Second CRU emails scandal found!
Ouroboros Rex
from well known denialists which do not meet even basic academic standards.
Pat Michaels and Soon and Baliunas papers pointed up as evidence.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt
From: "Michael E. Mann" <ma...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Phil Jones <p.j...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>,rbra...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
mhu...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,sruth...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,tcro...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: k.br...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,j...@u.arizona.edu,drde...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,
keith.a...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,mmac...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx,j...@u.arizona.edu,
ma...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Thanks Phil,
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review
process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at
Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it
isn't just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own
department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a
mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite
'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
[1]http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/crEditors.html
In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I
have discussed
this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I
told Mike that
I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already
achieved what they
wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about
that now, but
the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be
ignored by the
community on the whole...
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even
in the
presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton,
Goodess, ...). My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd
individual, and I'm
not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von
Storch on their
side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new
vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon &
Baliunas paper, that
couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in
the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take
over a journal!
Facts of this scandal can be found on the Wiki page of one of the
fraudulent authors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas
Controversy over the 2003 Climate Research paper
In 2003, Baliunas and Astrophysicist Willie Soon published a review paper on
historical climatology which concluded that "the 20th century is probably
not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last
millennium." With Soon, Baliunas investigated the correlation between solar
variation and temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere. When there are more
sunspots, the total solar output increases, and when there are fewer
sunspots, it decreases. Soon and Baliunas attribute the Medieval warm period
to such an increase in solar output, and believe that decreases in solar
output led to the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling from which the earth
has been recovering since 1890.[11]
Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon
refuted her interpretation of their work.[12] There were three main
objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture,
rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and
hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures
from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently,
Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted
themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came
to a different result.[13]
Half of the editorial board of Climate Research, the journal that published
the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a failure of the
peer review process on the part of the journal.[14][15] Otto Kinne, managing
director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [Climate Research]
should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and cautious
formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested
appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."[16]
...
tunderbar
> Biased editors at journal Climate Research allow publication of papers
> from well known denialists which do not meet even basic academic standards.
> Pat Michaels and Soon and Baliunas papers pointed up as evidence.
>
Is that shit "peer-reviewed"?
Ouroboros Rex
Tundy is starting to figure out how these emails will really be viewed in
the future. lol
Too late, tundy, they are FTPd all around the world by now. Stunt after
stunt after stunt your buddies tried to play on these researchers. I bet
the final list is as along as your arm. ;)