To: Phil Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>,email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: Soon & Baliunas
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:14:49 -0500
Cc: email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com,firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
(Tom: Congrats again!)
The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn't have cleared a 'legitimate' peer review process
anywhere. That leaves only one possibility--that the peer-review process at Climate
Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board. And it isn't just De
Frietas, unfortunately I think this group also includes a member of my own department...
The skeptics appear to have staged a 'coup' at "Climate Research" (it was a mediocre
journal to begin with, but now its a mediocre journal with a definite 'purpose').
Folks might want to check out the editors and review editors:
In fact, Mike McCracken first pointed out this article to me, and he and I have discussed
this a bit. I've cc'd Mike in on this as well, and I've included Peck too. I told Mike that
I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they
wanted--the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but
the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the
community on the whole...
It is pretty clear that thee skeptics here have staged a bit of a coup, even in the
presence of a number of reasonable folks on the editorial board (Whetton, Goodess, ...). My
guess is that Von Storch is actually with them (frankly, he's an odd individual, and I'm
not sure he isn't himself somewhat of a skeptic himself), and without Von Storch on their
side, they would have a very forceful personality promoting their new vision.
There have been several papers by Pat Michaels, as well as the Soon & Baliunas paper, that
couldn't get published in a reputable journal.
This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the
"peer-reviewed literature". Obviously, they found a solution to that--take over a journal!
So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering "Climate Research" as a
legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate
research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also
need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently
sit on the editorial board...
What do others think?
At 08:49 AM 3/11/2003 +0000, Phil Jones wrote:
Apologies for sending this again. I was expecting a stack of emails this morning
response, but I inadvertently left Mike off (mistake in pasting) and picked up Tom's
address. Tom is busy though with another offspring !
I looked briefly at the paper last night and it is appalling - worst word I can
think of today
without the mood pepper appearing on the email ! I'll have time to read more at the
as I'm coming to the US for the DoE CCPP meeting at Charleston. Added Ed, Peck and
onto this list as well. I would like to have time to rise to the bait, but I have so
much else on at
the moment. As a few of us will be at the EGS/AGU meet in Nice, we should consider what
to do there.
The phrasing of the questions at the start of the paper determine the answer they
have no idea what multiproxy averaging does. By their logic, I could argue 1998 wasn't
warmest year globally, because it wasn't the warmest everywhere. With their LIA being
1900 and their MWP 800-1300, there appears (at my quick first reading) no discussion of
synchroneity of the cool/warm periods. Even with the instrumental record, the early and
20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid
Writing this I am becoming more convinced we should do something - even if this is
to state once and for all what we mean by the LIA and MWP. I think the skeptics will
this paper to their own ends and it will set paleo back a number of years if it goes
I will be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it
rid themselves of this troublesome editor. A CRU person is on the editorial board, but
get dealt with by the editor assigned by Hans von Storch.
Tim Osborn has just come across this. Best to ignore probably, so don't let it
day. I've not looked at it yet. It results from this journal having a number of
responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers
Michaels and Gray in the past. I've had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got
Another thing to discuss in Nice !
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:32:14 +0000
From: Tim Osborn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Soon & Baliunas
Dr Timothy J Osborn | phone: +44 1603 592089
Senior Research Associate | fax: +44 1603 507784
Climatic Research Unit | e-mail: email@example.com
School of Environmental Sciences | web-site:
University of East Anglia __________| http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/
Norwich NR4 7TJ | sunclock:
UK | http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090
School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784
University of East Anglia
Norwich Email firstname.lastname@example.org
Professor Michael E. Mann
Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA 22903
e-mail: email@example.com Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137