Fifth scandal to be unearthed from CRU emails theft
Ouroboros Rex
contacts editor James Saiers of the journal Geophysical Research Letters -
to stop the publication of a comment which calls into question Mckintyre's
fraudulent "debunking" of Michael Mann's hockey stick reconstruction. This
violation of procedure, which Mckintyre claims was suggested by the editor
himself, allows Mckintyre to argue against the comment submission secretly
without his arguments appearing in print. The submission is improperly
rejected.
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=484&filename=1106322460.txt
Michael E. Mann wrote:
> Hi Malcolm,
>
> This assumes that the editor/s in question would act in good faith.
> I'm not convinced of this.
>
> I don't believe a response in GRL is warranted in any case. The MM
> claims in question are debunked in other papers that are in press and
> in review elsewhere. I'm not sure that GRL can be seen as an honest
> broker in these debates anymore, and it is probably best to do an end
> run around GRL now where possible. They have published far too many
> deeply flawed contrarian papers in the past year or so. There is no
> possible excuse for them publishing all 3 Douglass papers and the Soon
> et al paper. These were all pure crap.
>
> There appears to be a more fundamental problem w/ GRL now,
> unfortunately...
>
> Mike
>
> At 08:47 PM 1/20/2005, mhu...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote:
>
>> Mike - I found this sentence in the reply from the GRL
>> Editor-in-Chief to be
>> interesting:
>> "As this manuscript was not written as a Comment, but rather as
>> a full-up scientific manuscript, you would not in general be asked to
>> look it over."
>> Does it not then follow that if you were to challenge their "work" in
>> a "full-
>> up scientific manuscript", but not as a "Comment" it, too, should be
>> reviewed
>> without reference to MM?
>> Maybe the editor-in-chief should be asked if this is the case, or simply
>> challenged by a submission?
>> Cheers, Malcolm
>> Quoting "Michael E. Mann" <ma...@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks Tom,
>> >
>> >
>> > Yeah, basically this is just a heads up to people that something
>> might be
>> > up here. What a shame that would be. It's one thing to lose "Climate
>> > Research". We can't afford to lose GRL. I think it would be
>> > useful if people begin to record their experiences w/ both Saiers and
>> > potentially Mackwell (I don't know him--he would seem to be
>> complicit w/
>> > what is going on here).
>> >
>> >
>> > If there is a clear body of evidence that something is amiss, it
>> could be
>> > taken through the proper channels. I don't that the entire AGU
>> hierarchy
>> > has yet been compromised!
>> >
>> >
>> > The GRL article simply parrots the rejected Nature comment--little
>> > substantial difference that I can see at all.
>> >
>> >
>> > Will keep you all posted of any relevant developments,
>> >
>> >
>> > mike
Mckintyre's interference with the submission approval process at GRL, with
editor
James Saier's complicity, is admitted in his lie blog:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=388
"Ammann and Wahl submitted their Comment to GRL in May. AGU is the publisher
of Geophysical Research Letters and has the following explicit policies
concerning Comments:
QUOTE
"AGU journals will consider for publication Comments on papers that have
previously appeared in the journal. The Editor of the journal determines
whether a Comment meets the standards for publication and may elect to
decline a Comment without further consideration or require revisions before
further consideration. If the Editor decides to go forward with
consideration of a Comment, a Reply by the author of the paper commented
upon will also be considered for publication.
A Comment will first be sent to the author of the original paper, who will
be given the opportunity to write a Reply. ..If a Reply is submitted in a
timely way, the Editor will have both the Comment and Reply reviewed. The
referee will be asked to prepare separate reports on the Comment and
Reply.Upon receipt of the referee's reports, the Editor will forward the
Reply, along with the referee's report on the Comment, to the author of the
Comment. The Comment may be revised one time in response to the Reply and
the referee's report. The revised Comment will then be sent, together with
the referee's report of the Reply, to the authors of the Reply. One revision
of the reply will be allowed.
At this point, a final decision will be made whether or not to publish the
Comment and the Reply. If it is decided to proceed with publication, both
the Comment and Reply will appear in the same issue of the journal (i.e.,
will be posted online on the same day)."
END QUOTE
In accordance with these policies, we were provided with a copy of the
Ammann and Wahl Comment in mid-May 2005.
At this time, there were a total of four Comments in play. One of the
problems we'd faced with some of the Comments was misrepresentation of what
our actual claims were. In some previous Replies, we had replied to these
mischaracterizations. Our editor, James Saiers, made it very clear that he
did not want to have this type of argument under his watch. He instructed us
to present any concern over mischaracterization directly to him and he would
assess it editorially, rather than having a needlessly rancorous exchange in
the article itself. "
Result - after his solicitation of secret responses instead of forwarding
a Reply for publication, and intervening to prevent publication of Ammann
and
Wahl's comment, Saiers was removed from the approval process. He is no
longer at the journal.
Crow
> Sidestepping standard procedure, denialist Steve Mckintyre personally
> contacts editor James Saiers of the journal Geophysical Research Letters -
> to stop the publication of a comment which calls into question Mckintyre's
> fraudulent "debunking" of Michael Mann's hockey stick reconstruction. This
> violation of procedure, which Mckintyre claims was suggested by the editor
> himself, allows Mckintyre to argue against the comment submission secretly
> without his arguments appearing in print. The submission is improperly
> rejected.
>
IOW, you got nothing...
Still scraping bottom, eh?
--
Crow.
Ouroboros Rex
So, where's Saiers working now? lol