Comments on: Some questions for the BoM’s FOI executive

By: Richard C (NZ)

Richard C (NZ) — Sun, 22 May 2011 10:12:11 +0000

Looks like an (e)scapegoat.

By: Shub

Shub — Sat, 21 May 2011 16:10:14 +0000

Climategoat: The final nail in the coffin of anthropogenic CRU hacking CRU's playing the same tricks as well.

By: Warwick Hughes

Warwick Hughes — Sat, 21 May 2011 00:28:46 +0000

Roger – you say – “Jo Nova’s column reveals the extensive negotiations and resubmissions made by NIWA to BoM to their original submission.”
Where is this material ? I have been thru the above link to JoNova but see nothing like you describe.

By: Roger Gower

Roger Gower — Thu, 19 May 2011 01:18:53 +0000

The convention for peer review has also been one of anonymity wherein the author is not the party contracting the peer reviewer, in order to avoid the obvious conflict of interest. Generally the peer review is organised by an editorial group/committee/board independent of the author.

The request by NIWA to have BoM review its work as a stated “Peer Review” would appear to breach every tenet of the peer review convention.

Jo Nova’s column reveals the extensive negotiations and resubmissions made by NIWA to BoM to their original submission. It would be very difficult to say the original statements made by NIWA were now confirmed by the BoM – such has been the apparent dissimulation and negotiations undertaken subsequently.

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Mon, 16 May 2011 13:00:23 +0000

oops = sorry, my bad,,, here’s the right link:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/news-thread-may-15/

By: Mike Jowsey

Mike Jowsey — Mon, 16 May 2011 12:59:23 +0000

Jo Nova links to your BoM articles (Point number 3):

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/05/news-thread-may-15/comment-page-2/#comment-305289