Unfortunately for this option, we have recently learned (through the kind intervention of Nielsen - Gammon here), that, even in the case of open review comments, ethical
standards within the climate science community forbid speculation on the identity of Reviewer # 2 (except in private).
«Unfortunately for this option, we have recently learned (through the kind intervention of Nielsen - Gammon here), that, even in the case of open review comments, ethical standards
within the climate science community forbid speculation on the identity of Reviewer # 2»
Now, the AGW partisans tell me in no uncertain terms that Mann's hockey stick is universally accepted as confirmed
fact within the climate science community; and furthermore, that Mann's past work on the hockey stick meets all generally - accepted standards for rigor and professionalism in the pursuit of scientific research.
Further adding to the
divide within the climate science community is the fact that many of the climate models that Trenberth and others often use do not show the sorts of changes in the jet stream that the new study and others like it have pointed to, including the more frequently stagnated or «blocked» weather patterns that Francis cited.
``... ethical
standards within the climate science community... > Isn't that a questionnable description given what was revealed by the leak from the CRU of EAU about key «scientists» and the behaviour of some «scientists» in conferences and media appearances?