Because it totally discredits Mann's beloved hockey stick graph. The holy grail of graphs for the IPCC, ALGore, and the kool aid drinking AGW cultists. In other words it proves that the AGW ideology is based on bad 'science.'
It did. That paper was presented at the World Congress of Environmental and Resources Economics in June of 2010 at Montreal.
Maximilian Auffhammer has published at least 25 papers including "Global Climate Models: A User Guide for Economists" and "Observation-based evidence that climate change has reduced Indian rice harvests" in 2012.
I'm studying the paper and may have a running series of comments and questions as I review it, but the first thing that caught my eye is the study focuses on the reconstruction of climate at a single site using a single proxy time series. My first question is how reliable any conclusions that may be reached are on such a limited study? Perhaps if other respondents catch this question opinions related to the attention devoted to it might shed some light on your question as well as mine. Unfortunately, work beckons so I can't get much further into the paper than that now, but I have printed it off and may have a chance to read further, although not get back to the online discussion until much later in the day today.
I believe the premise of your question is incorrect. Unless you have a journal citation that I can't find, the paper is not peer reviewed. It was published in a conference proceedings, but those are typically NOT peer reviewed.
My guess is that they either found errors in their own analysis and decided not to publish, or else errors were found during peer review. It seems a bit odd to go to all the trouble of writing a paper and then not publish it in a journal.
EDIT: Ok, after seeing your updates, it apparently WAS in peer review, but never made it through. Why not? Even if it was rejected by whatever journal it was being submitted to at the time of that email, there are dozens (probably hundreds) of other journals where it could be submitted.
What people outside science fail to understand is that IT IS VERY COMMON for papers not to make it through peer review. In atmospheric and climate science around 40-50% of the papers will not make it into print, and that has nothing to do with AGW.
JC, if they are testing the robustness of a method, a single proxy time series doesn't seem bad. Note how Cook mentions that they do not produce an alternate reconstruction.
Yamal itself is based on just 5 trees in the 1980s.
Well I guessing it is because none of the authors is degreed in climate science, they are instead experts in agriculture resources and economics. If there was much climate credibility we might have heard of it. It was written in 2009 and references IPCC reports, the latest of which is 2007 I really didn't see much that pertains to the current state of AGW.
In fact their focus pertained more to the reality of global warming as the debate when @99% of scientists worldwide accept GW BUT the denier industry changed it's focus later to whether or not GW was man made. This abstract is history that has already gone by the wayside.
Congrats. Having discovered the existence of peer review (due to some "Village Idiot" pointing it out to you), you now obsess on the matter, which is still too complex for your level of genius HA HA HA Fake Quote Goebbels Worship "true" science.
It suffices to say that this (regardless of which anti-science blog you may have C(arefully) P(rocured) aka Copy Pasted the link to it from) is not the first academic working paper that five years later hasn't been published.
It is probably not peer reviewed and is total rubbish, and you seem to have found, so it can't have been hidden terribly well. Your lies are becoming feebler
You want us to 'non-peer' review the paper instead?
http://nber-nsf09.ucdavis.edu/program/papers/auffhammer.pdf
