|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 7, 2011 14:58:37 GMT 1
"Energy and Environment" only exists because of the corruption of the peer review system of Orthodox, Mainstream, IPCC "Climatology", louise. It was started by people of integrity and how the IPCC clique and its footsoldiers and cadres detest it for providing a loophole circumventing pal review. you'll find attempts to blacken their reputations in Desmugblog, so beloved of helen and others!
By the way what do you think Phil Jones MEANT when he wrote to Michael Mann on Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004:
The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
Phil
|
|
|
|
Post by louise on Feb 7, 2011 15:14:05 GMT 1
"Energy and Environment" only exists because of the corruption of the peer review system of Orthodox, Mainstream, IPCC "Climatology", louise. It was started by people of integrity and how the IPCC clique and its footsoldiers and cadres detest it for providing a loophole circumventing pal review. from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment and as for By the way what do you think Phil Jones MEANT when he wrote to Michael Mann on Thu Jul 8 16:30:16 2004: The other paper by MM is just garbage - as you knew. De Freitas again. Pielke is also
losing all credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well - frequently as I see
it. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin (Trenberth) and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !
Cheers
PhilEven though these guys thought the papers were garbage, the point is they were not kept out of the next IPCC report. They were included. Hence, any attempt to distort the peer review process failed, i.e. the process works. |
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 7, 2011 18:20:18 GMT 1
What it MEANS, louise is that Phil Jones and Trenberth and others INTENDED to keep the papers mentioned out of the IPCC. And we are not just talking about the IPCC but journals, too. Hence the need for "Energy and Environment" to provide a platform for peer reviewed papers that the mainstream (and how much more mainstream than Jones, Trenberth and Mann can you get?) INTENDS to supress. E&E published the M&M paper that demolished the hockeystick (if you know what that is).
Have you read "Caspar and the Jesus Paper"? That tells the long convoluted tale of how a warmist paper that should never have been in the IPCC report (because it was not published or even written, IIRC, within the designated timescale) was actually, by hook and by crook, squeezed in. It was rubbish, for all the effort expended on it by the TEAM!
You should read a little more widely, louise. Then you and helen will know what I'm talking about.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 7, 2011 18:33:27 GMT 1
P.S I would not quote Holy Wiki on any climate controversy if you wish to be taken seriously, louise. It's as bad as desmugblog thanks to Wm Connolley et al's editorship. Have you read the "discussion" page of the wiki article about E&E that you quote?
I always read the "discussion" behind anything controversial. It's often FAR more informative than the article itself!
Click on top lefthand corner.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 7, 2011 23:43:24 GMT 1
Here's the latest in the extraordinary saga of the Team's efforts to control peer review. It's quite unbelievable!Eric Steig, in 2009, wrote a paper that claimed Antarctic warming was not just confined to the West Antarctic Peninsula but extended much further into the continent. Recently, another paper by Ryan O'Donnell, JeffId (of the AirVent) and others re-examined the Steig data and showed that the claim of more geographically extensive and greater warming claimed by Steig were much less than claimed. So far so good. Who was chosen to review the O'Donnell et al paper for The Journal of Climate? None other than Steig, the author of the work they were criticising. But that's not all. As the anonymous reviewer Steig suggested that O'Donnell et al use a different method for one of their calculations. They complied. Subsequently, on RealClimate, Steig criticized them for using precisely the method he, in his objective reviewer's hat, had recommended! In the meantime, having had the paper as Reviewer A for the best part of a year, Steig wrote openly to O'Donnell pretending that he hadn't even seen it! "Ryan, if you don’t mind sending me a preprint, and a link to your reconstructed data, I’d appreciate it. I will presumably have more to say after I get a chance to read the paper, but it’ll be a month or more as I’m simply too busy with current projects."
Uh-oh! Is such lying "scientific" I wonder? Since December O'Donnell at al have known that Steig was the "Reviewer A" who demanded such extensive changes via a massively long-winded exchange of correspondence which they nevertheless survived, but they kept their peace. The latest piece of double dealing, however, stung them into action and they have revealed the whole story of Steig's peer review duplicity on both ClimateAudit and WUWT. Ryan said, "when someone makes a suggestion during review that we take and then later attempts to use that very same suggestion to disparage our paper, my obligation to keep my mouth shut ends."------------- What a happy coincidence for me to be able include this everyday story of the Team's ongoing attempts to control the peer review process here on this very thread and in answer to helen demand in reply # 11 that I give examples. She said "Come on give us readers some evidence of peer review being 'flouted' by the upholders of orthodoxy.... Cite some examples of peer reviewed nonsense." Very handy and timely ammunition, thanks, Ryan, Jeff et al! Cheers! (as uncle Phil is wont to conclude his posts! More here: RC’s duplicity prods Jeff Id out of retirementwattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/07/rcs-duplicity-prods-jeff-id-out-of-retirement/#more-33455Eric Steig's Duplicityclimateaudit.org/2011/02/07/eric-steigs-duplicity/
|
|
|
|
Post by helen on Feb 7, 2011 23:54:38 GMT 1
And marchesarosa, who has cited that paper in any reports since publication? No one. That's how peer review works.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 0:54:42 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 1:17:21 GMT 1
Dave Andrews at Climate Audit Posted Feb 7, 2011 at 4:17 PM said:
"How can an author of a paper that is being critiqued be asked to review that critique? He is not going to be impartial in any respect.Why wasn’t he just asked, after publication, to submit a reply? That’s how ordinary folk would expect the process to progress, surely?
Seems like there is a big pile of ordure at the heart of climate science review."
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 1:29:36 GMT 1
Feb 8, 2011 at 12:24 AM from ThinkingScientist at Bishop Hill.
Just so we can all be clear what seem to be the facts re:Steig and the O'Donnell paper:
1. Steig was an anonymous reviewer of a paper that was critical of one of his own papers. This is clear conflict of interest and he should only have been given a right of reply after review and acceptance - this is the normal procedure in my experience.
2. The review was tortuous and prompted JeffID to write "The review process unfortunately took longer than expected, primarily due to one reviewer in particular. The total number of pages dedicated by just that reviewer alone and our subsequent responses – was 88 single-spaced pages, or more than 10 times the length of the paper.” RyanO has confirmed that reviewer was Reviewer A, aka Steig.
3. Steig as reviewer criticised a method in O'Donnell et al and recommended a different approach which was adopted by the authors. Steig has subsequently posted at RC criticising the method he himself asked the authors to change to.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 1:32:22 GMT 1
Latest comments at Climate Audit:
Kenneth Fritsch Posted Feb 7, 2011 at 6:30 PM
One may instinctively see problems with a paper, but to get it down in a form that can be published and pass a rather hostile review process can be a monumental task.
AJ Abrams
Posted Feb 7, 2011 at 6:41 PM
While I agree mostly with your thoughtful words above, I have to say your choice of “hostile review process” is the understatement of the short year so far when we are talking about the publisher of a paper being allowed to review a paper that refutes his work. Gate Keeping is what this is. The Climategate emails hinted at it without real proof of it happening, this is the proof.
------------
Too right, matey!
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 10:41:14 GMT 1
Feb 8, 2011 at 8:41 AM | Buffy Minton on Bishop Hill said
the problem is that they *do* have cast iron protection. I find the arrogance of the Team breathtaking given that, even after being caught red handed in Climategate, they continue to "redefine peer review" - but that arrogance comes from knowing that the MSM will never mention your indiscretions, the BBC will continue to make expensive documentaries about "Science under attack" and that governments will continue on a path of economic self destruction to "save the planet".
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 11:13:56 GMT 1
Feb 8, 2011 at 9:49 AM Huub Bakker on Bishop Hill said:
It is, indeed, not normal to allow a reviewer with this conflict of interests. An author who is the subject of such a rebuttal is normally only given right of reply in the journal.
For the editor to have allowed this, and for Steig to have taken it on, is a big no-no.The reason for this is reflected in the review process where Steig put a large number of silly requirements to Ryan et al. It amounted to 88 pages of responses from Ryan for a 14 page paper.
To the editor's credit, he eventually pulled Steig off review and gave the job to someone else - the paper was then published.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 11:26:49 GMT 1
Jeff Id (co-author) Feb 7, 2011 at 7:18 PM at Climate Audit said:
I would like to add that during the review process, we all suspected (basically knew) that it was the RC [Real Climate] team reviewing our work. Steig, Mann and probably others. The comments matched RC comments and the tone changes in the individual reviews were strong clues. Ryan kept to his word and I was unaware that Steig had admitted to the situation until today. Dr. Broccoli (the editor of The Journal of Climate) must have been under extreme pressure to fall in line, yet he simply found another reviewer and allowed the paper through.
I’m not sure the reasoning for his original decision to include Steig, but he still made the right call in the end. IMO it was a bold and strong statement that he wouldn’t allow false claims to manipulate the results. Hopefully, it doesn’t adversely affect his own funding or future. He’s shown guts in the face of a bad situation created by those playing politics.
As far as gatekeeping, IMO there was plenty of deep searching for silly reasons to stop the paper. The reviews are proof of that but I’ve seen far more egregious stuff for Steve M’s Santer rebuttal. Way way over the top.
In other words, we didn’t suffer that badly compared to what has been done and is still being done to others not included on the Team.
The funny thing is, we had quite a long email discussion about including Steig as a coauthor before work became deeper. We decided it probably wouldn’t work out.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 14:42:29 GMT 1
Latimer Alder February 8, 2011 at 7:30 am at Climate Etc said:
...there is a strong whiff of schadenfreude as we watch the petard of ‘peer-review’ hoist its most vocal and aggressive defenders. Early reviews are in:
‘One of the best belly laugh a minute comedies you will ever see’.
‘You’ll hug yourself with glee’.
‘Watch the bad guys caught out by their own too-cleverness’.
‘Least supported Actor nomination – Eric Stieg’.
Pass me a toffee apple and a choc ice to go with the popcorn please.
|
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 8, 2011 14:56:53 GMT 1
The back story via Bishop Hill
“Eric Steig et al produced a paper in 2009 which got front page on Nature and widespread media coverage, which argued that virtually the whole of Antarctica (and not just the peninsula) had and was warming.
(the fact that Antarctica is just as freezing as it was 30 years ago was always a problem for the Team, a bit like the MWP which they did their best to erase from the record via Mann's Hockey Stick).
The apparent warming of the frozen continent was achieved by use of poor and at best dubious statistical methods, which were quickly pointed out by Jeff Id and others at WUWT etc. Basically, as just about all the weather stations are located on the peninsula and coasts, they had to extrapolate and interpolate this data, into the interior.
But the resolution of their statistical interpolations was poor and there are still questions about the quality of the data they had from at least some of the coastal bases – i.e. errors were very likely to have been compounded..."
|
|
