Comments for Climate Audit

Comment on The 5 Censored PCs by Peter Wilson

Peter Wilson — Mon, 20 May 2013 09:05:54 +0000

“The hockey stick is made out of bristlecone pine”

A phrase of extreme eloquence, which deserves to be widely disseminated. So much information in so few words.

I plan to plagiarize it often

Comment on Nic Lewis on IPCC Climate Sensitivity by Skiphil

Skiphil — Mon, 20 May 2013 03:03:19 +0000

Latest from Nic Lewis:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/19/new-paper-shows-transient-climate-response-less-than-2c/

Comment on PAGES2K Online “Journal Club” by Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Sun, 19 May 2013 22:53:06 +0000

WTF is a Progress Review? Seriously, you mean a Review Article. No way it qualifies as a Review Article. see above

Comment on PAGES2K Online “Journal Club” by MikeN

MikeN — Sat, 18 May 2013 19:12:55 +0000

“Generally the level of hate you get is in proportion to the impact you have,” he said.”

A Mr Cook.

Comment on PAGES2K Online “Journal Club” by kim

kim — Sat, 18 May 2013 17:16:05 +0000

Even if I have to redefine ‘peer review’ as taking a good hard optical grade look at it.
==================

Comment on PAGES2K Online “Journal Club” by Jeff Norman

Jeff Norman — Fri, 17 May 2013 12:17:00 +0000

But Don, that would validate all the others who had previously been kept out of the mainstrean journals by redefining peer review, you know, people published in E&E etc.

Comment on Tom Curtis Writes by 97% Of The Papers We Choose Agree With Our Criteria | suyts space

97% Of The Papers We Choose Agree With Our Criteria | suyts space — Thu, 16 May 2013 21:06:48 +0000

[…] recall this is the same Cook who teamed with Lewdy to write a paper about an imaginary survey that was never posted at Cook’s site making bizarre claims about moon landings and […]

Comment on Cook’s Survey by seanbrady

seanbrady — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:38:22 +0000

I called it:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Comment on PAGES2K Online “Journal Club” by Don Monfort

Don Monfort — Thu, 16 May 2013 15:22:25 +0000

“That is, if an expert reviewer said… wait a minute.. this thing is not ready for prime time… I suggest another path..”

Well, you could take your paper to one of those fly-by-night-pay-for-play journals and get your box checked. There is more than one way to make a mockery of the peer review system.

Comment on PAGES2K Online “Journal Club” by Skiphil

Skiphil — Thu, 16 May 2013 13:51:50 +0000

For one aspect of the sordid tales at thread I linked above, Nature editors kept changing their own rules and criteria on the fly, with the clear effect of keeping critical comment out of “the record” –

…This seems to tie back to earlier actions by Nature. We submitted our revision on March 21, 2004 and a few days later were told to shorten the submission to 800 words. In the final decision, we were told that the decision was rendered on the basis of an allowance of 500 words ( a limit much lower than contemporary comments on Emanuel (2005) for example) as follows….