<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, provide credible evidence to back up the implications in your comment below:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>"These guys should be encouraging skeptics to submit papers for peer review, not trying to lock them out."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Who are "these guys?" And what papers by what authors have they been "trying to lock them out" from peer review?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?</div>
<div>-----------------</div>
<div><font size="4">The Manufactured Doubt industry and the hacked email controversy</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>by Jeff Masters</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a href="http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389">http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><strong>The contrarians and the hacked CRU emails</strong></div>
<div><strong><br></strong>A hacker broke into an email server at the Climate Research Unit of the UK's University of East Anglia last week and <a onclick="if(!checkUrl(this.href)) return false;" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-email-hacking" target="_blank">posted</a> 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 <a onclick="if(!checkUrl(this.href)) return false;" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/" target="_blank">Realclimate.org</a> 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. <br>
----</div>
<div>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 <a onclick="if(!checkUrl(this.href)) return false;" href="http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/climate_change/articles/entry/1608/" target="_blank">Center for Public Integrity</a>, 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):<br>
<br>Chevron $6,485,000<br>Exxon Mobil $4,657,000<br>BP America $4,270,000<br>ConocoPhillips $3,300,000<br>American Petroleum Institute $2,120,000<br>Marathon Oil Corporation $2,110,000<br>Peabody Investments Corp $1,110,000<br>
Bituminous Coal Operators Association $980,000<br>Shell Oil Company $950,000<br>Arch Coal, Inc $940,000<br>Williams Companies $920,000<br>Flint Hills Resources $820,000<br>Occidental Petroleum Corporation $794,000<br>National Mining Association $770,000<br>
American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity $714,000<br>Devon Energy $695,000<br>Sunoco $585,000<br>Independent Petroleum Association of America $434,000<br>Murphy Oil USA, Inc $430,000<br>Peabody Energy $420,000<br>Rio Tinto Services, Inc $394,000<br>
America's Natural Gas Alliance $300,000<br>Interstate Natural Gas Association of America $290,000<br>El Paso Corporation $261,000<br>Spectra Energy $279,000<br>National Propane Gas Association $242,000<br>National Petrochemical & Refiners Association $240,000<br>
Nexen, Inc $230,000<br>Denbury Resources $200,000<br>Nisource, Inc $180,000<br>Petroleum Marketers Association of America $170,000<br>Valero Energy Corporation $160,000<br>Bituminous Coal Operators Association $131,000<br>
Natural Gas Supply Association $114,000<br>Tesoro Companies $119,000<br><br>Here are the environmental groups that spent more than $100,000:<br><br>Environmental Defense Action Fund $937,500<br>Nature Conservancy $650,000<br>
Natural Resources Defense Council $277,000<br>Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund $243,000<br>National Parks and Conservation Association $175,000<br>Sierra Club $120,000<br>Defenders of Wildlife $120,000<br>Environmental Defense Fund $100,000<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br><b><big><font size="3">Corporate profits vs. corporate social responsibility</font></big></b></div>
<div><b><big></big></b><br>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 <a onclick="if(!checkUrl(this.href)) return false;" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_social_responsibility" target="_blank">Corporate Socially Responsibility (CSR)</a> 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.<br>
<br>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 <a onclick="if(!checkUrl(this.href)) return false;" href="http://www.c4cr.org/" target="_blank">has been introduced</a> 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--<i>Doubt is Their Product</i> 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.<br>
------------------------------------------</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 11/26/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>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.<br>
<br>Paul<br><br>--- On Thu, 11/26/09, Ted Moffett <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br><br>> It is unethical because you are further spreading<br>
> hacked e-mail of personal communications, that has not been<br>> verified, that may be altered or fabricated, possibly<br>> continuing to spread misinformation, while making rather<br>> serious charges against a professional scientist, based on<br>
> this source. To be strict, the proper response to your<br>> referencing this hacked e-mail is to discredit your<br>> post based on the fact it is from an unreliable source. <br>><br>> The primary reason I responded to your post of the<br>
> hacked e-mail is because the controversy surrounding the<br>> Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper ( <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070704065729/w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/20070704065729/w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/soon+baliunas.cr.2003.pdf</a> )<br>
><br>> <br>> was mentioned, of great significance regarding<br>> credible and rigorous peer review, because of the<br>> implications for science education and accuracy in public<br>> and political arenas, when faulty science is published in<br>
> supposedly credible peer reviewed journals. You are<br>> claiming politics is being played in the world of science<br>> publishing to block publication in some cases, while not<br>> mentioning the politics that were played regarding the<br>
> discredited Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper, that was<br>> published. This issue is so important, I will post<br>> separately on the history of the political games played<br>> regarding the Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper.<br>
><br>> <br>> It is not simply that some scientists disagreed with<br>> the well peer reviewed and worthy for publication Soon and<br>> Baliunas (2003) paper The paper was so flawed<br>> it should not have been published as written, and likely<br>
> would not have been, as it was written, had it been<br>> submitted to numerous other credible and well peer reviewed<br>> scientific journals. This has been analyzed<br>> in detail and there is wide scientific agreement on this<br>
> assessment (Read my sources on this issue lower down). The<br>> fact it was published was a breakdown of the peer review<br>> process for scientific publishing. For any scientist to<br>> object to this breakdown, bring this to the attention of the<br>
> editors of the journal, inform colleagues that the journal<br>> has a flawed review process, or even suggest they not submit<br>> to that journal, is to defend the integrity of the<br>> scientific publishing process.<br>
><br>> <br>> Do you claim the world of peer reviewed science<br>> publishing should be compelled to print any theory or fact,<br>> regardless of how flawed the reasoning or data? Again,<br>> just as when the New York Times prints false facts, this<br>
> undermines the integrity of publishing in journalism,<br>> blatantly junk science published in supposedly credible well<br>> peer reviewed science journals, undermines the integrity of<br>> science publishing, and can mislead those relying on science<br>
> publishing for the dissemination of reliable science.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Encouraging scientific<br>> journals to follow rigorous review standards for publication<br>> of papers is a defense of the scientific method and the<br>
> credibility of the scientific community. There were<br>> egregious violations of the scientific review process that<br>> occurred in the publication of these "junk<br>> science" papers in question. I offer a source lower<br>
> down to elucidate. When supposedly reliable scientific<br>> journals publish blatantly junk science, it undermines the<br>> credibility of the scientific community, just as when the<br>> New York Times publishes false facts, it undermines the<br>
> credibility of journalism.<br>><br>> I see nothing wrong with a scientist encouraging other<br>> scientists to not submit to a journal that has a faulty<br>> paper review record. He is possibly doing them a favor!<br>
> The papers in question that were published were a<br>> "abuse of the peer review system," to quote you,<br>> insofar as it failed by publishing them! Mann was trying<br>> to correct an abuse, it seems to me, not engage in one.<br>
> But I cannot vouch for his moral integrity. He may be a<br>> scoundrel, even if a well published and brilliant scientist.<br>> I have not investigated his life.<br>><br>><br>> You think it's an abuse because their<br>
> conclusions disagree with what you *know* is correct.<br>> That's not science, it's religion. The<br>> scientific method was specifically designed to distinguish<br>> between incorrect theories and possibly-correct theories.<br>
> Stand back and let it work.<br>><br>> <br>> <br>> Again, you leave out critical facts in this case. <br>> I do not possess the expertize to fully assess the<br>> scientific issues in the Soon and Balunius (2003) paper. <br>
> But the Soon and Balunias (2003) paper has been found via<br>> extensive peer review to be so faulty that it should not<br>> have been published as written in the first place ( <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070703025407/w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/Soon.EosForum20032.pdf" target="_blank">http://web.archive.org/web/20070703025407/w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/pdf/Soon.EosForum20032.pdf</a> )<br>
><br>> <br>> Otto Kline admitted that "CR (Climate Research)<br>> should have requested appropriate revisions of the<br>> manuscript prior to publication." ( <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf</a> ). <br>
> This journal has admitted it made a mistake, and Michael<br>> Mann's alleged statements or actions concerning this<br>> breakdown in the scientific publishing peer review process<br>> appear warranted.<br>
><br>> <br>><br>> I also know nothing about<br>> the man. It shouldn't really matter, because science<br>> is supposed to be objective.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Where in this alleged<br>> e-mail is their discussion of "talking about arranging<br>
> things so that "skeptical" authors can't<br>> submit papers to peer reviewed journals,..." Maybe<br>> you did not post this content, or I missed it, but after<br>> carefully reading the e-mail content you did post I<br>
> don't find such an assertion; and anyway no one can stop<br>> someone from submitting to a journal, unless engaging in<br>> criminal acts (extortion, violence, theft).<br>><br>><br>> He suggested that they should encourage others in<br>
> the climate research community not to submit papers to the<br>> journal. You're right that he didn't say he'd<br>> stop skeptics from submitting papers, just that he would<br>> "encourage" others that he can have some control<br>
> over not to do so. I was wrong there, and I apologize.<br>> Considering that he is allegedly considering this, though,<br>> what choices do you think a non-skeptical-but-on-the-fence<br>> climate researcher has but to acquiesce? You don't<br>
> want to get on the wrong side of a politically-powerful<br>> person who is willing to do this. That's the problem.<br>><br>><br>><br>> Perhaps<br>> you refer to the comment about appealing to the editorial<br>
> board of the journal in question regarding their review<br>> process? It seems Mann's alleged concern was<br>> warranted, even if there are ethical problems with such a<br>> suggestion. The published Soon and Baliunas paper was such<br>
> a serious breach of the scientific review process, that half<br>> the editorial board of the journal "Climate<br>> Research" resigned! The managing director of the<br>> parent company for the journal in question protested... Read<br>
> about it in the source quoted below:<br>><br>> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#Controversy_over_the_2003_Climate_Research_paper" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#Controversy_over_the_2003_Climate_Research_paper</a><br>
><br>> Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers<br>> cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of<br>> their work.^[12] <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-11" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-11</a>><br>
> There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used<br>> data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than<br>> temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and<br>> hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed<br>
> past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of<br>> resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa<br>> repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted<br>> themselves to records that were validated as temperature<br>
> proxies, and came to a different result.^[13] <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-12" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-12</a>><br>
><br>><br>> Half of the editorial board of /Climate Research/, the<br>> journal that published the paper, resigned in protest<br>> against what they felt was a failure of the peer review<br>> process on the part of the journal.^[14] <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-13" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-13</a>><br>
> ^[15] <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-14" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-14</a>><br>
> Otto Kinne, managing director of the journal's parent<br>> company, stated that "CR [/Climate Research/] should<br>> have been more careful and insisted on solid evidence and<br>> cautious formulations before publication" and that<br>
> "CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the<br>> manuscript prior to publication."^[16] <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-15" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#cite_note-15</a>><br>
><br>><br>><br>> Refuting claims made in papers is good science.<br>> Replicating studies and comparing results is also good<br>> science. Analyzing and reporting problems found is good<br>> science as well. Attempting to silence the journal or to<br>
> minimize it's influence using political maneuvering is<br>> not. The reputation of the journal will stand or fall on<br>> it's own.<br>><br>><br>> AGW science is supposed to "settled". Let the<br>
> science speak for itself. This includes complete<br>> transparency and public access to publicly-funded data.<br>><br>> Paul<br>> ------------------------------------------<br>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br>
> <br>><br>><br></blockquote></div><br>