Things Break says this, but I don’t see why I shouldn’t say the same. I haven’t had much to say about Pearce before – I see I took a side swipe at him a while back. But his recent trash on the McLean paper is the worst sort of dumb journo false balance and he should be ashamed of himself.
[Update: anyone who thinks FP isn’t a fool should read his latest trash (thanks to a commenter)]
May as well have a largely irrelevant cartoon (ht: mt):
Eli has a wonderful post on the McLean mess. So wonderful I can’t resist ripping bits of it off :-).
McLean et al. quote:
“But as it is written, the current paper [Foster et al. draft critique] almost stoops to the level of “blog diatribe”. The current paper does not read like a peer-reviewed journal article. The tone is sometimes dramatic and sometimes accusatory. It is inconsistent with the language one normally encounters in the objectively-based, peer-reviewed literature.”
But oddly enough they don’t continue the quotation…
The real mystery here, of course, is how the McLean et al. paper ever made it into JGR. How that happened, I have no idea. I can’t see it ever getting published through J Climate. The analyses in McLean et al. are among the worst I have seen in the climate literature. The paper is also a poorly guised attack on the integrity of the climate community, and I guess that is why Foster et al. have taken the energy to contradict its findings.
How very curious.
[Comments off here; go to Eli instead]