it was well received by the referees, and so is in the publication pipeline. However, I got the impression that Saiers was trying to keep it from being published. Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
Proving bad behavior here is very difficult. If you think that Saiers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we can find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted. Even this would be difficult.
My emphasis. The levels of pettiness on the opposing sides do not appear to be equal. The allegation of an attempt to suppress a peer-reviewed publication is serious. It is ironic that, with claims of suppression of skeptics are not uncommon in the popular press, a private e-mail should suggest attempted suppression in the opposite direction.
Next time "asymmetrical warfare" may have become a metaphor.
And what does the last sentence say?
Even this would be difficult.
Getting rid of a skeptic is not easy?!!
I hope not.
Being a skeptic should not be a disqualifying trait in and of itself provided that the editor does the job impartially and respects the outcome of the peer review process. However, once the editor's personal opinions start to influence his action, he should be out the door in a flash. However, I suspect that in that case it would still be very difficult to remove him. A natural consequence of science being a cautious rather than a reactionary discipline.
