[Vision2020] Politicization of Flawed Science Published In "Climate Research" Re: Soon and Baliunas (2003)

[Ted Moffett]

This article briefly describes the important history of this misuse of the
scientific publishing process, and the political and economic policy
fallout, with web links to other relevant sources, regarding the Soon and
Baliunas (2003) paper published in "Climate Research:"  This flawed
scientific paper was referenced in the US Congress by Senator James Inhofe,
who called it "paradigm shifting."  Politicization of science, to the nth
degree.  The article also considers another similar case regarding the
science of evolutionary biology:

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/
 Chris Mooney <http://www.csicop.org/author/christophermooney> September 13,
2004

This is how it begins: Proponents of a fringe or non-mainstream scientific
viewpoint seek added credibility. They're sick of being taunted for having
few (if any) peer reviewed publications in their favor. Fed up, they decide
to do something about it.

These “skeptics” find what they consider to be a weak point in the
mainstream theory and critique it. Not by conducting original research; they
simply review previous work. Then they find a little-known, not particularly
influential journal where an editor sympathetic to their viewpoint hangs his
hat.

They get their paper through the peer review process and into print. They
publicize the hell out of it. Activists get excited by the study, which has
considerable political implications.

Before long, mainstream scientists catch on to what’s happening. They shake
their heads. Some slam the article and the journal that published it,
questioning the review process and the editor’s ideological leanings. In
published critiques, they tear the paper to scientific shreds.

Embarrassed, the journal’s publisher backs away from the work. But it’s too
late for that. The press has gotten involved, and though the work in
question has been discredited in the world of science, partisans who favor
its conclusions for ideological reasons will champion it for years to come.

The scientific waters are muddied. The damage is done.

This basic story-line describes not one, but two high profile incidents in
the past two years. One concerns climate science, the other evolutionary
biology. Both are highly politicized fields, and in each case, the incentive
to get something into print is considerable for those who want to carry on
their political and scientific fight against the accepted, mainstream view.

Take the climate science storyline first. The most definitive account of
what happened appeared in a *Chronicle of Higher Education*
article<http://w3g.gkss.de/g/mitarbeiter/storch/cr-problem/chronicle%20of%20higher%20education.030904.pdf>by
Richard Monastersky; the
*New York Times<http://w3g.gkss.de/g/mitarbeiter/storch/cr-problem/cr.nyt.20030805.pdf>
* and *Wall Street
Journal<http://w3g.gkss.de/g/mitarbeiter/storch/cr-problem/cr.wsj.pdf>
* also covered the story.

In early 2003, the small journal *Climate Research* published a
paper<http://w3g.gkss.de/g/mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf>by
climate change “skeptics” Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which challenged the
established view that the late twentieth century saw anomalously high
temperatures. The paper didn’t present original research; instead, it was a
literature review. Soon and Baliunas examined a wide range of “proxy
records” for past temperatures, based on studies of ice cores, corals, tree
rings, and other sources. They concluded that few of the records showed
anything particularly unusual about twentieth century temperatures,
especially when compared with the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” a
thousand years ago.

Soon and Baliunas had specifically sent their paper to one Chris de Freitas
at *Climate Research*, an editor known
for<http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3516830&thesection=news&thesubsection=general>opposing
curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. He in turn sent the paper out
for review and then accepted it for publication. That’s when the controversy
began.

Conservative politicians in the U.S., who oppose forced restrictions on
greenhouse gas emissions, lionized the study. Oklahoma Republican Senator
James Inhofe called it
<http://epw.senate.gov/108th/inhofe_072903.htm>literally paradigm
shifting. The Bush administration attempted to edit an
Environmental Protection Agency report’s discussion of climate change in
order to include reference to the Soon and Baliunas work. None of this
should come as a surprise: The paper seemed to undermine a key piece of
evidence suggesting that we can actually see and measure the consequences of
human-induced climate change.

Soon mainstream climate scientists fought back. Thirteen authored a devastating
critique <http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html> of the work in the
American Geophysical Union publication *Eos*. After seeing the
critique, *Climate
Research* editor-in-chief Hans von Storch decided he had to make changes in
the journal’s editorial process. But when journal colleagues refused to go
along, von Storch announced his resignation.

Several other *Climate Research* editors subsequently resigned over the Soon
and Baliunas paper. Even journal publisher Otto Kinne eventually
admitted<http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v24/n3/creditorial.pdf>that
the paper suffered from serious flaws, basically agreeing with its
critics. But by that point in time, Inhofe had already devoted a Senate
hearing to trumpeting the new study. However dubious, it made a massive
splash.

------------------------------------------

Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091126/4ba45bff/attachment-0001.html