cc: "'Philip D. Jones'" date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:41:18 +0000 from: Tim Osborn subject: Re: Update on response to Douglass et al. to: santer1@llnl.gov Hi Ben (cc Phil), just heard back from Glenn. He's prepared to treat it as a new submission rather than a comment on Douglass et al. and he also reiterates that "Needless to say my offer of a quick turn around time etc still stands". So basically this makes the IJC option more attractive than if it were treated as a comment. But whether IJC is still a less attractive option than GRL is up to you to decide :-) (or feel free to canvas your potential co-authors [the only thing I didn't want to make more generally known was the suggestion that print publication of Douglass et al. might be delayed... all other aspects of this discussion are unrestricted]). Cheers Tim At 21:00 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote: >Dear Tim, > >Thanks very much for your email. I greatly appreciate the additional >information that you've given me. I am a bit conflicted about what >we should do. > >IJC published a paper with egregious statistical errors. Douglass et >al. was essentially a commentary on work by myself and colleagues - >work that had been previously published in Science in 2005 and in >Chapter 5 of the first U.S. CCSP Report in 2006. To my knowledge, >none of the authors or co-authors of the Santer et al. Science paper >or of CCSP 1.1 Chapter 5 were used as reviewers of Douglass et al. I >am assuming that, when he submitted his paper to IJC, Douglass >specifically requested that certain scientists should be excluded >from the review process. Such an approach is not defensible for a >paper which is largely a comment on previously-published work. > >It would be fair and reasonable to give IJC the opportunity to "set >the record straight", and correct the harm they have done by >publication of Douglass et al. I use the word "harm" advisedly. The >author and coauthors of the Douglass et al. IJC paper are using this >paper to argue that "Nature, not CO2, rules the climate", and that >the findings of Douglass et al. invalidate the "discernible human >influence" conclusions of previous national and international >scientific assessments. > >Quick publication of a response to Douglass et al. in IJC would go >some way towards setting the record straight. I am troubled, >however, by the very real possibility that Douglass et al. will have >the last word on this subject. In my opinion (based on many years of >interaction with these guys), neither Douglass, Christy or Singer >are capable of admitting that their paper contained serious >scientific errors. Their "last word" will be an attempt to obfuscate >rather than illuminate. They are not interested in improving our >scientific understanding of the nature and causes of recent changes >in atmospheric temperature. They are solely interested in advancing >their own agendas. It is telling and troubling that Douglass et al. >ignored radiosonde data showing substantial warming of the tropical >troposphere - data that were in accord with model results - even >though such data were in their possession. Such behaviour >constitutes intellectual dishonesty. I strongly believe that leaving >these guys the last word is inherently unfair. > >If IJC are interested in publishing our contribution, I believe it's >fair to ask for the following: > >1) Our paper should be regarded as an independent contribution, not >as a comment on Douglass et al. This seems reasonable given i) The >substantial amount of new work that we have done; and ii) The fact >that the Douglass et al. paper was not regarded as a comment on >Santer et al. (2005), or on Chapter 5 of the 2006 CCSP Report - even >though Douglass et al. clearly WAS a comment on these two publications. > >2) If IJC agrees to 1), then Douglass et al. should have the >opportunity to respond to our contribution, and we should be given >the chance to reply. Any response and reply should be published >side-by-side, in the same issue of IJC. > >I'd be grateful if you and Phil could provide me with some guidance >on 1) and 2), and on whether you think we should submit to IJC. Feel >free to forward my email to Glenn McGregor. > >With best regards, > >Ben >Tim Osborn wrote: >>At 03:52 10/01/2008, Ben Santer wrote: >>>...Much as I would like to see a high-profile rebuttal of Douglass >>>et al. in a journal like Science or Nature, it's unlikely that >>>either journal will publish such a rebuttal. >>> >>>So what are our options? Personally, I'd vote for GRL. I think >>>that it is important to publish an expeditious response to the >>>statistical flaws in Douglass et al. In theory, GRL should be able >>>to give us the desired fast turnaround time... >>> >>>Why not go for publication of a response in IJC? According to >>>Phil, this option would probably take too long. I'd be interested >>>to hear any other thoughts you might have on publication options. >>Hi Ben and Phil, >>as you may know (Phil certainly knows), I'm on the editorial board >>of IJC. Phil is right that it can be rather slow (though faster >>than certain other climate journals!). Nevertheless, IJC really is >>the preferred place to publish (though a downside is that Douglass >>et al. may have the opportunity to have a response considered to >>accompany any comment). >>I just contacted the editor, Glenn McGregor, to see what he can >>do. He promises to do everything he can to achieve a quick >>turn-around time (he didn't quantify this) and he will also "ask >>(the publishers) for priority in terms of getting the paper online >>asap after the authors have received proofs". He genuinely seems >>keen to correct the scientific record as quickly as possible. >>He also said (and please treat this in confidence, which is why I >>emailed to you and Phil only) that he may be able to hold back the >>hardcopy (i.e. the print/paper version) appearance of Douglass et >>al., possibly so that any accepted Santer et al. comment could >>appear alongside it. Presumably depends on speed of the review process. >>If this does persuade you to go with IJC, Glenn suggested that I >>could help (because he is in Kathmandu at present) with achieving >>the quick turn-around time by identifying in advance reviewers who >>are both suitable and available. Obviously one reviewer could be >>someone who is already familiar with this discussion, because that >>would enable a fast review - i.e., someone on the email list you've >>been using - though I don't know which of these people you will be >>asking to be co-authors and hence which won't be available as >>possible reviewers. For objectivity the other reviewer would need >>to be independent, but you could still suggest suitable names. >>Well, that's my thoughts... let me know what you decide. >>Cheers >>Tim >> >>Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow >>Climatic Research Unit >>School of Environmental Sciences >>University of East Anglia >>Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK >>e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk >>phone: +44 1603 592089 >>fax: +44 1603 507784 >>web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ >>sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm > > >-- >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Benjamin D. Santer >Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison >Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory >P.O. Box 808, Mail Stop L-103 >Livermore, CA 94550, U.S.A. >Tel: (925) 422-2486 >FAX: (925) 422-7675 >email: santer1@llnl.gov >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow Climatic Research Unit School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK e-mail: t.osborn@uea.ac.uk phone: +44 1603 592089 fax: +44 1603 507784 web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/ sunclock: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/~timo/sunclock.htm