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

Thu Nov 26 15:26:16 PST 2009

Really?  I can't even reprint a quote for context?  That smacks of trying to pretend the event (hacking/fabrication of emails/take your pick) didn't actually happen.

You'll notice that I'm not defending the science in the Soon and Baliunas paper.  Before I had looked at your link, I had assumed it was possible that it had good science in it.  I didn't do my research on this because I didn't think it was germane to my point - there are already processes in place to handle papers that are published containing bad science.  Instead, I'm excoriating Mann for (allegedly) entertaining the idea of using his political influence to try to shut down opposing viewpoints.  Look what happened - a scientific journal let a paper through with sloppy science and it hurt their reputation.  Trying to influence other members of the climate science community to effectively banish the paper doesn't help anything.  Let the process work.

There are two topics in these emails, assuming they are real, that concern me.  The first is the topic I've been discussing.  The other is the unwillingness of these scientists to make their data and methods available to other scientists.

If you employ both of these strategies, then you've completely undermined the scientific method. No matter how right you are convinced you are, you may still find out you are wrong.  Now, the only way they may find out is 50 years from now when the sea level hasn't risen and the temperature hasn't increased and we've spent untold billions to no effect.

These guys should be encouraging skeptics to submit papers for peer review, not trying to lock them out.  Don't they want to be absolutely sure about their results?  Papers that pass peer review with shoddy science that get torn apart would only help their cause.  This leaves open the possibility that there might be papers written that challenge their conclusions that have strong science to back them up.  They may believe that will never happen, but they will never know if they lock out opposing viewpoints.  If the science really is settled, then they are idiots not to make all of their work freely available. 

What happened to the idea that the person that formulates a theory should be it's most dedicated skeptic?  You put it forth and try your damnedest to find it's flaws.  If it withstands that by the scientific community at large, and it's useful, then it's a successful theory.

Look at the paper in question.  Yes, it was used for political advantage in Congress.  Now, however, there are published rebuttals that can be referenced in similar debates and climate science is better off because of it.  Not only can they point to the rebuttals, but they could also crow about the quality of the science of the denialists, or whatever they are calling them these days.

I personally think that they were worried about other such papers passing a review that might cause them political headaches for their personal cause, and possibly that it might cause the grant gravy train to slow down a little.  That's the problem with politicizing science.  You get pressured to do things like this.  So now, if it turns out they are wrong, they will never know about it - and we'll all pay for their mistakes with an economy ruined for no purpose.

The ideas showcased in these alleged emails piss me off.  It's the scientific method that has gotten us all a veritable paradise that we live in day-to-day.  Undermining it is extremely dangerous in the long-term.

Paul

--- On Thu, 11/26/09, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> 
>  
> 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
>  
> 
> 