Comments on: When Was Wahl and Ammann 2007 "Accepted"?

By: “Keith Should Say…” « Climate Audit

“Keith Should Say…” « Climate Audit — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 22:31:32 +0000

[...] Meanwhile, I happened to be re-visiting Wahl and Ammann 2007 – the Supplementary Information was still unavailable and had been recently refused by Ammann. On April 3, I had asked Stephen Schneider, editor of Climatic Change, how an article that was supposedly “accepted” on Feb 28, 2006 included citations to (and relied on results from) an article that was not submitted until August 22, 2006. Schneider replied on May 20. Needless to say, there wasn’t (and could not be) a valid explanation. O posted Schneider’s evasive reply on May 23 here . [...]

By: Mosher: The Hackers « Watts Up With That?

Mosher: The Hackers « Watts Up With That? — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 20:37:42 +0000

[...] high level hacks of the IPCC system include the following: changing chronologies, altering the appearance of graphics to tell a different story making up science out of whole cloth [...]

By: yonason

yonason — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:48:57 +0000

May 10, 2005 — In review
September 27, 2005 — Revised
December 12, 2005 — Provisionally Accepted
February 28, 2006 — Accepted for Publication

according to them
http://web.archive.org/web/20070805021421re_/www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimChange2006.html

By: Henry

Henry — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:33:35 +0000

Re: Henry (#83), it is probably also worth noting Wahl’s reply which, although it does not add anything to what Steve had already worked out, does stress the significance of the rejected paper and of A&W 2007 for W&A 2007.

From: Wahl, Eugene R
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 6:44 PM
To: ‘Phil Jones’; Caspar Ammann
Subject: RE: Wahl/Ammann

Hi Phil:

There were inevitably a few things that needed to be changed in the
final version of the WA paper, such as the reference to the GRL paper
that was not published (replaced by the AW paper here), two or three
additional pointers to the AW paper, changed references of a
Mann/Rutherford/Wahl/Ammann paper from 2005 to 2007, and a some other
very minor grammatical/structural things. I tried to keep all of this
to the barest minimum possible, while still providing a good reference
structure. I imagine that MM will make the biggest issue about the very
existence of the AW paper, and then the referencing of it in WA; but
that was simply something we could not do without, and indeed AW does a
good job of contextualizing the whole matter.

Steve Schneider seemed well satisfied with the entire matter, including
its intellectual defensibility (sp?) and I think his confidence is
warranted. That said, any other thoughts/musings you have are quite
welcome.

Peace, Gene

By: Henry

Henry — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 12:03:57 +0000

It is worth recording somewhere one of the alledged CRU emails 1189722851.txt about changing when Ammann and Wahl 2007 was received. The published received date was 22 August 2000, which is a bit of a joke given that about 50 of its references were to publications after 2000 and fewer than 10 before. To be fair, we don’t know in which direction Jones wanted the change.

—–Original Message—–
From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx]
Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 11:30 AM
To: Wahl, Eugene R; Caspar Ammann
Subject: Wahl/Ammann

Gene/Caspar,
Good to see these two out. Wahl/Ammann doesn’t appear to be in CC’s
online first, but comes up if you search.
You likely know that McIntyre will check this one to make sure it
hasn’t
changed since the IPCC close-off date July 2006!
Hard copies of the WG1 report from CUP have arrived here today.

Ammann/Wahl – try and change the Received date! Don’t give those
skeptics something
to amuse themselves with.

Cheers
Phil

I am amused.

By: Ron Cram

Ron Cram — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:25:29 +0000

Steve,

It is interesting to me that UCAR has taken down the webpage you linked to above. I am guessing the page was still live when you wrote this in April. Seems funny to me that UCAR would leave the page up for two years and take it down only after you draw attention to it.

By: Jim Edwards

Jim Edwards — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:18:42 +0000

Thanks Bernie. Off to the optometrist for me…

By: bernie

bernie — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:16:52 +0000

Jim:
Amman and Annan are two different climate scientists.

By: Jim Edwards

Jim Edwards — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 21:02:06 +0000

BBC science reporter Richard Black appears to have written something about Amman’s submissions here. [11-14-07] Apparently, he has relied on Amman’s version of the facts. His investigative article concludes there is no apparent bias against skepticism in academic publishing or IPCC, because nobody came to him with examples of bias. [Great investigation !]

Another correspondent raised an apparently similar issue, where Japan-based researcher James Annan had repeatedly been rejected in his bid to publish a comment article on “climate sensitivity”, …

Last year the journal Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) published a paper from Dr Annan’s group using historical data to indicate a value probably between about 2C and 4C.

… GRL and one other journal have collectively turned it down a total of five times.

“I think it does count as bias to some extent,” Dr Annan told me.

“But it’s not really a ‘sceptical’ or ‘alarmist’ bias; it’s more a political thing to do with not wanting to offend the wrong people. It’s a bit of gentlemen’s club.”

He also pointed out that while the emphasis of his comment piece was on ruling out high “catastrophist” scenarios, the data itself was the same as in his earlier paper, which had been published in a prestigious journal.

By: Clark

Clark — Mon, 26 May 2008 15:28:16 +0000

It’s the practice in biology submissions to provide the complete text of “companion” articles (i.e., unpublished work cited in the submission) so that reviewers can assess both the primary paper and any other unpublished work. As a reviewer I would always reject a paper for which important data was unpublished and not provided in full.