Well, now we know why McLean’s Reply to the demolition of their paper was rejected. In a response being published by SPPI (was it rejected by even Energy and Environment?), they claim this was because of a vast conspiracy against them. But they make the mistake of including the rejected Reply, so anyone can see that they admit that their analysis was “based on differentials between 12 month averages”, which removes any long term trend. That they don’t find a long term trend after removing does not show that there is no long term trend. No doubt the referee’s reports made this point as well, which is why, in their response, they just quote mine the reports, quoting the part that says that their Reply is rubbish without quoting the part that explained why their Reply was rubbish.
In the interest of transparency I call on McLean to post the referees’ reports in full.
Normally rejection of bad paper would not be news, but it seems that if your chairman is a Global Warming denier, it is. What is notable about Sarah Clarke’s story is that she gives McLean the last word and makes no attempt at all to work out who is right. How hard would it have been for Clarke to find an expert in statistics and ask whether taking differences removes any long term trend?
Stephan Lewandowsky has an article at The Drum on the refutation of McLean et al and what it says about the scientific consensus:
This analysis, based entirely on publicly available information, puts to rest the only peer reviewed article that was purportedly about climate change and claimed to challenge the scientific consensus, to have come out of Australia since the IPCC’s last assessment report.
This single article is no more.
What is left standing instead are, for example, the 110 peer reviewed articles on climate change that were published by scientists at the University of New South Wales’ Climate Change Research Center alone since 2007.
Yes, 110 peer reviewed articles since 2007 from just one Australian research center that add to the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change and its human causes.
110 peer reviewed articles which in the service of humanity seek ways to manage the problem.
110 to 0.
Lewandowsky is asking that scientists who agree that detrended data cannot be used to draw any conclusions about long term trends leave a comment at his article giving your name and qualifications. He writes:
One thing is certain: Journalists will take note if scientists step up to the plate and show visibility and determination in large numbers. Indeed, that in itself would be news that the ABC might pick up and report.
The link to his piece is here.