cc: "Jones, Phil" date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:41:47 -0400 from: Thomas C Peterson subject: Re: Pielke et al to: David Parker Dear David & Phil, I think you have a great start on the rebuttal, David. While I have many minor comments or edits in the attached version, there is one systematic change that I think we need to make: Each section should start out with a 1 or two sentence summary of Pielke et al.'s key point. Then we add our stuff (which you've written). But then we need a 1 sentence summary each time where we say, therefore Roger's point is (choose one or several): irrelevant, not supported by the evidence or refuted by the evidence. I'd prefer some stronger and less technical language, but I know you're too polite to write any such thing. Does that sound reasonable? Also, Phil, I have two questions for you in my comments. We do need to expect that Roger will want to pick any nits we have showing, so (a) we should only state the barest and clearest of cases and (b) be ready for an onslaught of babble. Regards, Tom David Parker said the following on 3/7/2008 11:34 AM: > Tom > > Thanks for your comments on Pielke et al. JGR 2007. I have incorporated > your thoughts into my draft response - please see attached. > > Regards > > David > -- Thomas C. Peterson, Ph.D. NOAA's National Climatic Data Center 151 Patton Avenue Asheville, NC 28801 Voice: +1-828-271-4287 Fax: +1-828-271-4328 Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Parker_etal_re_Pielke_etal_JGR2007-tcp.doc"