[Mike MacCracken] I really think we need to find a place where these discussions can occur--where "The Skeptics" have to actually put their arguments forward and can expect focused responses to be published (it might be best if the publication of the article and first response occurred at the same time, of course, and then further rounds can take place). And where "The Skeptics" can put their comments on the works of the scientific community and get a response--so where each can take on the other side. By trying to keep the scientific literature too pure, we can really contribute to "The Skeptics" going to the back rooms where they can argue that there is not some forum where we will interact with them...
[Michael Mann] Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of a different nature--there are simply too many papers, and too few editors w/ appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the papers submitted there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with respect to whom the chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure that the worst papers, perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, didn't see the light of the day at J. Climate, it was inevitable that such papers might slip through the cracks at e.g. GRL--there is probably little that can be done here, other than making sure that some qualified and responsible climate scientists step up to the plate and take on editorial positions at GRL.
Why hotter clocks are more accurate
3 hours ago