[Vision2020] Argument Ad Hominem: Re: Hacked Climate Reseach Unit E-mails: 1,092 Responses to “The CRU hack”
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Sun Nov 29 10:52:45 PST 2009
My only cause is pursuing what is the probable truth, on climate change and
any other issue. You resort to argument ad hominem by claiming I am trying
to "clobber" in a debating session, or that I am in "protect the cause"
mode, as if my points are not based on a reasonable request for verifiable
evidence, an objective analysis of what that alleged Michael Mann e-mail
actually expresses or not, a sensible question if the e-mail was altered or
not, but other less than objective or rational intentions.
You appeared rather "eager," it seemed to me, to accept the accuracy and
authorship of that criminally hacked e-mail, and that Mann's intentions were
dishonorable.
What actions were actually taken by Mann against the journal "Climate
Research," or if he took action, was it justified based on professional
misconduct at that journal regarding a scientifically well established and
admitted failure of the peer review process on the paper Soon and Baliunas
(2003)?
A personal e-mail talking about committing unethical behavior does not mean
the behavior occurred. Who has never written or said something that
indicates intentions that they don't really intend on following through
with?
Your rather serious public accusations against a professional scientist are
based on nothing more than a criminally hacked personal e-mail, that could
have been altered in some way, unless I missed other evidence you
presented. The e-mail's content and authorship could be verified if Mann or
someone who read the alleged original copy publicly verified its accuracy.
Michael Mann's scientific work can be tossed into the trash can, and it
would not change the body of scientific work on climate change enough to
change any consensus conclusions. This consensus is based on the work of
thousands of scientists and published scientific papers from nations around
the planet, representing numerous scientific organizations. There is no
"cause to protect" regarding whether or not one climate
scientist unethically manipulated one science journal's publishing process.
I am almost certain this has occurred, even if not discovered publicly. All
professions have unethical members.
I am not claiming I know for certain he did not engage in unethical behavior
toward the journal "Climate Research." But I don't regard the evidence I
have seen for this so far to be compelling.
Unless you have verifiable evidence of what actions Mann actually took in
this case, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill, suggesting
conspiracies to suppress peer reviewed scientific publishing that "dissents"
from mainstream views, in the climate science community, that do not exist.
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On 11/28/09, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I can see that any more discussion about this topic is pointless. I'm
> trying to have a conversation about the implications if the email I quoted
> is real, and you're apparently trying to clobber me in a debating session.
>
> I don't know exactly where I got that quote from, since I've read lots of
> blogs and news sites in the last week or so. Here is one likely place,
> though:
>
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
>
> In answer to the question of why I did not reveal my source, it's because I
> didn't realize you were questioning the validity of the quote as being from
> the alleged email hack. If you're curious, you can find the emails in
> question in lots of places, the easiest to find being the wikileaks.orgsite. Of course, I cannot verify that they are genuine.
>
> So, until you get out of "protect the cause" mode, we can't have a rational
> discussion.
>
> If you'll excuse me, I'll get back to work on my program to chart global
> temperature data.
>
> Paul
>
> Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>> I asked for credible verifiable source(s) for the e-mail you alleged was
>> written by Michael Mann, an e-mail you quoted to make damning charges
>> against a person whose professional life could be damaged by such charges,
>> and you have not offered the source(s) of this e-mail, at least on
>> Vision2020, that I have seen, unless the Wall Street Journal "hack" piece
>> was your source, which did not contain all the text you posted from the
>> alleged Mann e-mail. I trust you did not fabricate this e-mail on your own,
>> so you obtained it somewhere.
>> */Why do you not reveal this source(s)? Revealing your source might be
>> "for the benefit of everyone here," as you wrote./*
>> Also, I asked for you to back up a statement with specific facts:
>>
>> "These guys should be encouraging skeptics to submit papers for peer
>> review, not trying to lock them out."
>>
>> */Who are "these guys?" And what papers by what authors have they been
>> "trying to lock them out" from peer review?
>> /*
>> Regarding this most recent response below, you appear to interpret the
>> alleged Mann e-mail to demonstrate that his goal was "to try to change the
>> makeup of the editorial board to better allow papers you agree with
>> through,..." */This is speculation on your part. His goal may have been
>> nothing more than trying to improve the peer review process at "Climate
>> Research" to be more thorough and professional, or limit the journals
>> influence in the world of science, given the unprofessional breakdown of the
>> peer review process, not to block theories that dissented from his
>> scientific work or alter what theories were presented to the journal. /*
>> You write "There is a difference between trying to minimize the influence
>> of a journal by using your political influence to coerce other scientists to
>> not cite papers in and not submit papers to that journal, and 'defending
>> rigorous peer review'. They are not the same thing." */Of course not, not
>> as you interpret Mann's alleged intentions and actions given your "loaded"
>> wording. To warn colleagues that a journal has a faulty peer review
>> process, and encourage them not to present papers to or cite from that
>> journal, might not be "coercion," based on "political influence," a word and
>> phrase that reveals your bias towards Mann,/* */but merely be an attempt to
>> stop professional abuses at a journal that is not practicing reliable peer
>> review, or minimize the influence of such an unprofessional journal, a
>> journal that a scientist seeking to publish in the most professional
>> journals should avoid./* */Given that some papers in "Climate Research"
>> were not fit for publishing, Mann's alleged statements regarding this
>> journal are understandable. Do you think a scientist witnessing serious
>> professional abuses at a science journal should not communicate this fact to
>> other scientists and consider what actions are needed to address the
>> problem?/*
>> I agree that you (and I) are not fully qualified to judge whether or not
>> the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper in "Climate Research" contained seriously
>> faulty science that indicated it should not have been published as written.
>> However, other scientists are qualified, and you can read the scientific
>> assessment from the American Geophysical Union publication /"Eos" /at the
>> web site below, which demonstrates this paper is seriously flawed:
>> "On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth," /Eos/,
>> Volume 84, No. 27, 8 July 2003, page 256.
>>
>> http://web.archive.org/web/20070703025407/w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/Soon.EosForum20032.pdf
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>> On 11/27/09, *Paul Rumelhart* <godshatter at yahoo.com <mailto:
>> godshatter at yahoo.com>> wrote:
>>
>> What I'm doing is ranting about the very idea of someone in such a
>> position using their political influence to mess with the peer
>> review process. This is not a prosecutor's office, it's an email
>> listserv. I'm sharing my opinion for the benefit of everyone here ;)
>>
>> Do I know that the email is genuine? No. I have at least some
>> reason to believe it could be, though, because the task of faking
>> some 150+ megabytes of emails and other files would be a daunting
>> one. There has also been confirmation that such a hack occurred,
>> and I have seen no statements saying that individual emails have
>> been tampered with by the authors of those emails, or that
>> individual emails have been created out of whole cloth.
>>
>> There is a difference between trying to minimize the influence of
>> a journal by using your political influence to coerce other
>> scientists to not cite papers in and not submit papers to that
>> journal, and "defending rigorous peer review". They are not the
>> same thing. If that paper did have shoddy science, and I'm not
>> qualified to say if it did or didn't, then it was a failure of the
>> peer review process. The solution, though, isn't to shun the
>> paper involved and to try to change the makeup of the editorial
>> board to better allow papers you agree with through, it's to have
>> them analyze when and where the system failed them and to fix it.
>> Letting a paper like that through, no matter the thesis, hurts
>> their reputation on it's own.
>>
>> I am not advocating that any schmuck with a pencil and a notepad
>> should be able to get a paper published without peer review. I am
>> advocating that the peer reviews be on the science, and that
>> political agendas be thrown out. Alarmist agendas or contrarian
>> agendas. When I say "let the process work", I mean the peer
>> review process that is in place.
>> Oh, and just for the record, I'm not a member of a lobbying group
>> and I'm not a card-carrying member of any kind of denialist or
>> contrarian camp. I'm not on anyone's payroll, except that of the
>> U of I, and they are definitely not paying me to do this. I'm a
>> skeptic. I'm not convinced that the science is settled. It's
>> that simple. Could I become convinced? Absolutely. But
>> currently, I'm not.
>> Paul
>>
>> Ted Moffett wrote:
>>
>> I am frankly amazed that as you trumpet the scientific method
>> and oppose interference in scientific peer review in
>> publishing, you utilize questionable evidence (criminally
>> hacked personal e-mails) possibly altered or fabricated, with
>> no further verification, that I have seen, as a basic for your
>> critique of some scientists.
>> I request you provide a credible verifiable source for the
>> e-mail allegedly, according to you, written by Michael Mann.
>> Unless I missed it, you offered no source. Absent credible
>> verification of the authenticity and authorship of this
>> e-mail, your comments that specifically quote it are Internet
>> noise, verging on defamation.
>> Also, provide credible evidence to back up the implications
>> in your comment below:
>> "These guys should be encouraging skeptics to submit papers
>> for peer review, not trying to lock them out."
>> Who are "these guys?" And what papers by what authors have
>> they been "trying to lock them out" from peer review?
>> Defending rigorous peer review for science publishing is not
>> trying to "shut down opposing viewpoints," as your wrote, it
>> is defending the integrity of professional science. If a
>> opposing viewpoint expressed in a scientific paper passes
>> rigorous peer review, then of course it should be published.
>> It almost seems you are implying in some of your comments
>> that science journals should be open to any and all papers,
>> regardless of flaws in theory or evidence. Then later the
>> truth can be sorted out. Is this what you saying? I think
>> this approach would seriously damage the integrity of science.
>> You write "Let the process work." Indeed. Exactly. Which
>> means that those who work to "manufacture doubt" in the public
>> and political arena, given a political and/or economic agenda,
>> about well researched and verified science, based on junk
>> science arguments and evidence and criminal computer hacking,
>> should be exposed for the frauds that they are. Don't you agree?
>> -----------------
>> The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy
>> by Jeff Masters
>>
>> http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389
>> *The contrarians and the hacked CRU emails*
>> *
>> *A hacker broke into an email server at the Climate Research
>> Unit of the UK's University of East Anglia last week and
>> posted
>> <
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-email-hacking
>> >
>> ten years worth of private email exchanges between leading
>> scientists who've published research linking humans to climate
>> change. Naturally, the contrarians have seized upon this
>> golden opportunity, and are working hard to discredit several
>> of these scientists. You'll hear claims by some contrarians
>> that the emails discovered invalidate the whole theory of
>> human-caused global warming. Well, all I can say is, consider
>> the source. We can trust the contrarians to say whatever is in
>> the best interests of the fossil fuel industry. What I see
>> when I read the various stolen emails and explanations posted
>> at Realclimate.org
>> <
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/>
>> is scientists acting as scientists--pursuing the truth. I can
>> see no clear evidence that calls into question the scientific
>> validity of the research done by the scientists victimized by
>> the stolen emails. There is no sign of a conspiracy to alter
>> data to fit a pre-conceived ideological view. Rather, I see
>> dedicated scientists attempting to make the truth known in
>> face of what is probably the world's most pervasive and
>> best-funded disinformation campaign against science in
>> history. Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists
>> were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory
>> of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of
>> thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of
>> scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is
>> too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three
>> or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.
>> ----
>> Let's look at the amount of money being spent on lobbying
>> efforts by the fossil fuel industry compared to environmental
>> groups to see their relative influence. According to Center
>> for Public Integrity
>> <
>> http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/articles/entry/1608/
>> >,
>> there are currently 2,663 climate change lobbyists working on
>> Capitol Hill. That's five lobbyists for every member of
>> Congress. Climate lobbyists working for major industries
>> outnumber those working for environmental, health, and
>> alternative energy groups by more than seven to one. For the
>> second quarter of 2009, here is a list compiled by the Center
>> for Public Integrity of all the oil, gas, and coal mining
>> groups that spent more than $100,000 on lobbying (this
>> includes all lobbying, not just climate change lobbying):
>>
>>
>> Chevron $6,485,000
>> Exxon Mobil $4,657,000
>> BP America $4,270,000
>> ConocoPhillips $3,300,000
>> American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000
>> Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000
>> Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000
>> Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000
>> Shell Oil Company $950,000
>> Arch Coal, Inc $940,000
>> Williams Companies $920,000
>> Flint Hills Resources $820,000
>> Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000
>> National Mining Association $770,000
>> American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000
>> Devon Energy $695,000
>> Sunoco $585,000
>> Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000
>> Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000
>> Peabody Energy $420,000
>> Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000
>> America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000
>> Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000
>> El Paso Corporation $261,000
>> Spectra Energy $279,000
>> National Propane Gas Association $242,000
>> National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000
>> Nexen, Inc $230,000
>> Denbury Resources $200,000
>> Nisource, Inc $180,000
>> Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000
>> Valero Energy Corporation $160,000
>> Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000
>> Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000
>> Tesoro Companies $119,000
>>
>> Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:
>>
>> Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500
>> Nature Conservancy $650,000
>> Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000
>> Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000
>> National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000
>> Sierra Club $120,000
>> Defenders of Wildlife $120,000
>> Environmental Defense Fund $100,000
>>
>> If you add it all up, the fossil fuel industry outspent the
>> environmental groups by $36.8 million to $2.6 million in the
>> second quarter, a factor of 14 to 1. To be fair, not all of
>> that lobbying is climate change lobbying, but that affects
>> both sets of numbers. The numbers don't even include lobbying
>> money from other industries lobbying against climate change,
>> such as the auto industry, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, etc.
>>
>> *Corporate profits vs. corporate social responsibility*
>>
>> I'm sure I've left the impression that I disapprove of what
>> the Manufactured Doubt industry is doing. On the contrary, I
>> believe that for the most part, the corporations involved have
>> little choice under the law but to protect their profits by
>> pursuing Manufactured Doubt campaigns, as long as they are
>> legal. The law in all 50 U.S. states has a provision similar
>> to Maine's section 716, "The directors and officers of a
>> corporation shall exercise their powers and discharge their
>> duties with a view to the interest of the corporation and of
>> the shareholders". There is no clause at the end that adds,
>> "...but not at the expense of the environment, human rights,
>> the public safety, the communities in which the corporation
>> operates, or the dignity of employees". The law makes a
>> company's board of directors legally liable for "breach of
>> fiduciary responsibility" if they knowingly manage a company
>> in a way that reduces profits. Shareholders can and have sued
>> companies for being overly socially responsible, and not
>> paying enough attention to the bottom line. We can reward
>> corporations that are managed in a socially responsible way
>> with our business and give them incentives to act thusly, but
>> there are limits to how far Corporate Socially Responsibility
>> (CSR)
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility>
>> can go. For example, car manufacturer Henry Ford was
>> successfully sued by stockholders in 1919 for raising the
>> minimum wage of his workers to $5 per day. The courts declared
>> that, while Ford's humanitarian sentiments about his employees
>> were nice, his business existed to make profits for its
>> stockholders.
>>
>> So, what is needed is a fundamental change to the laws
>> regarding the purpose of a corporation, or new regulations
>> forcing corporations to limit Manufactured Doubt campaigns.
>> Legislation has been introduced <http://www.c4cr.org/> in
>> Minnesota to create a new section of law for an alternative
>> kind of corporation, the SR (Socially Responsible)
>> corporation, but it would be a long uphill battle to get such
>> legislation passed in all 50 states. Increased regulation
>> limiting Manufactured Doubt campaigns is possible to do for
>> drugs and hazardous chemicals--/Doubt is Their Product/ has
>> some excellent suggestions on that, with the first principle
>> being, "use the best science available; do not demand
>> certainty where it does not and cannot exist". However, I
>> think such legislation would be difficult to implement for
>> environmental crises such as global warming. In the end, we're
>> stuck with the current system, forced to make critical
>> decisions affecting all of humanity in the face of the
>> Frankenstein monster our corporate system of law has
>> created--the most vigorous and well-funded disinformation
>> campaign against science ever conducted.
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>> On 11/26/09, *Paul Rumelhart* <godshatter at yahoo.com
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com
>>
>> <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> 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
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>
>> <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com <mailto: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
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20091129/c0bf4ac3/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list