[Vision2020] Geophysical Research: Independence in Peer Review Climate Science Publishing

[Ted Moffett]

It is the peer reviewed science journals that are to some extent addressing
"both sides."  I am only a student of the peer reviewed scientific
literature.  And I don't think it is a "debate," at least in the hyped and
polarizing manner in which the discussion is conducted on many of the
pseudo-science sites on the Internet.  It is a question of objective
empirical observation, mathematics, physics and biology.

If the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, National Climate Data
Center, or the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University, control the
peer review process for scientific publishing, then why has Geophysical
Research reviewed and published articles highly critical of GISS et. al.
work on climate science by climate scientists Pielke Sr./Jr. and MIT
meteorologist Richard Lindzen?
-------------------
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/

There remain also important unresolved uncertainties and systematic biases
in the surface temperature data used by GISS [and CRU and NCDC] which
we reported in the peer reviewed literature, i.e.

*Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K.
Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R.
Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007:
**Unresolved
issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature
trends <http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf>. J.
Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229*
--------------------

*The NASA GISS (and NCDC and CRU groups) have also not responded to the
systematic warm bias that we reported in*

*Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T.
McNider, 2009: **An alternative explanation for differential temperature
trends at the surface and in the lower
troposphere<http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/r-345.pdf>.
J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.*

----------------
Geophysical Research recently published after review a paper, Lindzen and
Choi (2009), by MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen et. al., who is one of the
most well known anthropogenic climate change skeptics with serious
credentials.  If the peer review process was controlled by climate
scientists who warn of the dangers of human impacts on climate, how did this
happen?

I think this is the article in question at this website, but I am not
absolutely certain:

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf
--------

Discussion below of Lindzen and Choi (2009) published by Geophysical
Research.  The scientists involved find some rather serious problems with
this article, and the peer review process, but it was published nonetheless:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lc-grl-comments-on-peer-review-and-peer-reviewed-comments/#more-2710
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett


On 1/17/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>> What is interesting is that when I have posted scientific findings that
>> are skeptical of certain mainstream climate science views, the "skeptics"
>> who I have been in dialog with (all good scientists are skeptics, so I think
>> this way of describing the discussion is misleading) have sometimes ignored
>> my support for their skepticism.  There was no response to my post today on
>> climate scientist Pielke's criticisms of NASA/GISS temperature data.
>>
>
> My apologies, sir.  I haven't yet had the time to give the articles you've
> posted more than a cursory glance.  I applaud you, however, for addressing
> both sides of the debate.
>
> Paul
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100118/5dfd181e/attachment.html