Peer Review (Score 2, Informative)

The commentary from the author seems uneven. For example, the author first states,

I contacted one of the authors, who informed my that the study was submitted for publication on January 26, 2007, and accepted for publication in the journal Weather and Forecasting on May 23, 2007. It will probably appear in the October-November time frame, according to the publisher. This raises an immediate problem, since only a privileged few are able to read unpublished research. This limits the possibilities for an informed debate on the issue, and basing important policy decisions on unpublished research is thus normally to be avoided.

then goes on to cite a "poster presentation" at a conference,

When I attended the AMS hurricane conference in May 2006 in Monterey, I came across a poster presentation by Dr. Jim Goerss that evaluated the impact of QuikSCAT on the NOGAPS model.

The author insinuates that a "poster presentation" at a conference receives more rigorous peer review than a journal article accepted for publication. In order for an article to be accepted for publication, it is usually reviewed by several people deemed "experts in the field" by the journal editors, while conference submissions are usually accepted based on only an abstract.