<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/">http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/</a></div>
<div>
<h3 class="author"><a href="http://www.csicop.org/author/christophermooney">Chris Mooney</a></h3>
<h4>September 13, 2004</h4>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>The scientific waters are muddied. The damage is done.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Take the climate science storyline first. The most definitive account of what happened appeared in a <em>Chronicle of Higher Education</em> <a href="http://w3g.gkss.de/g/mitarbeiter/storch/cr-problem/chronicle%20of%20higher%20education.030904.pdf" target="_blank">article</a> by Richard Monastersky; the <em><a href="http://w3g.gkss.de/g/mitarbeiter/storch/cr-problem/cr.nyt.20030805.pdf" target="_blank">New York Times</a></em> and <em><a href="http://w3g.gkss.de/g/mitarbeiter/storch/cr-problem/cr.wsj.pdf" target="_blank">Wall Street Journal</a></em> also covered the story.</p>
<p>In early 2003, the small journal <em>Climate Research</em> published a <a href="http://w3g.gkss.de/g/mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf" target="_blank">paper</a> 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.</p>
<p>Soon and Baliunas had specifically sent their paper to one Chris de Freitas at <em>Climate Research</em>, an editor <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyid=3516830&thesection=news&thesubsection=general" target="_blank">known for</a> 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.</p>
<p>Conservative politicians in the U.S., who oppose forced restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions, lionized the study. Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe <a href="http://epw.senate.gov/108th/inhofe_072903.htm" target="_blank">called it</a> 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.</p>
<p>Soon mainstream climate scientists fought back. Thirteen authored a <a href="http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0319.html" target="_blank">devastating critique</a> of the work in the American Geophysical Union publication <em>Eos</em>. After seeing the critique, <em>Climate Research</em> 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.</p>
<p>Several other <em>Climate Research</em> editors subsequently resigned over the Soon and Baliunas paper. Even journal publisher Otto Kinne <a href="http://www.int-res.com/abstracts/cr/v24/n3/creditorial.pdf" target="_blank">eventually admitted</a> 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.</p>
<p>------------------------------------------</p>
<p>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett</p></div>