Here is an excerpt from a troubling Climategate email that hasn’t been discussed much (if at all) – from Raymond Bradley to Frank Oldfield of PAGES (172. 0963233839.txt) on July 20, 2000. I’m presenting only an excerpt today, but will discuss more from this email on another occasion. Bradley stated of MBH98-99 results: in the […]
Iridge versus TTLS. What if a key text on this conundrum of the day resided in an anonymous open peer review? Would we, within the ethical standards of modern climate science, be entitled to speculate on the identity of the author of these pearls? Or would that be an ethical violation “as bad as possible”? […]
In order to respond to Nielsen-Gammon’s comments about the morality of publishing review comments and/or speculating on reviewer identities, I think that it would be helpful to review a couple of other incidents. Today I’ll review an incident involving Tom Crowley’s publication of a farrago of falsehoods in EOS (as well as in contemporary interviews) […]
John Nielsen-Gammon has articulated a doctrine of what might be termed justified disingenuousness as applying to climate scientists acting as reviewers. I criticized this doctrine in yesterday’s post. In comments to that post, Nielsen-Gammon said that I made unrealistic assumptions about the academic world, that I was (in effect) too idealistic, perhaps even a pollyanna […]
John Nielsen-Gammon writes as follows in a comment in the preceding post: If you are a reviewer and wish to remain confidential while remaining engaged in scientific discourse, it is necessary for you to pretend to not be a reviewer. Scientists expect this and know that reviewers may need to be disingenuous when talking publicly […]
The Steig-O’Donnell story is featured in this week’s Spectator in the UK. Authors are Nic Lewis, a coauthor of O’Donnell et al 2010, and Matt Ridley.
Over the past week, there has been considerable controversy over the outing of Eric Steig as Reviewer A, together with the publication of the voluminous review comments and review responses for O’Donnell et al 2010. John Nielsen-Gammon has been a sharp critic of Ryan’s decision (see here and elsewhere.) The history of the affair is […]
Over the past few days, Eric Steig aka Reviewer A has made a series of increasingly puzzling and strident outbursts, as the inconsistency between his RC post of Feb 1 as Eric Steig and his conduct as Reviewer A has been exposed. Yesterday, Steig placed his latest and wildest diatribe online at two blogs – […]
Reader Jan at Lucia’s makes the following sensible comment – one that has particular irony given Gavin Schmidt’s umbrage against Fred Pearce the day after Steig’s Feb 1 post that precipitated the present controversy: Jan writes (Comment#69196) February 11th, 2011 at 2:47 pm : I might suggest another mistake. It appeared that after the release […]
Subsequent to my post on Feb 7, 2010 here, Steig informed me by email that he had not seen our Response to his Third Review, as I had previously assumed. I apologize for my misunderstanding on this point, which was, however, incidental to the major concerns expressed in my post. A more detailed response on […]
Climate Audit 