GRL requires author to nominate 5 reviewers. There is no certainty that any of those people will do the reviewing. I have sometimes been offered a review and turned it down to suggest other more relevant people and v. v.

Any competent editor will consider if the suggested reviewers are suitable. So AGU is also culpable. As noted at the time, the names of Carter and de Freitas should have sounded alarm bells. McLean is very much lesser (in oh so many ways) and that is presumably why he was lead author.

Any volunteers to trawl through his tedious submissions to the ETS Select Committee and show where graphs have come from etc? (Submissions are public by definition).

Thanks for your contribution.

I think that the comments being made here are too important to let pass by. In the interest of balance and in order to provide a full and informed debate, I would be grateful if you could return and provide a rebuttal.

How strange that John McLean is too busy to rescue what's left of his reputation, which suggests that he knows the game is up. It's probably too late for de Freitas & Carter.

Are the so-called sceptics going to cry foul? Or are they merely pseudo-sceptics? For instance, Can we look forward to a lengthy dissection and FOI campaign, by ClimateFraudit?

I'm not holding my breath.

I enjoyed your two submissions to the NZ ETS Select Committees.

You have some fantastic graph work (in the 2008 submission with Terry) that presages the effort in GRL.

I particularly enjoy it where you say (in the 2009 submission):

The IPCC's charter ensures that it is biased from the outset. The claims in the latest IPCC report were written by people drawn from a very narrow field, one that has gained substantially from the hypothesis of man-made warming, its practitioners often worked together, probably reviewed each other's work and are hardly likely to admit short-comings in their work.

I wonder which 5 people you nominated to AGU to review your work?
I wonder who did review it and I wonder what they said when the comment was passed to them (as is customary with a comment).

Can you enlighten us as to why you have no "reply"?

Hoping nothing to do with publishing papers on climate one hopes.

I can't be bothered helping you by pointing out where you are wrong. You'll find out one day. I have better things to do with my time.

John McLean