Re: [Phys-l] Greenhouse

["A. John Mallinckrodt" <ajm@csupomona.edu>]

David,

I think it's unfair to interpret the failure of the peer review process in this case as a reason to doubt the increasingly overwhelming consensus of the climate research community, especially since this paper was not published in a climate research journal.  Perhaps a more important takeaway would be to reassess the validity of the constant whining from the anti GW forces about how (and especially *why*) they can't get their papers published.

John Mallinckrodt
Cal Poly Pomona

David Marx wrote:

> Having now had a chance to look at the commentary and the paper.  I agree with you, John.  
> This paper should never have made it through the peer review process.  As, I think, most of 
> us know, the peer review process leaves a lot to be desired.  With this paper, people took the 
> time to give this a proper review and posted their thoughtful comments online.  It would be 
> nice if people also did this with the more standard climate science papers as well.  People 
> tend to dismiss quickly anything that runs contrary to their opinion, rather than taking a closer 
> look.