Josh writes:
In view of the thread The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: My Initial Comments on the New Dessler 2011 Study a commenter over at BishopHill said this:
“Does this mean that John Abrahams comments, reported in the Guardian and Daily Climate, about Dr. Spencer constantly having to correct errors and revise work, are in fact correct?
Just not in the way Abrahams originally intended?”
So I drew a cartoon, not outrageously funny, maybe a faint smile…
UK Sceptic says, September 11, 2011 at 12:08 am:
Josh shoots, he scores! :0)
————————————-
Yep, and his hit rate is 100%!
I wonder if Spencer’s contribution to Dessler’s paper will be acknowledged in the msm?
Dave Springer says:
September 11, 2011 at 7:19 am
———————
Thought provoking. I read it this morning a couple of times and have pondered the content. Very interesting theory.
Meanwhile back on CA, Dessler is also getting a few lessons from Mr. McIntrye.
JohnWho says:
September 10, 2011 at 11:58 am
Except, in this case, Dr. Spencer appears to be correcting the errors before the paper is submitted. Helping the Team look good.
1) Wouldn’t the paper need to be re-reviewed if corrections have been made since the review?
2) Doesn’t this raise questions about the quality of the paper and the reviewers, even before it is published?
3) Doesn’t this raise questions about the conclusion of the paper? After all, if there were mistakes in the math, then the conclusions based on the mistakes are likely mistakes as well.
Who reviewed the paper? Given that Spenser was able to find errors so quickly, it would seem that the reviewers that surely had the paper for longer are not qualified to be reviewers.
This is why the names of the reviewers should be made public at the time the paper is published. So that the quality of future papers is not compromised by secrecy surrounding incompetent reviewers.