Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. recently submitted this paper to Geophysical Research Letters (GRL):
A homogeneous database of global landfalling tropical cyclones
Jessica Weinkle* and Roger Pielke, Jr.
Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado, 1333 Grandview Ave, Campus Box 488, Boulder, Colorado 80309
Abstract
In recent decades, economic damage from tropical cyclones (TCs) around the world has increased dramatically. Scientific literature published to date is strongly suggestive that the increase in losses can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to tropical cyclone landfalls. However, no homogenized dataset of tropical cyclone landfalls has been created. We have constructed such a homogenized global landfall TC database. We find no long-term global trends in the frequency or intensity of landfalling TCs for the period with reliable data, providing very strong support for the conclusion that increasing damage around the world over the period(s) of record can be explained entirely by increasing wealth in locations prone to TC landfalls, and adding confidence in the fidelity of economic normalization analyses.
Seems straightforward enough. It came back with two reviews, both with some corrections, one reviewer suggesting publication without major caveats, the other grudgingly suggesting publication to the editor, Noah Diffenbaugh, and asking for revisions. So far so good (you’d think). But it starts getting weird from here. Pielke Jr. asks this set of questions:
As the editor what would you do?
A) Provisionally accept the paper pending a revision that meets the editor’s judgment of responsiveness
B) Provisionally accept the paper pending re-review by the two reviewers
C) Reject the paper
D) Reject the paper and tell the authors that any reconsideration of the paper would have to be accompanied by a detailed response to the two reviewers followed by selection of new reviewers and a restart of the review process
If you picked (D) then you too can be an editor at GRL.
Read the whole bizarre peer review story here.
omnologos says:
“CBH:.. The take-home message is that you are a sad bully who knows nothing about me, hasn’t read anything written by me (the sentence above is beyond ridicule), hasn’t been able to do a proper search even when trying to do so and has serious issues in relating to fellow human beings.”
Repeated for effect.
James Sexton says:
October 5, 2011 at 8:48 am
“When Dr Dessler gets a paper accepted in one day, while MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen is forced to wait a year or more for publication, there is a problem right here in River City: corruption in the climate journal industry”.
Let’s get the bias and inaccuracies out of this statement:
“Dr Prof Dessler gets a paper letter accepted in one day17 days, while MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen is forced to wait a year or more for publication,”
If you write a bad paper it can take for ever to get it published! There is a big difference in the publication time and scrutiny for a letter vs a paper. Dessler’s letter was reviewed by two reviewers, presumably part of the reason for the revised version being submitted 17 days after the first submission.
Phil. says:
October 5, 2011 at 9:35 am
So, you’re assertion is the reviewers review harder when a paper is submitted vs a letter (response to a published paper)? (BTW, that was me quoting someone else….. a long conversation)
That’s laughable. Dessler’s entire line (the back and forth with Spencer) is demonstrably inferior, but we don’t have to focus on Dessler, we can talk about Steig and the knuckleheaded reviewers, or any number of bpeer reviewed papers that have relegated to the dust bin of history because of the poor quality of reviews. This occurs only because the assertion of the various papers support a specific ideology. It has been demonstrated time and again.
Then people such as CBH suggests that Lindzen suddenly forgot how to write a paper? After what? 300 publications he suddenly doesn’t know what it takes to publish? Its really all academic from here anyway. The process has been exposed. Anyone lending the term “peer review” any validity is either delusional, hasn’t been paying attention, or so far gone with their ideology an objective perspective would be beyond their grasp.
(chuckling to myself……. “peer review process prevents poor papers from being published” giggle…..giggle, snort, chuckle….. lol, LOL…… LMAO…….. ROTFLMAOPMP!!!!! hahahaahahahhaaha
CBH said “I agree that it is likely to be Mr. Morabito´s japanese friend having screwed up”
Let’s just be a little bit careful about this. I didn’t say it was likely. What I was trying to point out was that if anyone had screwed up, it wasn’t MM. I think it would be a good idea to find out more before continuing.
Actually, I think it would be a good idea not to continue, but to return to the topic of this thread. Bear in mind that it is well understood here that the ad hominem is the warmists’ weapon of choice, and tends not to be well regarded.
Mike Jonas: Fair enough. I agree that there is no reason to continue this particular track. With respect to the ad hominem, however, I must, once again, say that I simply fail to see anything in the slightest way reproachable about what I have written about Mr. Morabitos scientific experience. He was the one who again and again referred to his experience as his main argument that something fishy was going on in GRL´s review process – and then its perfectly legitimate to point out that he does not have any relevant experience. If you disregard this line of argument, then I suggest that you let Mr. Morabito (and other similar people inflating their CVs in order to appear important) not to bring this up here as an argument.
With respect to the topic of this thread, I have made clear that I see no problem at all nor anything remotely deviating from the general practices of GRL as stated in Diffenbaugh´s link. I have never heard of an editor giving authors directions about how to carry out suggested revisions of a manuscript, be they minor or major, and I have a hard time understanding that an experienced scientist like Dr. Pielke could be surprised by this. Many other people here, some of which are far more qualified and/or experienced than I, have made similar points. So far, I have not seen any serious responses to this.
“Then people such as CBH suggests that Lindzen suddenly forgot how to write a paper? After what? 300 publications he suddenly doesn’t know what it takes to publish? Its really all academic from here anyway. The process has been exposed”.
First of all: You appear to argue that because a senior scientist has a paper rejected, the review process must be somehow corrupted. Well, I hate to shock you with the harsh truth, but lots of elderly scientists write quite bad papers (as do younger ones), and some of these (perhaps too few?) do get rejected. And there are loads of examples of senior scientists sticking to something long since debunked/rejected by mainstream science because they got tuned in on something and are unable to admit having committed errors or having followed a blind track for years. This happens every day in every single existing field.
Furthermore: What I am saying – along with all four reviewers of the PNAS submission, some of which were very friendly towards Lindzen – is that Lindzen deliberately chose NOT to answer the specific criticism about his allegedly subjective choices of data points raised by Fasullo, Trenberth et al. This is the cornerstone of the disagreement: Fasullo & Trenberth let a computer pick data points for sea temperatures randomly, while Lindzen and Choi apparently chose some specific points picked by themselves. The former approach produces a sensitivity of 4,1F, the latter one of about 1F. If L&C are wrong on this point, then the core argument of their entire paper collapses, since it thus suggests that we have a net positive feedback (=sensitivity larger than 1,2K). I make no claim to be qualified to sort out this disagreement, but it is undeniable that L&C fail to adress this very central point.
If Lindzen wants to convince others sceptical of his work that he is right, he thus has to justify his data selection and show how and why Fasullo & Trenberth got it wrong. As long as he fails to do this, then one cannot help wonder if the simple reason is that he cannot answer this, because he well knows that correcting this problem would mean that he had no case anymore.
CBH – since you’ve given up…here’s one, two and three. Yes I know, it’s not the right papers, the right topic, the right journal, the right font, or whatever else (that’s your excuse for four, anyway).
Needless to say, your hypocritical pontificating about my right to speak despite your absolute inability to perform an internet search, has been accompanied by a string of baseless accusations and distortions against me. It’s the most classical ad-hom, but your character assassination skills ain’t that good really.
ps perish the thought you could do a search using my initials rather than the full name
Dearest Omnologos/Dr. Morabito: I´m truly sorry that you feel hurt by having your experience exposed here. And you are indeed right that I have not read any of your research, but believe me when I say that it is not because of lack of trying that I have so far failed. Mike Jonas and Richard Tol apparently have similar experiences. Apparently there´s a bug in e.g Google Scholar preventing a search on “Maurizio Morabito” for author from giving results, while allowing all other names. 🙂 But hey, why do not you simply help us all out of our misery and provide us with some links to your research? There are so many of us looking for it without luck – you must be flattered by all the attention. 😉
OK. Dearest Mr. Morabito: I recant part of my last comment. I realise that you have indeed published two papers in peer-reviewed journals (the latter two you cite is a book chapter, while the fourth contains no publications with your name upon it). Apologies.
I did do a search on “Morabito M”. The problem when searching for your initials is that there is at least three another scientists by the names of Marco/Michael/Melissa Morabito – and of the 87 papers in ThomsonReuters, the only one from a Maurizio Morabito was the one about lunar settlement.
Still, having published less than a handful papers hardly makes a good case for boasting boldly about your rich experience with scientific publishing in front of people like Richard Tol……..:)
Another thought that should be left to perish is the idea that you put yourself in front of a mirror and realize the abyss of pompous git-ness you have reached during the past few days.
omnologos says:
October 5, 2011 at 4:11 pm
Another thought that should be left to perish is the idea that you put yourself in front of a mirror and realize the abyss of pompous git-ness you have reached during the past few days.
===============================================================
LMAO…… Omn….. I think the troll believes you are Morabito.
BTW, CBH, you took only one part of my statement and try to make a response to my statement from it. It is clear my comment is to be taken in its entirety. I don’t disagree that some scientists submit bad papers. I can and do allow that Dr. Lindzen can possibly do exactly that. However, recent literature seems to make the paper quite a bit more plausible than what it was earlier deemed. Ouch that’s gotta hurt. But, again, you didn’t address my comment in its entirety. Your insistence that peer-review is somehow a quality assurance vehicle is demonstrably untrue. It was demonstrated the first time Steve McIntyre started his blog. This has continued to be demonstrated over and over again. Not simply at ClimateAudit, but throughout the blogosphere. If you wish to deny this reality….. so be it, but that’s akin to volunteering to be the village idiot. You are familiar with Steig et al 2009? And the story behind it?
Cling to your delusion if you wish, please don’t take offense if people laugh at you while you do this. It is, after all, your choice.
James
Whether E&E is “valid” or “relevant” for climate science is purely subjective, I believe it is but it certainly is not a “politics journal”, it is an interdisciplinary journal that covers both the natural and social sciences. Papers dealing with natural science in E&E are peer-reviewed by scientists with natural science credentials.
Another strawman argument as I made no such claim. I simply stated that E&E was cited multiple times in the IPCC report.
Editors do not need to have the same qualifications as the reviewers of a paper. This is the whole purpose of having the peer-review system. You have failed to demonstrate that she does not have the credentials to be the editor of E&E.
This quote has been explained many times,
“My political agenda is simple and open; it concerns the role of research ambitions in the making of policy.
I concluded from a research project about the IPCC – funded by the UK government during the mid 1990s – that this body was set up to support, initially, climate change research projects supported by the WMO and hence the rapidly evolving art and science of climate modeling. A little later the IPCC came to serve an intergovernmental treaty, the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. This enshrines in law that future climate change would be warming caused by greenhouse gases (this remains debated), is man-made (to what an extend remains debated) as well as dangerous (remains debated). It became a task of the IPCC government selected and government funded, to support the theory that this man-made warming would be dangerous rather than beneficial, as some argue.
The solutions to this assumed problem were worked out by IPCC working group three, which worked largely independently of the science working group one and consisted primarily of parties interested in a ‘green’ energy agenda, including people from environment agencies, NGOs and environmental economics. This group supplied the science group with emission scenarios that have been widely criticized and which certainly enhanced the ‘danger’. From interviews and my own reading I concluded that the climate science debate WAS BY NO MEANS OVER AND SHOULD CONTINUE. However, when I noticed that scientific critics of the IPCC science working group were increasingly side-lined and had difficulties being published – when offered the editorship of E&E, I decided to continue publishing ‘climate skeptics’ and document the politics associated with the science debate. The implications for energy policy and technology are obvious.
I myself have argued the cause of climate ‘realism’ – I am a geomorphologist by academic training before switching to environmental international relations – but do so on more the basis of political rather than science-based arguments. As far as the science of climate change is concerned, I would describe myself as agnostic.
In my opinion the global climate research enterprise must be considered as an independent political actor in environmental politics. I have widely published on this subject myself, and my own research conclusions have influenced my editorial policy. I also rely on an excellent and most helpful editorial board which includes a number of experienced scientists. Several of the most respected ‘climate skeptics’ regularly peer-review IPCC critical papers I publish.” – Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen
Please tell me what Dr. Böhmer-Christiansen’s political affiliation is.
Unfortunately Mr. Beck is not around anymore to defend his position. I prefer to leave the debate between the authors of the papers and those who publish comments on them. You are neither.
Somebody did engage him, Harro A.J. Meijer and Ralph F. Keeling:
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/c332k41405021514/
You can read Beck’s published rebuttal here,
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/author_reply9-2.pdf
I would be willing to challenge you on your hypothesis of a 1st year student being able to “debunk” his claims but he is no longer around to do so. Regardless I do not believe a 1-year student they would remotely be able to engage in the debate without extensive third party help.
All of which is irrelevant to the fact that E&E is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, cited multiple times by the IPCC.
He is.
Geez, hasn’t anybody learned the lesson of DFTFT? CBH is the Danish equivalent of Chris Colose, a wannabe climatologist who has yet to figure out the real meaning of science. A PhD student in Environmental Ecology? So much is wasted on the young…
Poptech says:
October 5, 2011 at 11:13 pm
I think the troll believes you are Morabito.
He is.
===========================================
Thansk Pop, I got to thinking after I posted that……… …… I’ve no idea why I hadn’t connected the dots before. Doesn’t change my comments any.
Omnologos: No problems. Our publication record appear similar, but I´m not the one boasting about my overwhelming experience as some kind of argument. Besides, I´m still waiting for anything substantial about what you perceive as irregularities in the GRL peer review process.
James Sexton: “Your insistence that peer-review is somehow a quality assurance vehicle is demonstrably untrue.”
I think you fail to understand both what I wrote, and what the purpose of peer review is. It certainly is not an inerrant “assurance” of neither truthfulness, correctness or anything – it´s main purpose is simple to check if the basic homework has been done, and to point out weaknesses where the paper could be improved. In the case here, where Pielke is trying to sell a less-than global-less-than-homogeneous database as a global, homogeneous database, the reviewer correctly points out this flaw which, if corrected, will make the paper reflect reality much better (though also less groundbreaking).
Had Beck´s paper been peer-reviewed by a serious journal, it would immediately have been thrown out as unworthy of publishing as it completely ignored 50 years of carbon research. Beck thus chose a publication forum where no competent people were around, or where peer review is either nonexisting or just a mere rubber stamp.
I don´t deny that very bad papers slide through sometimes, nor that very good ones are occasionally rejected. However, review does mean that ON AVERAGE, peer-reviewed papers will be better than un-peer-reviewed ones. I can at least assure you that all the 4-5 papers I have been involved in have been significantly improved by the peer-review process. It´s clear that peer-review weeding out unsupported but politically convenient stuff must be seen as highly inconvenient to people like you who has an unalterable worldview at odds with the facts and don´t care or don´t understand much about science anyway, but this is hardly an argument against the process.
As for your comment on Lindzen, it indicated that you thought that I had suggested that Lindzen had suddenly lost his smartness or his ability to write papers. No. I agree that Lindzen is – or was – a brilliant scientist. I merely stated the obvious: He explicitly failed to adress the core objection about choice of data points raised by Fasullo & co which, if Fasullo & co. are correct, would make Lindzen´s entire case crumble. I stated that I was in no position to decide whether they are correct or not, but as long as Lindzen simply ignores this objection completely, any honest reader is left to conclude that he has no answer to this. Again, this was correctly pointed out by all four reviewers of PNAS – and this was, yet again, an excellent example of peer-review weeding out poor science. That it may have dismayed people like you is an unfortunate side effect.
FYI, you may not have read or understood Steig and O´Donnell´s papers, but both basically tell the same story about Antarctica having warmed up significantly – in contrast to the impression left by blogs like WUWT or by ClimateAudit. Here´s the verdict from O´Donnell himself (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/doing-it-ourselves/) (from Jeff Id´s blog, so please, no BS about how he has been bullied into a corner by Realclimate or such):
“I would hope that our paper is not seen as a repudiation of Steig’s results, but rather as an improvement. In my opinion, the Steig reconstruction was quite clever, and the general concept was sound”.
I suggest you read this piece for a nice roundup:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/30/on-warming-antarctica-clouds-and-peer-review/
which has this end salutation by Steig:
“I congratulate the authors on the publication of this paper in a serious scientific journal. One of the great things about peer review is that it forces authors to think carefully about what they are saying. Notably absent in the paper is any mention of the completely specious criticism that populist rabble-rouser and ‘climate skeptic’ Steve McIntyre leveled at us about errors (not our errors — errors in the data we got from the British Antarctic Survey) in the data of a weather station. These were errors that McIntyre should have known made absolutely no difference to the results, but he either didn’t recognize this or he chose to ignore it in the favor of ’sound bites’ that cast doubt on our results. Given that this paper is co-authored by McIntyre, perhaps this will mark the end of the “Antarctic is not warming” meme one hears frequently from contrarians, not to mention claims about the peer review process being broken. One can only hope.”.
I realise I may have lost you several three-syllable words ago, but as stated by the different authors, this is actually – once again – a fine example of peer-review in work.
“Boasting”???? Where??????
CBH says:
“I realise I may have lost you several three-syllable words ago…”
Listen up, Skippy. You are a know-nothing know it all, still wet behind the ears, and a True Believer in the catastrophic AGW fairy tale. If you had the most rudimentary understanding of the climate null hypothesis you would know you don’t have a leg to stand on. The whole CO2=CAGW conjecture is debunked nonsense. Juveniles like you eat it up, because you see dollars raining down on CAGW sycophants.
The whole ridiculous scare is based on demonizing “carbon”. Either you’re a credulous fool or you are in it for the loot. Take your pick, there isn’t a third choice. You are with Big Government’s intent to get its hands deeper into our pockets based on a lie, or you are another victim of cognitive dissonance. Pathetic either way.
Robert E. Phelan: Thank you very much indeed for the eloquent ad-homs. To clarify, I´m no climatologist, nor even a “wannabe”, nor have I pretended to be one. However, having sought for an “RE Phelan” in ThomsonReuters, there appears to be no records at all within the category “science” or “technology”, so if my understanding of “the real meaning of science” is wanting, I´m afraid that you are in no position to mend this want. 🙂
Poptech: “Whether E&E is “valid” or “relevant” for climate science is purely subjective, I believe it is but it certainly is not a “politics journal”, it is an interdisciplinary journal that covers both the natural and social sciences. Papers dealing with natural science in E&E are peer-reviewed by scientists with natural science credentials.”.
You have to decide: Is E&E a science journal or a social “science” journal? You cannot have it both ways. If it´s a science journal, then it requires some kind of serious editors and reviewers competent in this field, which Böhmer-Christiansen undeniably is not – and the reviewers letting through papers like Achibald´s or Becks certainly were not either. If it is not a science journal, and if it is not cited in the science part of IPCC report (WGI), then don´t try to put forward something from E&E when discussing scientific stuff.
Once again: Beck´s paper is ludicrous on its own right – let us lay aside whether it requires an undergraduate student or someone with a Bsc to realise this, I can say for certain that every single person in my biology department that has been discussing the subject, researcher or student, graduate or undergraduate alike, has immediately been able to see the gaping hole in the argument just from looking at Beck´s graph (http://rogerfromnewzealand.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/co2-1812-2004-chemical.jpg) – according to Beck, the CO2 levels have apparently fluctuated wildly from 1812 to 1958, by up to 100 ppm from one year to the next, e.g. 1820-21 or 1940-41, and suddenly in 1958, with the introduction of spectroscopy and the Mauna Loa laboratory, it shows a calm monotonic rise of less than 2ppm from year to year. The direct historic and prehistoric measurements from Vostok ice cores are completely ignored in his 2006 “paper”, as are any thoughts on possible sources for a putative one-year rise of 100 ppm – this latter would also have forced Beck to look into the isotopic measurements of the C13/C12 ration and the content of C14 in atmospheric CO2. It is not even consistent on it´s own premises: If volcanic eruptions pre-1958 like Krakatau are associated with enormous yearly increases by 80-100 ppm seen in some years in his graph, the why don´t eruptions like El Chichon in 1983 or Pinatubo in 1991 leave the faintest small wiggle in the record post-1958? And if the temperature rise of 0,4 from 1900-1940 was the cause of Beck´s alleged 200 ppm increase in the same period, then why has CO2 since 1970 only risen by about 75 ppm, when the temperature has increased by 0,6 in this period? 🙂
There is simply no wiggle room or anything to discuss for anybody with the slightest idea about the carbon cycle including sources and sinks, basic biology, chemistry and physics: Beck´s paper is completely and objectively absurd on its face, and it was debunked by research having been carried out long before it was ever published.
If you fail to see this, then you are merely ignorant of these basics. There is no shame in this. But a serious scientific journal does not allow reviewers who are either ignorant of or don´t care about these basic facts to review papers about atmospheric CO2 levels. That E&E let this paper through – and failed to retract it or apologise for it – tells everything about the seriousness of the “review process” at E&E.
BTW, E&E had a mission statement from 2006 also cited in the exchange between Beck and Keeling stating that is was intended as a forum for “skeptical analyses of global warming” – and as I stated, Böhmer-Christiansen is following this line faithfully.
Thus E&E simply is not a peer-reviewed science journal to be taken seriously by anyone in the natural science – no matter how desperately you and others may want to believe and state otherwise.. It´s quite simple.
CBH,
You are a numpty fool if you believe that E&E is “not a peer reviewed science journal.” It is, as has been explained to you with valid citations. The fact is that you are flat wrong, and you have been explicitly told why you are wrong several times here. So when you persist in stating your beliefs, which are provably wrong, you are either an idiot or a liar. Take your pick, there isn’t a third option.
“Listen up, Skippy. You are a know-nothing know it all, still wet behind the ears…a True Believer…..If you had the most rudimentary understanding of the climate null hypothesis………The whole CO2=CAGW conjecture is debunked nonsense. Juveniles like you eat it up…..CAGW sycophants……the whole ridiculous scare……… Either you’re a credulous fool or you are in it for the loot……..You are with Big Government’s intent to get its hands deeper into our pockets based on a lie, or you are another victim of cognitive dissonance. Pathetic either way.”
Dearest “Dr. anonymous”: I´m sure that the eloquence, the aristotelic rigourousness so characteristic for your line of argument and the insight into the climate science background you display in your comments is fully representative of other personal traits such as your general intelligence, personal likability, polyglottism and ability to keep your head cool no matter how heated the argument.
However charmed I may be to be lectured by (hopefully well-paying) taxpayers of your format, I may be tempted to warn you to be more careful with the language in the future – remember that this is supposed to be “the best science blog”, “that ad hominem is the warmists’ weapon of choice” which “tends not to be well regarded” – or so I´ve been told from usually well-informed regular readers here…………..
Christoffer, you make some valid points, as well as invalid points regarding the purpose of peer review. But I wish to leave that aside for the moment and ask a question. If the purpose of site selection was to find locations where CO2 was well mixed and did not wildly swing, is that an accurate measurement of CO2 levels everywhere, or just where it did not wildly swing? And did you know that even at those sites, daily measurements are carefully taken when CO2 levels are stable and that CO2 outliers are removed from the data?
Smokey: It has indeed been explained by a “Poptech” both that a) E&E is a science journal, b) that E&E is not a science journal, and c) that it covers both social and natural sciences. You cannot have it all these ways. The editor herself has made clear that the has no background in judging scientific content, it is not listed as science/technology in Web of Science, and it regularly publishes articles full of basic schoolboy howlers. This should nail it for anybody remotely aqquainted with the scientific process. Heck, It is not even taken seriously by Roger Pielke jr.
I am well aware that Böhmer-Christiansen makes lots of claims about her journals scientific reliability, but no serious journal with qualified peer-reviewers publishes the sort of rubbish written by Beck, Archibald etc. we have discussed here. Hint: That somebody claims something on a webpage is not always reliable. Maybe E&E does have a peer review process where somebody with a degree in whatever field looks at the title and sees whether it conforms to the journal scope to propagate “skeptical analyses of global warming”? 🙂
Dearest “Dr. anonymous”: I´m sure that the eloquence, the aristotelic rigourousness so characteristic for your line of argument and the insight into the climate science background you display in your comments is fully representative of other personal traits such as your general intelligence, personal likability, polyglottism and ability to keep your head cool no matter how heated the argument.
However charmed I may be to be lectured by (hopefully well-paying) taxpayers of your format, I may be tempted to warn you to be more careful with the language in the future – remember that this is supposed to be “the best science blog”, “that ad hominem is the warmists’ weapon of choice” which “tends not to be well regarded” – or so I´ve heard…..:)
Numpty says:
“Maybe E&E does have a peer review process where somebody with a degree in whatever field looks at the title and sees whether it conforms to the journal scope …”
So, you’re just winging it. Typical of your baseless opinions.
Denigrating a respected journal for publishing a paper by Beck, while disregarding other journals that publish debunked nonsense by Dessler, Mann, Ammann and other alarmists who don’t have the huevos to disclose their data, methodologies, code and metadata shows whose boots you’re licking. Nature was forced to issue a Correction to MBH98, a paper that has been torn to shreds for its cherry-picking of data [and thirteen years later, Mann still refuses to disclose his methodologies, code and metadata]. And Mann08 is based on an upside down, corrupted proxy. You have clueless, mendacious heroes who don’t know what they’re doing. Their science is at the level of Bill Nye.
Poptech [October 5, 2011 at 7:53 pm above] and many others have been smacking you around the block in this thread. YOU are the one who is completely out of step, not everyone else. When you have a CV one-tenth as impressive as Dr Böhmer-Christiansen, whom you repeatedly denigrate, maybe we will start to take your juvenile opinions seriously. In the mean time, be thankful there’s no censorship here like there is at most of your alarmist blogs. They – and you – are trying to hold back the tide of truth with one-sided misinformation. You are being tarred with the same brush as those climate charlatans because you want to be another climate charlatan. The truth means nothing to an ambitious puppy like you. So you carry water for the anti-science crowd.
Phil. says:
October 5, 2011 at 9:35 am
James Sexton says:
October 5, 2011 at 8:48 am
“When Dr Dessler gets a paper accepted in one day, while MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen is forced to wait a year or more for publication, there is a problem right here in River City: corruption in the climate journal industry”.
Let’s get the bias and inaccuracies out of this statement:
“Dr Prof Dessler gets a paper letter accepted in one day17 days, while MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen is forced to wait a year or more for publication,”
If you write a bad paper it can take for ever to get it published! There is a big difference in the publication time and scrutiny for a letter vs a paper. Dessler’s letter was reviewed by two reviewers, presumably part of the reason for the revised version being submitted 17 days after the first submission.
Sorry about the failure of the strikeout to work here!
It should have been “Prof Dessler gets a paper letter accepted in 17 days, while MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen is forced to wait a year or more for publication,”
The statement that Dessler got his paper (actually a letter) published in one day is incorrect.
Accepted ≠ “published”. But the lopsided comparison is apt, and indisputable.