2011-06-17 15:15:30Pat Michaels misinforms again, Forbes assists
Julian Brimelow

Sigh, it never, never ends....more nonsense.

2011-06-17 17:27:55
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley

The really priceless bit is raising the Douglass paper.  If he is going to try and argue that pal-review means that the skeptics have a hard time getting their papers published, then mentioning a paper that is obviously flawed (to anyone with a basic grasp of stats and how GCMs operate) and still got published in a quite prestigeous journal is a bit of an own goal!  LOL.

2011-06-18 01:29:51
Dana Nuccitelli

Wow, just appalling.  I love this part:

"But in the intellectually inbred, filthy-rich world of climate science..."

Wow.  And as Dikran notes, his first example is the horridly flawed Douglass et al. paper, which did get published in a prestigious journal.  WTF?  Then he brings up Lindzen because he tried to get a "pal review" paper published and failed.  Wait, I thought pal review was bad?  But it's okay for Lindzen?  WTF?

Then he suggests Hansen doesn't get the same treatment, but I don't even recall Hansen getting any papers published in PNAS.  If he has, dollars to donuts they weren't as grossly flawed as Lindzen's paper.

Michaels is a dolt.

2011-06-18 02:16:23
Julian Brimelow


"then mentioning a paper that is obviously flawed"

How about Michaels and McKitrick (2004, 2007)?  Both flawed, bith published byt he peer-review system that he so dispises.

I really hope that someone take shiom down really hard for this absolute BS. Feel free to share the link Dikran, in fact, please do.

And how soon he forgets about the Soon and Baliunas debacle and that at Climate Research, and soon he forgets that the "skeptics" have quite the scoila network.

I know what he is trying to do here, he is trying to bait PNAS into doing or saying something stupid, and trying to lure climate science papers into open review journals. Well, and manufacture controversy too of coure. I have no problem with open review, but some threads that I have looked at were more like food fights really.  But just thhink how much mileage the "skeptics" could get out of having climate papers by "The Team" reviewed in public....it would be a circus-- just what they want.

As for double blind, I'm OK with that too, although oftentimes I have been able to figure out who the author is after reading the Introduction, (same is probably true for people reviewing my research).  The other problem with double blind is that the logistics are a nightmare, I know of one journal that had to stop the process, becasue people's identity kept on being accidentally leaked.

And last, but not least, most journals that I publish in nowadays demand that the author provide a list of suggested reviewers (one jprnal would not accept my paper without me providing 5 potential reviewers).  Difficulty is to find someone with whom you have not worked with etc.  I am really not happy about doing that, especially as I was not required to sign anything which stated that I non of the reviewers or I had a conflict of interest.  I would much prefer that the Editors went through the Introduction and picked some relevant names-- yes time, but doing so does not place the burdon on the authors and does not place them (or the reviewers) in potentially awkward situations.  BUT the same rules apply to "skeptics".

Anyhow, my two cents worth.

PS:  Are there any prominent "skeptics" who are members of NAS?  Who invited Lindzen to publish in PNAS?

2011-06-18 02:49:04
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley

FWIW, I don't think I have ever publsihed a paper in a journal, or reviewed for one, with double blind reviewing.  I have published and reviewed for a conference with double blind reviewing though.  I'm not sure it is really worthwhile.  If you know the field well enough, you usually have a good idea who wrote the paper if was written by a leading figure, simply because you ought to be familiar with their existing work.


The best form of reviewing is at places like the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, where your paper gets read in front of an audience of your peers, who all have the option of writing a commentry on your paper that gets published alongside it (with your rebuttal as well). 


Perhaps what we need is not double blind reviewing, but open reviewing!  I certainly think that would be the appropriate way to deal with peer reviewed comments on papers that have already been published.

2011-06-18 02:58:05



The sad thing is that Lindzen himself is a member of the NAS. He has been a very eminent contributor to climate science - in previous days!