the Bloggies!’, many, many people that never even post come here to stay current, laypeople. This is the best place for these discussions to take place. Public opinion on CAGW is low and I believe that Anthony, Jeff, Steven, and Willis et al (and that’s a BIG ‘et al’) are making the difference along with all the other pragmatic (skeptic? OK) people and blogs out there.
To quote an applicable phrase: Fight the Good Fight! Of course this means going beyond just blogging to educating our government leaders, communities, friends and families. An AMAZING amount of progress has been made, but still much more to do. We all have sphere’s of influence we circulate in and by asking one question, planting one fact, or exposing one falsehood is like dropping a pebble in a pond. The ripple expands out of our sphere and impacts (interference) with others. It’s unstoppable and we are watching / participating in the effects…IMHO; that’s a good thing!
Yea…I know, there are a multitude of arguements that might negate what I wrote above. A couple might be: human nature, cognitive dissonance, and confirmation bias but the ‘glass is half full’…from us…here…doing this.

Don’t take your eye off the ball by engaging in debate over who should or should not be a reviewer. Focus on the flawed methodology employed by S09 and Dr Steig’s apparent inability to understand why it is important. The team have no defence for this and are trying to change the subject. See Bishop Hill’s pictorial explanation for excellent clarity on the subject.