Comments on: Overpeck’s “Hammer”

By: Climatic Research Unit Shameful Peer-Review Control Tactics: The Soon/Baliunas Debacle.

Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:30:12 +0000

[...] member Jonathan Overpeck was identified as the researcher. He didn’t deny, just said he didn’t [...]

By: Top Posts — WordPress.com

Top Posts — WordPress.com — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:17:36 +0000

[...] Overpeck’s “Hammer” One of the curious aspects of IPCC peer review procedure is that the ultimate authority for accepting or rejecting [...] [...]

By: Geoff Sherrington

Geoff Sherrington — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 01:28:03 +0000

It seems inarguable that the release of new data since AR4 and the ongoing look at the CRU emails will make some earlier papers invalid. For example, if a future reconstruction shows that global temperature has changed at a far different rate in the instrumented period than is currently assumed, the calibration of many temperature proxies will need to be re-written.

On Steve’s theme above, “it should have been changed but it was not”, I have not noticed (m)any retractions of, or corrections to, a host of papers which are now under a cloud through either CRU emails or recent measurements like sea level change. Honest science would have picked this up and the revised publications should now be appearing. Have you seen any?

It is not a solution to delete and forget (as in the Yamal divergence). Science should not entertain the progression of myths by inaction.

By: Micajah

Micajah — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 23:04:57 +0000

It seems really odd that the response was: “the citation is a correct one and uses considerably more (and more recent) data than the reviewer refers to.”

Neither McIntyre nor Esper questioned the amount or newness of the data. They both noted that the way in which the data had been analyzed made the results less probative, if not invalid.

Did the IPCC authors really not understand the difference between data and analysis?

By: Neil Fisher

Neil Fisher — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 22:04:34 +0000

… even if we have to re-define author!

Sorry, couldn’t resist.

By: Dr Iain McQueen

Dr Iain McQueen — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:31:46 +0000

Re: Steve McIntyre (Apr 12 13:46), How could you you possibly be on the same side? Don't be ridiculous! We have to be rude, offhand and hostile to McIntyre, and that has absolute precedence over all else. It is IPCC policy.

By: Mike Davis

Mike Davis — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 20:10:29 +0000

But the Hughes and Diaz statement is as valid for current climate as it was for the MWP.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:46:39 +0000

Re: LearDog (Apr 12 13:03), But in this case, Esper and I were on the same side. In the First Draft responses, the authors ignored both of us equally. And the point here is not just that they ignored us - it's that they led the Review Editor to think that they had taken the comments on board and then did what they wanted to do anyway.

By: LearDog

LearDog — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:03:02 +0000

Steve – interesting way that you’ve put the pieces all together. But I don’t think that it had anything to do with IPCC editorial policy. I think that 1) they just don’t like you and 2) were using any means to get back at you.

Perhaps it was a childish ‘nyaah, nyaah, nyaah’ kind of thing, or perhaps more of a concern about the optics of agreeing with you and thereafter having to defend to “The Team’?

By: Shallow Climate

Shallow Climate — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 18:01:57 +0000

“One of the curious aspects of the IPCC peer review procedure…”: Mr. McIntyre, you’re being way too kind, or is this but another example of your trenchant irony? Now if I, dullard that I am but devoted (I hope) to telling the truth, were composing this, I would have said, “One of the blasphemous aspects of the IPCC review procedure…”. It is absolutely indefensible that IPCC authors have the final say on reviewers’ comments. Any dolt can discern that. I am not Ozymandias, but I have spoken.