Under the Hood
Thoreau at High Clearing has a very nice article describing what peer review really is (hint: it ain't auditing). He describes how he handled a paper with the four questions (the details are at his blog, this is just the questions, not the answers)
1) What the hell are they doing here?
2) Do their results make sense? Are the methods solid?
3) Are these calculations relevant to anything? Do they teach us something new?
4) Would these calculations be of widespread interest?
Posts
1 comment:
Peer review for Climate Auditors:
>>What the hell are they doing here?
Damned if I know.
>>2) Do their results make sense? Are the methods solid?
You mean methods like this?
Reviewer's note:
In order to get an accurate temperature reading with an IR thermometer, it is critical
"to select, if possible, a measuring waveband in a region where the material is opaque."
But Latex paint is transparent to IR.
>>3) Are these calculations relevant to anything? Do they teach us something new?
yes, they teach us that there is a reason why people go to school to learn about this stuff.
>>4) Would these calculations be of widespread interest?
To those denying AGW (undeniably)
Post a Comment