Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (59739)	10/27/2014 1:07:53 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

"they can't get published in the journals we won't let them publish in" They all lack a certain je ne sais quoi.... fer instance, the ability to do simple arithmetic. The authors can always correct the math and re-submit. The Third Referee Waits In The Wings ERL has now published the comments of the second referee for Bengtsson's rejected paper. After pointing out that the authors used the wrong equation, calculating the smaller transient climate sensitivity when they meant equilibrium climate sensitivity and used the wrong, well inappropriate, units for the climate sensitivity, K/(W/m2) instead of K for same, the second referee piles on, concluding The study would be much more valuable if it attempted to also begin to address the four questions posed in the conclusions. I suspect the answers are really quite mundane, although the tone of the discussion implies otherwise.And, oh yes, the ERL chief editor, Dan Kammen, is mad as hell. Graham Readfearn interviewedhim, eliciting He said the recent news coverage appeared to be an attempt to publish research “via the media” after it had been rejected through the academic peer review process. He pointed out that even though Bengtsson’s paper had been rejected by ERL, “they are free to submit the paper elsewhere”. We at Rabett Run, await the review of the third referee rabett.blogspot.com