“A recent study, Richey et al 2007, showed a warm MWP in the Pigmy Basin, Gulf of Mexico. Julie Richey made an effective presentation at the AGU Session showing an elevated MWP from her foram studies and, together with Alicia Newton who made a similar presentation. Richey said that they had faced unusual opposition from one reviewer who threw many roadblocks towards publishing their results – something that was unprecedented in their experience in presenting empirical results from a qualified laboratory.”
From Climate Audit: Richey et al 2007 and Cariaco
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Golly gee – it’s utterly unprecedented for a scientist to run into opposition in trying to publish something. Gads – that’s unheard of.
McIntyre’s whole style is interesting – maybe he’s onto something – maybe he’s not. What we do know is that his own level of publication in the area is bugger all.
So instead of drip feeding quasi-accusations each week which may or may not be correct and in themselves are not reviewed – why doesn’t he pull the finger out and get published in a major review in a substantive journal (and that’s not E&E).
Then the IPCC in reviewing the next round of literature may have something other than blog stories to go on.
Really it’s all very good theatre but history will consign all these words to the scrap bin if they’re not published.
The IPCC cite 5 peer reviewed papers from Steve McIntyre in AR4.
Yes and on what ? Just critiquing other work on a narrow issue. Von Storch was right to leave McIntyre out of the story. His only contribution is as deputy dawg sheriff – he’s not adding to the debate – just confusing it. Perhaps we should start doing medical research by blog too. Everyone can have a go – bit of a data set here – a correlation there – report conspircacies abound if phone calls aren’t returned etc.
The IPCC misrepresentation of paleoclimate is a very important issue, which McIntyre has tackled via peer review and open review on his blog. Clearly, he intends to publish his current work on the tree ring cores and archive the data.
Apologies to the ‘hockey team’ for using the words ‘archive’ and ‘data.’
We’re waiting ….
You’d wait for ever for Mann to do it. Remember ‘a man’s got to do what Mann won’t do?’
Paul Biggs – “The IPCC misrepresentation of paleoclimate is a very important issue, which McIntyre has tackled via peer review and open review on his blog. Clearly, he intends to publish his current work on the tree ring cores and archive the data.”
Open review on a blog????? LOL Luke I think we should extend engineering to open reviews on blogs as well. I would love to drive on a bridge built by open review on a blog.
Apart from paleo-climate being a minor side issue at best, do you notice the that these are records from one region and the topic at hand is GLOBAL climate. Just because this place had an elevated MWP or whatever does not invalidate the composite reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere temperatures.
There is one reason and one reason alone that the paleo-climate has assumed an prominence out of all proportion to its importance and that it is because it is a skeptic wedge issue designed to sow doubt. McIntyre is a one-trick pony with a wedge to grind and grind it he does. I am not sure if he is still getting paid for it as most of his former backers have now backed away from supporting skeptics. It now seems to be some weird kind of obsession – perhaps it makes him feel important.
A reviewer putting serious obstacles to publishing teh results? That’s peer review isn’t it, or is it peer censoring.
And as the reviewer has anonymonity, trashing inconvenient scientific facts becomes easy, just as both Luke and Ender hide behind noms des plumes here – they are really nothing better than gully jobs.
Louis – “And as the reviewer has anonymonity, trashing inconvenient scientific facts becomes easy, just as both Luke and Ender hide behind noms des plumes here – they are really nothing better than gully jobs.”
True Louis I ‘hide’ behind a name however at least I post what is regarded as scientific fact not the science fiction that you have deluded yourself is true.
BTW you well know that my blog is not hidden as you have posted there so this is just yet another of your blatant lies. Perhaps you have forgotten this so I forgive you. If you are capable of spouting the rubbish that I have seen with your name at the by line, then you are perfectly capable of forgetting my real name.
Louis – obviously as you don’t publish in the scientific literature you would unaware the both named and anonymous reviewers are used routinely in most research journals. Someone having difficulty getting published is utterly UNEXCEPTIONAL. In any case there are also avenues for dispute resolution depending on the journal and there are a number of journals. Perhaps some very necessary advice was given which needed work? Do you know any detail in this case … errr “no”?
Strangely weren’t you complaining only a little while ago that peer review was inadequate – now you’re arguing it’s too severe. Which is it?
So E&E is insubstantive because it publishes McIntyre Luke?
And you won’t accept anything from McIntyre as credible because he isn’t published in journals you approve of but if they published him then they’d be in the same category as E&E?
I’ve got to hand it to you mate , you do cover all your bases….
No Archibald actually. It’s become a rag.
Geez Ender, you grind axes not wedges.
rog – “Geez Ender, you grind axes not wedges.”
Ahhhh I do actually realise that rog – I was trying for a subtle play on words. This is not your greatest asset is it?
McIntyre raised $4000 from 100 people recently – one of them was me. Alarmists need to get over the funding straw man.