Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
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.

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.

by det on Sat Nov 21st, 2009 at 11:45:01 AM EST
it's called Climate Wars for a reason.

Next time "asymmetrical warfare" may have become a metaphor.

by Nomad on Sat Nov 21st, 2009 at 12:22:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And the motive to "go through official AGU channels" is not to oust a supposed skeptic, but to oust an obstructing editor.

And what does the last sentence say?

Even this would be difficult.

Getting rid of a skeptic is not easy?!!
by das monde on Tue Nov 24th, 2009 at 03:04:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
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.

by det on Sat Nov 28th, 2009 at 05:55:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series