For the Guardian, it has been a week of finally coming to terms with what we’ve known here at WUWT for months now. The issues of Climategate are finally getting full sunlight in the UK, and it’s white hot light. Even Monbiot is calling for resignations beyond that of Phil Jones. Though Monbiot needs a bit of education on who “broke” these stories. It certainly wasn’t the Guardian.
By Fred Pearce
Scientists sometimes like to portray what they do as divorced from the everyday jealousies, rivalries and tribalism of human relationships. What makes science special is that data and results that can be replicated are what matters and the scientific truth will out in the end.
But a close reading of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia in November exposes the real process of everyday science in lurid detail.
Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN’s top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The scientists involved disagree. They say they were engaged not in suppressing dissent but in upholding scientific standards by keeping bad science out of peer-reviewed journals. Either way, when passing judgment on papers that directly attack their own work, they were mired in conflicts of interest that would not be allowed in most professions.
The cornerstone of maintaining the quality of scientific papers is the peer review system. Under this, papers submitted to scientific journals are reviewed anonymously by experts in the field. Conducting reviews is seen as part of the job for academics, who are generally not paid for the work.
The papers are normally sent back to the authors for improvement and only published when the reviewers give their approval. But the system relies on trust, especially if editors send papers to reviewers whose own work is being criticised in the paper. It also relies on anonymity, so reviewers can give candid opinions.
Cracks in the system have been obvious for years. Yesterday it emerged that 14 leading researchers in a different field – stem cell research – have written an open letter to journal editors to highlight their dissatisfaction with the process. They allege that a small scientific clique is using peer review to block papers from other researchers.
Many will see a similar pattern in the emails from UEA’s Climatic Research Unit, which brutally expose what happens behind the scenes of peer review and how a chance meeting at a barbecue years earlier had led to one journal editor being suspected of being in the “greenhouse sceptics camp”.
The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, as a top expert in his field, was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers criticising his work.
Here is how it worked in one case.
Read the rest of this article at the Guardian here
=================================
Related articles from the Guardian:
Doubts about “hockey stick” graph revealed
No apology from IPCC chief Pachauri for glacier fallacy
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Guardian did several articles recently like this one: remarkably honest. They still interspersed them with more recognizable skeptic bashing. But I’ll take uniform criticizm over blatant bias anyday.
If the implication by the Guardian’s Pearce is that Jones (et al) are just behaving as normal scientists currently do, then . . . . if I was a professional scientist I would be contacting Mr. Pearce with some extremely strong objections.
John
“Earth to Guardian readers: ( and George Monbiot )”
We are not talking about Science here, we are talking “Post Normal Science”
There is a Wikipedia page on this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-normal_science
We can save the planet and have real science too,
For the Guardian, this is a huge climbdown.
Maybe someone looked around and noted that the limb they’d crawled out to the end of was about to be sawn off and figured climbing down was better than plunging to Earth head-first.
Maybe they’re setting themselves up to oppose the ‘green’ Tories and their newly-hired green something-or-another, Nicholas Stern infamously of the Stern Review, when they take over Number 10.
The Guardian needs to put its own house in order. Their environment blog pages are heavily censored and a clearing out is necessary. They should also consider whether their association with UnReal Climate has any merit. Monbiot’s holier than thou approach is quite frankly nauseating considering the number of people who have been trying to put him straight on the whole fiasco.
“The scientists involved disagree”
OMG! Who would have guessed it?
In a similar vein, in New Scientist this week there was an article about Burt Rutan. It did at least mention his views, although did not give them air time. Sort of a ‘maverick genius going against the flow’ piece.
Still, it’s s start, I reckon. Time was when he would have been maligned.
Reading thru Moonbat’s comments thread, it becomes apparent that I know more about the subject than he does, and my knowledge barely touches the sides!
This is a global warming champion? Reads like all he ever looks at is RealClimate.
I get the impression he really, really thinks the Grauniad (copyright Private Eye ad nauseam) is breaking something….
Jeef
Have a look at this article for the evolution of Monbiot.
Everything these days has just come down to; being just as blunt as you can possibly be, about the true nature of the situation…No matter what the subject. All conspiracies are on the table and open for discussion. No matter how traumatizing to this group or that group. No one can possibly be any plainer than that, with that dilbert explanation.
That’s called the awakening process.
I would suggest that we reached a “tipping point” regarding MSM when Glaciergate and Pachauri’s conflicts of interest hit the blogs. It’s all downhill from here
Gosh wasnt this all covered by some notable blogs and a couple of new books?
Sadly, this type behavior is more prevalent in scientific circles than is generally known by the public:
Because scientists are subject to Human Nature just as we all are…
Nobody likes to have their opinions or “assessments” pointed out as wrong.
And nobody wants to have their world-view contradicted.
Breaking! news:
Climate skeptic Ron Armstrong of Hoquiam, Washington has today learned from Penn State University that they are exempt from the Freedom Of Information Act and Pennsylvania’ s Right To Know Law
http://www.climategate.com/breaking-penn-state-says-they-are-exempt-from-freedom-of-information-act
And don’t forget its also all about the greed, the grants and the gravy train lifestyle – Al Gore isnt doing it poorly;
http://twawki.com/2010/02/03/warning-future-cataclsym/
Don’t be deceived. This is a ‘sauve qui peut’ (in losing a battle or war, it is a last command – ‘save what you can’). Gee these scietists are just regular guys. Jeolousy is fine. Cooking results and getting editors fired is not the norm of science Mr Pearce.
The Guardian, despite its own reports, is STILL clinging to its default position that warming theories are sound. Monbiot in particular is seeing recent revelations as failures in Public Relations rather than core dishonesty or flawed data per se. The Guardian is also being very cheeky in implying that it is somehow revealing stuff that wasn’t already on this blog, and many others, for a long time.
Unfortunately the average Guardian reader will accept everything it says. I would expect a gradual winding down of its fervent, almost religious adherence to official science over the next few months, because admitting they got it wrong in one fell swoop would be a humiliating climb down.
The damage the Guardian has done in disseminating faith based theories for the many years it took this stance is considerable, because its vast readership of middle class professionals who are intelligent though gullible, has been so brainwashed that it is now regarded as a socially outcast thing to question ANY conventional wisdom regarding climate.
That position is not going to be overthrown in a few days. My Guardian reading friends if anything are even more entrenched in a defensive position and are in what can only be described as a denial stage. They still believe Polar Bears are all but extinct and still confuse pollution and carbon dioxide. They are among the most mis-informed of the UK electorate exactly because they are subscribed to a closed-loop of disinformation which they genuinely believe is true, and never bother to look outside that loop.
OT – mod please delete if inappropriate.
Just found this BBC article that suggests the UK energy regulators may be taking a more realistic position and breaking ranks with the consensus of expensive unreliable electricity. It mentions specifically the ‘challenge of carbon prices’ in a negative context.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8494899.stm
Steven M
You’re dead right. The grauniad is doing what all failed journals do at a time of falling readership, etc, looking for another hot bandwagon. Their problem remains the same, no credibility!!! as for Monbiot, well what can one say of such a shallow, incompetent journalist. Nothing , I suppose
These articles sound like someone beating a tactical retreat. It is interesting how they reference the BBC as a source for the expose. Even here attribution is misplaced no wonder!
Not climate science but related: Many scientists doing stem cells research claim that there have been deliberate effort during peer-review process to prevent their works to be published.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8490291.stm
I think if there is enough pressure, the process of peer-review may be improved. A simple addition like publishing the comments/review made by the reviewer together with the article should do. Readers then can decide for themselves.
Anonymous reviewers are granted with absolute power with anonymity. Journals editor are partially to blame for not being impartial.
I hate to be a scientist from now on. Given the way the AGW alarmists have behaved and the lack of resounding responses from all the scientists who don’t agree with the AGW theory, their reputations as a whole will be smashed to pieces in due course, and they will be dragged down to the same level as thieves and politicians. It serves them right for not speaking out long and hard enough.
OK,
I lifted these comments from the Huffington post and I just had to re-post it here.
Headline:
Obama: Senate Might Drop Carbon Cap
“BadPlasmid I’m a Fan of BadPlasmid I’m a fan of this user 5 fans permalink
Good. Cap N Trade is a sham. The only reason it stands a chance is because Wall Street desperately wants in on more of this ‘new’ commodity.
What they don’t tell you is exactly how Cap N Trade reduces emissions – simply put, it has yet to prove it does. NPR actually did a good piece on it recently, and the way it was explained made me realize just how foolish an idea it is. The thought that a company could offset pollution buy paying for the ‘promise’ of a South American pig farmer to reduce methane output by modernizing his farm, despite a lack of truly measurable data seems like a poor way to reduce emissions of polluting gases.
Add to that the increases in costs for consumers due to yet more commissions/bonuses paid to bankers/investors controlling the exchanges and you have a recipe for pricey failure at our expense with no real benefit.
We need to do something. A lot of things really – but things like increasing auto efficiency, alternative/renewable energy sources, stricter EPA regulations and rising taxes on petroleum products will do far more to force innovation and adoption of cleaner technologies, and of course help the economy.
None of this is ever going to happen though in the currently political system. We need independent redistricting, term limits, fully open primaries and the (re)removal of special interest money in the political system.”
“foolonthehill I’m a Fan of foolonthehill I’m a fan of this user 24 fans permalink Agree.
Cap and trade is a sham, and if established it would become the most bogus Wall Street money maker since the mortgage derivatives they created and flogged to the world.
And, yes folks, Al Gore and his partners in this business, Goldman Sachs, must be weeping in their caviar over this turn of events.
Why any Dems (or anybody) can still take Gore seriously is totally beyond comprehension – unless it is just blind party loyalty. He is a greasy used planet salesman of the worst kind.”
Michael, the awakening process can only begin when some of the leading AGW alarmists are taken to court, found guilty and put behind bars. Until that happens, the con job will continue regardless of the revelations thus far. We can have 10 times more of these and nothing will change. There are far too many leaders in the relevant organizations that are part of the cover ups. Politicians will continue to push for the climate tax and much of the media will continue to ignore the truth.
If George wants proof of whether his pals at RealClimate are scientists or charlatans he need only ask:
“What biological process allows Michael Mann to use arctic tree proxies that have responded to supposed warming by growing slower?”
Mann used these “reversed” proxies by flipping them over, despite there being no sensible biology that explains why trees would respond in this way. In fact the whole edifice of dendorclimatology is built upon an expectation that trees will grow faster in warmer conditions (everything else being equal).
I’ve asked this question several times, and each time it is deleted. It should be noted that the charlatan pseudo-scientists on that website have not only failed to criticise Mann for this egregious unscientific data manipulation, they have actually assisted him in hiding behind a pure maths explanation of correlation that disregards the biological process taking place. They are knowingly obfuscating to cover for him and that makes them just as guilty.
jeez – thank you. Most illuminating, unlike most of George’s output 😉