I'm getting a bit sick and tired of this stuff. Today I find that Trump gets acquitted of charges of insurrection, and my 2-page Ideas paper gets rejected from the Earth System Dynamics journal (yes, 2 pages is the page limit).

The two are definitely related as there are cowards among us in both politics and science.

Dave, so you say that NOAA has all the answers, eh?

This reviewer of my paper, Billy Kessler of NOAA, [wrote this](https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2020-74/esd-2020-74-RC1.pdf):

> I am a physical oceanographer who knows nothing about the Chandler wobble, is only slightly familiar with the QBO, but is a longtime expert on ENSO.

To be blunt, trying to shoehorn ENSO into a periodic tidal framework stretches reality to fit someone’s preconceived theory. Only the most **motivated reasoning** can believe this.

> … *(more stuff that you can read)*

> **I am sorry to have wasted an hour on this.**

> Billy Kessler, NOAA/PMEL, Seattle

>interactive comment on earth syst. dynam. discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2020-74

That last line is a pathetic insult. And suggesting "preconceived theory" and "motivated reasoning" is a slam at anyone that is testing out a theory or hypothesis by actually showing some persistence in doing an involved computational analysis.

> **"shoehorn ENSO into a periodic tidal framework"**

Umm, like duh. Way back in 1776, Laplace developed the now-referred-to **Laplace's Tidal Equations** to attempt to model tidal flows, including the effects of Coriolis and lateral forcing. They proved so successful that they were enhanced to form the so-called [primitive equations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_equations) used to approximate atmospheric flow in global atmospheric models. So they are essentially GCMs. So what I did is to derive a compact analytical solution for the LTE along the equator and applied that theoretical model to evaluating the ENSO while using tidal forces as input.

And Billy from NOAA calls that *motivated reasoning* ? I would give up if they weren't so laughably ignorant about how to do physics.

The two are definitely related as there are cowards among us in both politics and science.

Dave, so you say that NOAA has all the answers, eh?

This reviewer of my paper, Billy Kessler of NOAA, [wrote this](https://esd.copernicus.org/preprints/esd-2020-74/esd-2020-74-RC1.pdf):

> I am a physical oceanographer who knows nothing about the Chandler wobble, is only slightly familiar with the QBO, but is a longtime expert on ENSO.

To be blunt, trying to shoehorn ENSO into a periodic tidal framework stretches reality to fit someone’s preconceived theory. Only the most **motivated reasoning** can believe this.

> … *(more stuff that you can read)*

> **I am sorry to have wasted an hour on this.**

> Billy Kessler, NOAA/PMEL, Seattle

>interactive comment on earth syst. dynam. discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2020-74

That last line is a pathetic insult. And suggesting "preconceived theory" and "motivated reasoning" is a slam at anyone that is testing out a theory or hypothesis by actually showing some persistence in doing an involved computational analysis.

> **"shoehorn ENSO into a periodic tidal framework"**

Umm, like duh. Way back in 1776, Laplace developed the now-referred-to **Laplace's Tidal Equations** to attempt to model tidal flows, including the effects of Coriolis and lateral forcing. They proved so successful that they were enhanced to form the so-called [primitive equations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_equations) used to approximate atmospheric flow in global atmospheric models. So they are essentially GCMs. So what I did is to derive a compact analytical solution for the LTE along the equator and applied that theoretical model to evaluating the ENSO while using tidal forces as input.

And Billy from NOAA calls that *motivated reasoning* ? I would give up if they weren't so laughably ignorant about how to do physics.