cc: "Jones, Phil" <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 12:41:47 -0400
from: Thomas C Peterson <Thomas.C.Peterson@noaa.gov>
subject: Re: Pielke et al
to: David Parker <david.parker@metoffice.gov.uk>

<x-flowed>
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


</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Parker_etal_re_Pielke_etal_JGR2007-tcp.doc"
