Overpeck’s “Hammer”

Climate Audit

One of the curious aspects of IPCC peer review procedure is that the ultimate authority for accepting or rejecting comments by peer reviewers rests with the IPCC authors, as opposed to the Review Editors. Review Editors are supposed to see that authors respond to Review Comments, but don’t follow up to see that it’s actually done.

Here’s a strange example in the AR4 Medieval Warm Period Box – the one which Overpeck (483. 1105978592.txt) described in January 2005 as follows:

Hi all – attached is Keith’s MWP box w/ my edits. It reads just great – much like a big hammer. Nice job.

Overpeck liked the metaphor and in a June email (537. 1119924849.txt) talked of using the MWP Box “to hammer in one more nail” and again in July (550. 1121686753.txt) talked of “hammering home” their MWP message – language that caused even Briffa (551. 1121721126.txt) to worry about…

View original post 657 more words


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s