,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
From a recent review of my latest journal submission. "There is the danger that the paper is used by unscrupulous people to create confusion or to discredit climate science. I suggest that the author reconsiders the essence of its contribution to the sci. debate on climate sci.".
From the Editor: "A lack of clarity about whether the paper is trying to present and justify a new methodology, or is instead trying to support a specific result.
On the basis of such fundamental conceptual flaws, we cannot accept this paper for publication."
On the basis of such fundamental conceptual flaws, we cannot accept this paper for publication."
The methodology is't at all tricky, I suggest reviewers that would be knowledgable of this. Instead the editor selected two reviewers with an apparent vested interest in the results.
Another genius statement from Reviewer #1: 
