I woudl do this but I risk buring bridges by doing so (I'm a member of the AGU) and blowing my cover-- really pathetic this. 

If anyone would be willing to make an query on my behalf to figure out exactly what happened with that 2009 EOS article I would be most grateful.  He says it was peer-reviewd, their guidelines explicity state that they do not review papers.  We need to figure out is that paper was an exception or not.

Pielke also has a new post on his resignation letter from 1995, he frames it as "his points and concerns are still valid today", actually it is more likely that his biases, mindset and ego just have not changed in the last 16 years or so.  Very sad.

If you can email me with some specifics so as to better fill me in, I will.

Daniel thank you, thank you, thank you!

Albatross, while you where having the debate I came across this statement concerning the EOS Electronic SupplemetntL

This Eos electronic supplement provides more information about subjects that appear in the printed version ofEos. The supplement is a fully integrated part of Eos and is fully archived and referenceable. The high peer-review and editorial standards for which Eos is known also apply to the material in the supplement. Brief material in the printed component of Eos will reference the longer, more detailed information on the same topic in the supplement.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/eos-news/supplements/

Absent furrther information I would take that as an indication that Pielke was correct.  As an alternative, just ask him how many reviewers comments he recieved.  No reviewers comments => no external reviewers => editorial review, not peer review.

Thanks Tom,

"No reviewers comments => no external reviewers => editorial review, not peer review."

I had wondered about that.