Steig et al – disingenous peer review
The short story on this is quite straightforward – Steig publishes a paper that purports to show that the Antarctic is warming but Jeff ID follows up with a paper that shows that Steig’s math is completely wrong. Jeff ID attempts to get his paper peer reviewed. Steig turns out to be a reviewer who then spends more time obfuscating, delaying and blatantly misrepresenting himself as part of a tactic to discredit Jeff’s paper.
Read the full story here… http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/07/rcs-duplicity-prods-jeff-id-out-of-retirement/
My thoughts? It has been a truly wonderful experience to watch the “skeptic” process evolve and integrate into the field of global climate science. This story shows the result of years of learning, reverse engineering, research, methodology development and testing. This then had to be coupled with patient and indomitable engagement with the established science authorities. And now finally (in 2011 no less), specific individuals and groups have been able to take on the scientists, their science and the peer review process to fully and completely rebut not just their specious claims but also their methods and their peer review processes. Climategate gave us snippets that had to be reconstructed like a jigsaw puzzle making it difficult to convey the full picture to the average layman. But above entire story of the development and publishing of just one paper, the disingenuous review followed by a blow by blow recounting of the sordid details makes for very compelling and persuasive reading indeed – bravo Jeff ID!