2011-04-01 07:47:36How did this 'review paper' get published?


According to a thread on the Physics forum the paper FALSIFICATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GREENHOUSE EFFECTS WITHIN THE FRAME OF PHYSICS is defined as a 'review paper ' and was published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB). How does this differ from the research papers listed?  Are the latter peer reviewed? 

I am rather baffled how it was published in a journal at all.  The rebuttal links are included in the physics forum link.



2011-04-01 08:05:15


As this has been contradicted in the same journal (and on Science of Doom) I don't see any point in pushing this any further?

- This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings.

Bad papers get published, but as long as there is rebuttals on the report, it is fine with me  - hopefully the paper will revise their review process after this mishap. 

2011-04-01 08:11:57
Rob Honeycutt


You'll note that SkS author Chris Colose was the second author on the rebuttal paper.  Yay Chris! 

2011-04-01 17:59:10


Yes I have no doubt about the rebuttal. My query was really about the definition and process of an invited review paper. Some sceptics are claiming this is fully peer reviewed, but I suspect it hasn't been through the same procedure as a full peer review.

In the linked forum it is claimed the paper was "an invited "review" article which apparently does not have the same peer-review procedures as research articles."

2011-04-01 18:26:44


In any event, peer review is not necessarily more than a minimal sanity check. It doesn't mean the paper is really any good; that will come out in the wash - the response (if any) of the relevant scientific community.

2011-04-02 00:16:34that's an old thread on physics forum
Arthur Smith

It's from 2 years ago. I was another author on the rebuttal, and had previously posted a short response here. Do you actually see anybody quoting G&T anywhere on the web these days? Maybe it should receive a rebuttal on SkS, but it's such a mish-mash of arguments and doesn't even hold together itself logically (my response was essentially using one of their own arguments to prove that observational evidence requires a strong greenhouse effect).

2011-04-02 05:42:14
Ari Jokimäki


It really is a bunch of nonsense and not many deniers bring it up, but still - when it is brought up by someone, the deniers will still defend it and consider it a good piece of research.

Peer review or not in this case - we know that sometimes peer review just fails. After all, Lindzen & Choi (2009) was peer reviewed and published.