Disproof of Global Warming Hype Published

In your post number 51 is a link to a letter by Lord Monckton. The link is a PDF file. The 2nd page of the pdf file is a summary of the "Author's reconciliation of the reviewer's requested revisions" In that summary, the reviewer is named.

Rather than name him here, since reviewing is supposed to be anonymous, just click on your link in post 51 and look at the top of page two.

Or click this link and go to page two.

P.S. I've written the reviewer an email this morning, asking his reaction to the statement "This paper has not undergone *any* scientific review."

I suspect that his email is overflowing, so I don' expect a reply soon. But I'm hopeful. We've corresponded in the past.

I am sure you're right about their email overflowing. I'd have to be from a much larger publication probably to get through the receptionist.

Thanks for pointing out page 2 of the letter. I guess it loaded too slowly when I looked at it, leaving me with a first impression that there was only one page; which is the one I quoted in my new article.

I got a reply back from the fellow who reviewed Lord Monckton's paper. He sent me a short personal note and also a copy of his "stock reply" to the many inquiries he's received. I'll just post his stock reply here. (The personal note didn't really add anything except disappointment in all the fuss.) Anyway, here's the "stock reply."

Our job is to promote discussion if necessary by occasionally telling the emperor that he is not adequately dressed. Hopefully we have done that. As far as I know, the issue of anthropomorphic impact upon climate is not as well settled as the flatness or roundness of the Earth; more discussion may help bring the issue to that state. (Occasionally, it is very difficult to get alternative viewpoints; we go with what we can get.) We read submitted papers for clarity, not for content so we do not claim that we are a peer reviewed journal, nor do we only publish stuff that we agree with - as is clearly stated in the ³boilerplate²in each issue. (Speaking personally, I am much more in agreement with Hafemeister than with Monckton, though I do not claim to be a peer reviewer.) We would welcome a contribution from you pointing out to our readers some of Monckton¹s errors. All of us would benefit from such rejoinders.

Interesting that he solicits errors only for Monckton's paper instead of both Hafemeister or Monckton's.

Like you said - it's a stock answer. I suspect the global warming fanatics are out in force - with an organized pressure campaign - putting pressure on anything and anybody connected with the publication of Monckton's article. So if he's copy-pasting a couple thousand responses - statistically he's better off assuming the message is from someone who's against Monckton. Diplomatic response to most - submit a paper yourself if you're able.

I'm a little dismayed by his comment that "we do not claim that we are a peer reviewed journal." I understand that the invited papers at least, did not go through scoring and voting from a group of reviewers based on their feelings about the content. But the website of the journal says they publish reviewed papers, and Monckton's account of the review he went through seemed far beyond the editing that unreviewed commentary receives - i.e. the type of review that only reviewed papers receive.

One more thing - that I really like about his response. He’s suggesting a scientific debate - i.e. respond to the subject, to the details of Monckton’s paper. That was the intent of inviting a “denier” article in the first place - to stimulate debate.

Just one more thing - perhaps a little humorous. He uses the term “anthropomorphic” in his response. Look it up. I’ve used it a couple of times in my commentary re: anthropomorphic global warming. People on the other side, usually say “anthropogenic.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.