Our first choice would be an AMS or AGU journal, but they have one or more gatekeepers who inevitably get involved in the review of papers with “Spencer” or “Christy” as authors.I've asked him for evidence. I'm not holding my breath.
I might remind you of the Climategate email passage “Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Trenberth also managed to get an editor to resign because Remote Sensing published one of my papers (which was never retracted though)…Trenberth apparently had some influence over that editor in the research realm.
Many of these journals are now tightly controlled to prop up the IPCC narrative.
Recall that some people accused Karl et al of publishing in order to influence the 2015 Climate Conference. But their paper has been in peer review for about 1/2 year, and they published their paper at the same time as they introduced their new dataset. UAH did not, publishing their paper almost two years after making some huge changes to their data, far bigger than Karl et al's changes.
Just imagine the outcry if Karl et al has changed some regional monthly anomalies by over 1.4°C, as UAH did.
3 comments:
Does anyone have access to the full article, and does it list dates for submitted and accepted?
Manuscript received 26 February 2016; accepted 1 November 2016
... and published February 2017 in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, online 07 March 2017.
As for Karl et al., received for publication 23 December 2014, accepted 21 May 2015, and published 26 June 2015.
They used the International Surface Temperature Initiative published in 2014, and the Extended Reconstructed Sea Surface Temperature version 4 published January 2015, so the new datasets and methodology were produced by others, and out well in advance of the analysis by Karl et al..
Post a Comment