[Vision2020] Hacked Climate Reseach Unit E-mails: 1,092 Responses to “The CRU hack”

Thu Nov 26 10:32:57 PST 2009

On 11/25/09, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>> Of course you know that unless verified by some means (have you?), the
>> content of these hacked e-mails may have been altered or fabricated.  I
>> therefore would not publicly post them with names of authors, given this may
>> be putting false words into someones mouth, as it were.  Your posting of
>> this hacked alleged e-mail and naming an alleged author is ethically
>> questionable.
>>
>
> I don't think it's ethically questionable to post quotes from an alleged
> email that I copied from a news site.  Is the hacking unethical, most
> definitely.  Highly illegal as well.  I don't see how posting a quote from
> it that is publicly available is unethical.

It is unethical because you are further spreading hacked e-mail of personal
communications, that has not been verified, that may be altered or
fabricated, possibly continuing to spread misinformation, while making
rather serious charges against a professional scientist, based on this
source.  To be strict, the proper response to your referencing this hacked
e-mail is to discredit your post based on the fact it is from an unreliable
source.

The primary reason I responded to your post of the hacked e-mail is because
the controversy surrounding the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper (
http://web.archive.org/web/20070704065729/w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf
 )

was mentioned, of great significance regarding credible and rigorous peer
review, because of the implications for science education and accuracy in
public and political arenas, when faulty science is published in supposedly
credible peer reviewed journals.  You are claiming politics is being played
in the world of science publishing to block publication in some cases, while
not mentioning the politics that were played regarding the discredited Soon
and Baliunas (2003) paper, that was published.  This issue is so important,
I will post separately on the history of the political games played
regarding the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper.

  Your slant on this e-mail does not consider important issues. You did not
>> apparently investigate the facts regarding the Soon and Baliunas paper in
>> "Climate Research," that Mann allegedly referenced, given you wrote "I
>> wonder if what they perceive as a "breakdown in the peer review process"
>> actually means that papers by skeptical authors passed a rigorous scientific
>> review. "
>>
>
> Here's a pop quiz:
>
> You are a leader in the field of climate science, internationally respected
> and at the heart of one of the world's most important scientific endeavors.
>  You discover a paper that was published in a reputable journal whose
> conclusions you disagree with.  Do you:
>
> A. Analyze the paper, carefully noting the potential problems you find.
>  Send a letter to the authors detailing the problems with a list of
> questions you would like them to answer about their data collection and data
> processing methodologies.  Await their response.
>
> B. Take the data published with the paper and the descriptions of the
> methodologies used and verify whether or not the conclusions can be
> supported by the evidence.  Write a rebuttal if you find problems and get it
> published.
>
> C. Perfom the experiment using your own considerable resources, determine
> whether or not your conclusions agree with theirs, publish your results.
>
> or
>
> D. Use your considerable political clout to stop such papers from being
> published in the first place, including persuading others not to cite papers
> in that journal nor to submit papers to it for review.
> What do you do?
>
> If you choose anything but A through C, you are playing politics, not doing
> science.

It is not simply that some scientists disagreed with the well peer reviewed
and worthy for publication Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper  *The paper was so
flawed it should not have been published as written, and likely would not
have been, as it was written, had it been submitted to numerous other
credible and well peer reviewed scientific journals.*  This has been
analyzed in detail and there is wide scientific agreement on this assessment
(Read my sources on this issue lower down).  The fact it was published was a
breakdown of the peer review process for scientific publishing.  For any
scientist to object to this breakdown, bring this to the attention of the
editors of the journal, inform colleagues that the journal has a flawed
review process, or even suggest they not submit to that journal, is to
defend the integrity of the scientific publishing process.

Do you claim the world of peer reviewed science publishing should be
compelled to print any theory or fact, regardless of how flawed the
reasoning or data?  Again, just as when the New York Times prints false
facts, this undermines the integrity of publishing in journalism, blatantly
junk science published in supposedly credible well peer reviewed science
journals, undermines the integrity of science publishing, and can mislead
those relying on science publishing for the dissemination of reliable
science.

  Encouraging scientific journals to follow rigorous review standards for
>> publication of papers is a defense of the scientific method and the
>> credibility of the scientific community.  There were egregious violations of
>> the scientific review process that occurred in the publication of these
>> "junk science" papers in question.  I offer a source lower down to
>> elucidate.  When supposedly reliable scientific journals publish blatantly
>> junk science, it undermines the credibility of the scientific community,
>> just as when the New York Times publishes false facts, it undermines the
>> credibility of journalism.
>>  I see nothing wrong with a scientist encouraging other scientists to not
>> submit to a journal that has a faulty paper review record. He is possibly
>> doing them a favor!  The papers in question that were published were a
>> "abuse of the peer review system," to quote you, insofar as it failed by
>> publishing them!  Mann was trying to correct an abuse, it seems to me, not
>> engage in one.  But I cannot vouch for his moral integrity.  He may be a
>> scoundrel, even if a well published and brilliant scientist.  I have not
>> investigated his life.
>>
>
> You think it's an abuse because their conclusions disagree with what you
> *know* is correct.  That's not science, it's religion.  The scientific
> method was specifically designed to distinguish between incorrect theories
> and possibly-correct theories.  Stand back and let it work.

Again, you leave out critical facts in this case.  I do not possess the
expertize to fully assess the scientific issues in the Soon and Balunius
(2003) paper.  But the Soon and Balunias (2003) paper has been found via
extensive peer review to be so faulty that it should not have been published
as written in the first place (
http://web.archive.org/web/20070703025407/w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/Soon.EosForum20032.pdf
 )

Otto Kline admitted that "CR (Climate Research) should have requested
appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to  publication." (
http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf ).  This journal has
admitted it made a mistake, and Michael Mann's alleged statements or actions
concerning this breakdown in the scientific publishing peer review process
appear warranted.

I also know nothing about the man.  It shouldn't really matter, because
> science is supposed to be objective.
>
>  Where in this alleged e-mail is their discussion of "talking about
>> arranging things so that "skeptical" authors can't submit papers to peer
>> reviewed journals,..."  Maybe you did not post this content, or I missed it,
>> but after carefully reading the e-mail content you did post I don't find
>> such an assertion; and anyway no one can stop someone from submitting to a
>> journal, unless engaging in criminal acts (extortion, violence, theft).
>>
>
> He suggested that they should encourage others in the climate research
> community not to submit papers to the journal.  You're right that he didn't
> say he'd stop skeptics from submitting papers, just that he would
> "encourage" others that he can have some control over not to do so.  I was
> wrong there, and I apologize.  Considering that he is allegedly considering
> this, though, what choices do you think a non-skeptical-but-on-the-fence
> climate researcher has but to acquiesce?  You don't want to get on the wrong
> side of a politically-powerful person who is willing to do this.  That's the
> problem.
>
>  Perhaps you refer to the comment about appealing to the editorial board of
>> the journal in question regarding their review process?  It seems Mann's
>> alleged concern was warranted, even if there are ethical problems with such
>> a suggestion.  The published Soon and Baliunas paper was such a serious
>> breach of the scientific review process, that half the editorial board of
>> the journal "Climate Research" resigned!  The managing director of the
>> parent company for the journal in question protested... Read about it in the
>> source quoted below:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#Controversy_over_the_2003_Climate_Research_paper
>>  Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and
>> Soon refuted her interpretation of their work.^[12] <
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-11> There were
>> three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in
>> moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between
>> regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past
>> temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.
>> More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but
>> restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies,
>> and came to a different result.^[13] <
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-12>
>>
>> Half of the editorial board of /Climate Research/, the journal that
>> published the paper, resigned in protest against what they felt was a
>> failure of the peer review process on the part of the journal.^[14] <
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-13> ^[15] <
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-14> Otto Kinne,
>> managing director of the journal's parent company, stated that "CR [/Climate
>> Research/] should have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and
>> cautious formulations before publication" and that "CR should have requested
>> appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."^[16] <
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-15>
>>
>>
> Refuting claims made in papers is good science.  Replicating studies and
> comparing results is also good science.  Analyzing and reporting problems
> found is good science as well.  Attempting to silence the journal or to
> minimize it's influence using political maneuvering is not.  The reputation
> of the journal will stand or fall on it's own.
>
> AGW science is supposed to "settled".  Let the science speak for itself.
>  This includes complete transparency and public access to publicly-funded
> data.
>
> Paul

------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091126/6547a5b0/attachment.html 