Although the IPCC calendar webpage doesn’t link to session documents of the 34th session (Kampala Nov 2011), David Holland has alertly located the documents – see here. IPCC rejected a proposal for anonymous peer review – see document here (page 12 on). We haven’t discussed this topic previously (in an IPCC context). On reflection, the […]
During the counter-attack on Soon et al 2003, Climategate participants made serious allegations about the integrity of its peer review and the editor (Chris de Freitas) who had supervised its publication. (These allegations were investigated by the publisher of Climate Research, Otto Kinne, who cleared de Freitas in unequivocal terms – a finding that did […]
When you notice an email discussing a review, could you jot down the email number, date, the reviewer, the reviewee. Please don’t editorialize, just note it for reference.
Chip Knappenberg has published Lindzen’s review correspondence with PNAS at Rob Bradley’s blog here. Most CA readers will be interested in this and I urge you to read the post, taking care to consult the attachments. (I would have preferred that the post include some excerpts from the attachments.) The post focuses to a considerable […]
Stephen Schneider was only a few years older than me and his death seems all too early.
Put this in the column: you knew it was coming… Watts Up With That: NWF’s winter weather wackiness As Steve outlined in the WWF and the EPA Endangerment Finding, the IPCC relied upon the World Wildlife Fund’s production of non-peer-reviewed literature as a climate science authority. Anthony reports on the IPCC being riddled with WWF […]
Today I’ll review one interesting sentence in Climategate Letter 1080257056 on March 22, 2004, in which Jones tells Santer She [Heike] sent me an email to review a paper two weeks ago. Said I didn’t have time until May. Innocuous enough on the surface. What makes this sentence interesting (and I noticed it because I […]
As noted previously, the Climategate letters and documents show Jones and the Team using the peer review process to prevent publication of adverse papers, while giving softball reviews to friends and associates in situations fraught with conflict of interest. Today I’ll report on the spectacle of Jones reviewing a submission by Mann et al.
We’ve seen that Climategate emails provide evidence that Jones, Briffa and Cook took steps to block publication of articles that were perceived as potentially damaging. The Climategate documents also provide a glimpse of another aspect of Team gatekeeping – acting as peer reviewers of submissions by associates and friends. Phil Jones was a peer reviewer […]
One of the Climategate texts that has attracted considerable commentary is: The other paper by MM is just garbage …I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is ! The […]
Climate Audit 