Comments on: Glenn McGregor: Data Archiving not required by the International Journal of Climatology

By: Manfred

Manfred — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:53:42 +0000

Wiley publication ethics

http://www.wiley.com/bw/publicationethics/

By: Manfred

Manfred — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:26:47 +0000

There is now an entry under “Data policy” on this website:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0088/homepage/ForAuthors.html

By: Santer's Boss Seeks to "Clarify Mis-Impressions" « Climate Audit

Santer's Boss Seeks to "Clarify Mis-Impressions" « Climate Audit — Mon, 30 May 2011 21:33:55 +0000

[...] Dec 28, I reported on efforts to obtain the data through the journal, reporting that these efforts had also been [...]

By: Connolley co-author: “Unfortunately we have deleted all the NetCDF files…” « Climate Audit

Sat, 04 Dec 2010 18:15:58 +0000

[...] this refusal and the progress of several FOI requests in several contemporary posts here here here and [...]

By: Royal Meteorological Society Considers Data Archiving « Climate Audit

Royal Meteorological Society Considers Data Archiving « Climate Audit — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 14:29:41 +0000

[...] Meteorological Society Considers Data Archiving A little progress on this front since my last post on this [...]

By: NotGrantFoster

NotGrantFoster — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:22:41 +0000

I think email 1233245601 does a good job of explaining why IJC didn’t require data archiving:

From: Ben Santer
To: P.Jones@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Good news! Plus less good news
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:13:21 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@llnl.gov

Dear Phil,

Yeah, I had already seen the stuff from McIntyre. Tom Peterson sent it
to me. McIntyre has absolutely no understanding of climate science. He
doesn’t realize that, as the length of record increases and trend
confidence intervals decrease, even trivially small differences between
an individual observed trend and the multi-model average trend are
judged to be highly significant. These model-versus-observed trend
differences are, however, of no practical significance whatsoever – they
are well within the structural uncertainties of the observed MSU trends.

It would be great if Francis and Myles got McIntyre’s paper for review.
Also, I see that McIntyre has put email correspondence with me in the
Supporting Information of his paper. What a jerk!

I will write to Keith again. The Symposium wouldn’t be the same without
him. I think Tom would be quite disappointed.

Have fun in Switzerland!

With best regards,

Ben

P.Jones@uea.ac.uk wrote:
> Ben,
> I’m at an extremes meeting in Riederalp – near Brig. I’m too
> old to go skiing. I’ll go up the cable car to see the Aletsch Glacier
> at some point – when the weather is good. Visibility is less than
> 200m at the moment.
>
> It is good news that Rob can come. I’m still working on
> Keith. It might be worth you sending him another email,
> telling him what he’ll be missing if he doesn’t go. I think
> Sarah will come, but I’ve not yet been in CRU when she has.
>
> With free wifi in my room, I’ve just seen that M+M have
> submitted a paper to IJC on your H2 statistic – using more
> years, up to 2007. They have also found your PCMDI data -
> laughing at the directory name – FOIA? Also they make up
> statements saying you’ve done this following Obama’s
> statement about openness in government! Anyway you’ll likely
> get this for review, or poor Francis will. Best if both
> Francis and Myles did this. If I get an email from Glenn I’ll
> suggest this.
>
> Also I see Pielke Snr has submitted a comment on Sherwood’s
> work. He is a prat. He’s just had a response to a comment
> piece that David Parker, Tom Peterson and I wrote on a paper
> they had in 2007. Pielke wouldn’t understand independence if it
> hit him in the face. Both papers in JGR online. Not worth you
> reading them unless interested.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
>
>

–
—————————————————————————-
Benjamin D. Santer
Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103
Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A.
Tel: (925) 422-3840
FAX: (925) 422-7675
email: santer1@llnl.gov
—————————————————————————-

By: Brian G

Brian G — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:07:56 +0000

Re 118 and 120. If authors want their names included as coauthors it is their responsibility to check the final paper. Too often they just want the glory without doing the hard yards of reading what is going out in their name. In my experience it is common for a Prof and or supervisor to have his/her name included in the list of papers written by their students. In other cases of multiple authorship some of the authors merely provide data and the inclusion of their name is a shorthand acknowledgement of this fact. It is a pity that so few people have faith in peer review these days but I suppose that is because the ‘peers’ can be carefully chosen or not, as the case may be!

By: Peer review of scientific work - another example of a flawed basis for public policy « Fabius Maximus

Thu, 22 Jan 2009 01:09:35 +0000

[...] of articles be made available for public review. This round in the battle is described at “Data Archiving not required by the International Journal of Climatology“, Steve McIntyre, posted at Climate Audit, 28 December 2008. Summary: Dear Dr McGregor { [...]

By: Självständigt Skåne

Självständigt Skåne — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:03:27 +0000

“Nothing is new below the skies…”

By: Chris Wright

Chris Wright — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:30:46 +0000

In a way it’s encouraging to see these people resorting to childish name-calling. It’s a sure sign they know they’re starting to lose the argument.
I see that they still use the term ‘climate change denier’. If you think about it, that’s completely bizarre as one of the main sceptical arguments is that there is always climate change. The essence of the hockey stick is climate change denial over the previous ten centuries. It’s actually the IPCC and their followers who are climate change deniers.

Chris