Pal-review at work: Spencer and Braswell rebuttal published after just SIX WEEKS

You review my paper…

Whereas a sceptical paper could take up to TWO YEARS (e.g. Lindzen and Choi). I guess it’s all a question of who you know and what side you’re on, right?

WUWT has the full story.

UPDATE: Luboš Motl goes to work on the rebuttal here. Enjoy – here’s an extract:

Well, I am really amazed that people who have self-evidently no idea about physics – and about basic reality such as the impact of clouds on temperature – could have been accepted to the college: Dessler was allowed to study at Rice University. It’s just utterly incredible how hollow skulls like his might have been accepted to a university.

Let me summarize the basic errors in Dessler’s crackpot rants:

  • he incorrectly assumes that clouds have to “trap” heat if they want to influence the temperature
  • he incorrectly assumes that the cloud cover at a given place isn’t an independent degree of freedom; instead, it is a function of the carbon dioxide emissions
  • he incorrectly assumes that it is illegitimate to test the predicted correlations of various physical models by comparing the simulations with the observations; instead, he thinks that it is legitimate to hide his head into the sand and claim that there is nothing to be seen here
  • more generally, he seems to incorrectly assume that one may be a complete imbecile such as himself to write relevant papers about the energy flows in the atmosphere.


  1. climategate e-mails revealed the peer review process is compromised and even phil jones of the uea cru stated that the process could be changed if needed to explude certain papers. climategate the gift that keeps exposing the scam

  2. Well who would have thought the process of scientific peer review was a blood sport … well there’s the proof.

    It’s fairly obvious Trenberth & Co. don’t want Spencer and Braswell’s paper getting any scientific recognition. Amazing stuff … but I’m sure we haven’t heard the end yet!

  3. If Lubos and Dessler swapped teams, the paper would already have been retracted.

  4. What amazes me is that this IPCC warmist crowd are so positive that the AGW theory is correct.There seems that no opposition or scepicism will be tolerated.Are there not any half baked warmist scientists among them who at least consider alternative opinions or will at least examine contradictory evidence? Are not scientists supposed to have enquiring minds and integrity?

%d bloggers like this: