Can I really be the first to snark about this?
Expert and Government Review Comments on the IPCC WGI AR5 Second Order Draft – General is now available for download.
As you’d expect, the pompous “Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom” notches up a string of “reject”, please read the guidelines. Someone called “Jyrki Kauppinen, Finland” gets all his comments rejected with “please read what we said the first time”. That was just the general stuff. There may be some treasures buried in the individual chapters.
John McLean gets lots of retractions; he seems to be some NN from the ASSC.
I should say, though, that merely having your comment rejected doesn’t make you a wacko. Plenty of sane people have had comments rejected.
Watts et al. 2012 rides again, or not
Good for a laff, anyway: on Chapter 10, attribution one David Hagen reckons the IPCC ought to cite Watts et al. 2012 and has the gall to try to use the pre-print at WUWT as a reference. The reviewers are baffled: Rejected. This comment does not seem relevant. Seems to refer to Pg 16 ln 21-27. Still, this is an issue for the observations chapter. This is discussed in chapter 2.
Crok doesn’t fare well in chapter 2 either.
Update: Hot Topic finds a lovely one for Vincent Gray:
Rejected – The comment does not reflect the scientific understanding. The errors in individual observations are not additive; we are also doing relative analysis that eliminates many of the concerns about individual errors. The reviewer obviously has a limited understanding of the associated error evaluation for analysis of large datasets. See Chapter 2 for more on the evaluation of these datasets. Or maybe even read a basic textbook.