The review of referee #2 for Bürger and Cubasch’s article in Climates of the Past is posted up here . From the style, can anyone doubt that the anonymous reviewer was Mann himself? Take a read.
The reviewer makes reference to this being the "2nd attempt by the authors to publish this flawed manuscript" – it had been rejected by GRL. I presume that referee #2 must have participated in the GRL process.
I think that there are many ways that the Bürger and Cubasch article could have been strengthened and one would hope that a reviewer would do so. In terms of comments that would be useful to a writer, TCO’s comments posted up here would have been far more useful than those of referee #2.
Also, not that I have a great deal of experience with reviewer comments, but my own experience has been that reviewer comments are usually a paragraph or two. I don’t object to the length of "Mann’s" review, but merely point out that such detail is atypical. For example, here is the GRL review of the Wahl and Ammann Comment and our Reply:
This paper should not be published in GRL. The exchanges between the present authors and everyone who has criticized their earlier paper have gone on too long. The point has been made over and over. The fact seems to be that there are choices to be made in this kind of analysis but the results seem to not be too sensitive to them when they are carried out in good faith (exactly what it means to be robust is of course a matter of judgement, but I have some experience on this and I think it is). The current authors have had their say in numerous other replies to criticisms of their work. It is time to get on with it!
While there were many reasons to reject the Wahl and Ammann submission to GRL, the reviewer’s comments were simply irrelevant to them. Also the reviewer brought up an unrelated issue. In this case, Famiglietti’s cover letter agreed that the review was "brief", but Famiglietti claimed to have had "significant communication" with the reviewer. He also apologized for delays because "it was very difficult to find a qualified and willing reviewer".
Now think back also to a comment by von Storch about how hard it used to be to get articles published on millennial paleoclimate methods, a comment where he generously credited us with opening the door and being lucky enough not to have had Mann as the reviewer for our article.
So here we see that the reviewer for Climates of the Past is probably Mann. It also seems that he was a reviewer for GRL. Are "Mann’s" review comments the sort of thing that should decide whether to publish or not publish – or are they things that should be dealt with in a Reply?
Update: I have reason to believe that Mann may not have been a GRL reviewer, although the GRL reviewer seems to have been on the Hockey Team. So how did Mann know that the Bürger and Cubasch paper had been rejected by GRL? Did the GRL reviewer – perhaps Schmidt – break confidentiality and inform Mann? Will GRL admonish Schmidt or whoever for breaking confidentiality?