GRL has rejected the Ammann and Wahl Little Whopper (shortly after Climatic Change accepted the Big Whopper). We previously posted up our Reply to the Little Whopper here. You can see previous discussion of this by the category "Wahl and Ammann". Since the Comment is not being published, neither is the Reply. I wonder whether they will make changes to the Big Whopper to reflect this rejection or simply drive on (as Mann and Jones did in 2004 following the rejection of the MBH submission to CC.)
What a total waste of time. Famiglietti mouthed off to Envronmental Science and Technology last August and replaced Saiers as editor in charge of our file. He then took the comments by Ritson and by A&W (already rejected by Saiers) out of the garbage can, told us that the Ritson comment was accepted, then he rejected the Ritson comment after he saw our reply. Likewise with Ammann and Wahl. Needless to say, Famiglietti did not say that the Little Whopper was rejected because it withheld adverse results or misrepresented our work, but merely because "the key points of the debate are already out there" – which was the same (perhaps polite) reason that Saiers gave in the first place last May.
If it was rejected because the "key points were already out there", why did Famiglietti need us to write a Reply? He should have been able to tell from reading the article. Or if he couldn’t tell from that, he should have been able to tell from reading our letter to Saiers, which listed all the problems in the Little Whopper, including its repetition of points already raised in Huybers. We re-sent the letter to Famiglietti, so he had no excuse.