cc: "Michael E. Mann" , Tom Wigley , Phil Jones, Mike Hulme , Keith Briffa , James Hansen , Danny Harvey , Ben Santer , Kevin Trenberth
, Robert wilby , Tom Karl, Tom Crowley , jto , "simon.shackley" , "tim.carter" , "p.martens", "peter.whetton", "c.goodess" , "a.minns" , Wolfgang Cramer , "j.salinger" , "simon.torok" , Scott Rutherford , Neville Nicholls , Ray Bradley , Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock , Ellen Mosley-Thompson, "email@example.com"
, "Greg.Ayers" date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:03:53 -0700 (PDT) from: Stephen H Schneider subject: Re: My turn to: Mark Eakin
Hello all. If some want to write an editorial in CLimatic Change about the peer review system in general and use some of these articles as examples, I would be happy to entertain such a draft. I would put it~--after the usual editorial review--on as fast a track as I could. If it were strictly a commentary on Baliunas/Soon polemics, then it would have to be a COmmentary and they would get a reply--but you might get a counter reply. Better to make it peripheral to that paper and a think piece motivated by it so it can stand alone. At least think about it. In case anyone is interested, Social Historian Paul EDWARDS NOW AT u/mICHIGAN AND i DID APIECE ON PEER REVIEW USING THE sIETZ /siNGER PHONEY PEER REVIEW EXCUSE FOR CHARACTER ATTACKS ON ipcc AND Ben Santer. It might be useful for a backgrounder. I attach it for convenience in case a few of you are interested in peer review/social construction issues. Cheers, Steve PS Don't expect much from the Administration, their ignorance and gullibility are studied.
On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Mark Eakin wrote:
...A letter to OSTP [White House Office of Science and Technology Policy] is probably in order here. Since the White House has shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a measured, critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas' methods. I agree with Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution effort such as Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should spearhead such a letter. Many others of us could sign on in support. This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will dismiss this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter could be developed in parallel with a rebuttal article.
I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere.
Cheers, Mark [Eakin]