There are weblogs by my co-authors on our rejected submission to EOS which Climate Science weblogged on yesterday; see
Their weblogs are
“of consensus and consistency” by Fergus Brown
“Your opinions, please”by James Annan.
An excerpt from Fergus’s weblog reads
” I would point out here, once again, that the original intention of the research was to try to establish, as far as was possible, what scientists involved in climate-related science honestly thought of the IPCC AR4. There was no agenda, implicit or explicit, to ‘prove’ either that there is or isn’t a ‘consensus’ – in fact, we even avoided the term consciously, choosing ‘agreement’ instead – and the database was as carefully controlled as possible – I would argue, the ‘purest’ of its kind used in any such study to date.
It’s the Old Man’s contention that, with acknowledgement of the legitimate concerns of our critics, our paper remains the most interesting and most relevant of the overt attempts to poll scientists on climate change. I’d also lay odds that a better paper by us, using a comparable database but more carefully prepared and more rigorously managed, would produce very closely comparable results to the original.
So where does all this leave us and our paper? I don’t know that anything has changed, but, since Fred Spilhaus behaved decently to me personally, during our correspondence, and I respect him and his professionalism, I think I’ll write and ask him if a letter, referencing the earlier work, would be, given their apparent chance of editorial heart, sufficiently interesting to publish.
More on this at a later date.”
“Long-term readers will remember the saga of our opinion poll which EOS declined to publish, on the basis that EOS should not accept summaries of opinion polls. and that they wanted to focus on science instead (even in the “Forum” section).
What should appear in this week’s EOS but…the summary of an opinion poll! Entitled “Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change” it reports the results of a web-based poll of (mainly) US-based scientists, and reports that – surprise surprise – about 90% of them agree that “human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures
Of course my opinion is likely to be biased, but surely our poll concerning how accurate and representative the IPCC AR4 was in summarising the state of the science, is much more interesting and (potentially) valuable than yet another flogging of the dead horse concerning the mere existence of anthropogenic global warming.”
Climate Science hopes that EOS will eventually see the inconsistancy of their decision and publish a communication in EOS on our survey.