by Dr. Roger Pielke Senior
There is an informative article by Ross McKittrick
McKitrick, Ross R. (2011) “Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account” in Climate Coup, Patrick J. Michaels ed., Cato Inst. Washington DC.
This article appears in the book
Michaels, Patrick J., 2011: Climate Coup: Global Warming’s Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives. Cato Institute. ISBN: 978-1-935308447
with the summary of its content
“A first-rate team of experts offers compelling documentation on the pervasive influence global warming alarmism now has on almost every aspect of our society-from national defense, law, trade, and politics to health, education, and international development.”
With respect to Ross’s chapter, Pat Michaels writes
“The second chapter in this volume goes to the core of what we consider to be the canon of science, which is the peer-reviewed, refereed scientific literature. McKitrick’s and my trials and tribulations over journal publication are similar to those experienced by many other colleagues. Unfortunately, the Climategate e-mails revealed that indeed there has been systematic pressure on journal editors to reject manuscripts not toeing the line about disastrous climate change. Even more unfortunate, my experience and that of others are that the post-Climategate environment has made this situation worse, not better. It is now virtually impossible to publish anything against the alarmist grain. The piles of unpublished manuscripts sitting on active scientists’desks are growing into gargantuan proportions…..”
Pat is correct that the peer reviews process and, also, the funding of research, has become very politicized and biased.
Ross starts his article with the text [highlight added]
“Showing that the IPCC claim is also false took some mundane statistical work, but the results were clear. Once the numbers were crunched and the paper was written, I began sending it to science journals. Having published several against-the-flow papers in climatology journals, I did not expect a smooth ride, but the process eventually became surreal. In the end, the paper was accepted for publication, but not in a climatology journal. Fortunately for me, I am an economist, not a climatologist, and my career doesn’t depend on getting published in climatology journals. If I were a young climatologist, I would have learned that my career prospects would be much better if I never wrote papers that question the IPCC. The skewing of the literature (and careers) can only be bad for society, which depends on scientists and the scientific literature for trustworthy advice for wise policy decisions.”
His conclusion has the text
“Some people might be tempted to defend climatology by saying that normal scientific procedures have broken down due to the intense policy fights and political interference. But in my opinion that confuses cause and effect. The policy community has aggressively intervened in climate science because of all the breaches of normal scientific procedures. The public has lost confidence in the ability of the major institutions of climatology, including the IPCC and the leading journals, to deal impartially with the evidence. It doesn’t have to be this way. My own field of economics constantly deals with policy-relevant topics with major public consequences. Of course, differences of opinion exist and vigorous disputes play out among opposing camps. But what is happening in climate science is very different, or at least is on a much more intense scale. I know of no parallels in modern economics. It appears to be a profession-wide decision that, due to the conjectured threat of global warming, the ethic of scientific objectivity has had an asterisk added to it: there is now the additional condition that objectivity cannot compromise the imperative of supporting one particular point of view.
This strategy is backfiring badly: rather than creating the appearance of genuine scientific progress, the situation appears more like a chokehold of indoctrination and intellectual corruption. I do not know what the solution is, since I have yet to see a case in which an institution or a segment of society, having once been contaminated or knocked off balance by the global warming issue, is subsequently able to right itself. But perhaps, as time progresses, climate science will find a way to do so. Now that would be progress.”
Both Pat and Ross are correct that a prejudice exists in the climate science community with respect to publication and in funding. My experiences have been similar to theirs.
I have posted on this subject in my posts. Several examples are
My Comments For The InterAcademy Council Review of the IPCC
Is The NSF Funding Process Working Correctly?
Invited Letter Now Rejected By Nature Magazine
Comments On The Peer-Review Journal Publication Process And Recommendations For Improvement
It is important that policymakers become aware of the inappropriate control on the peer review process and in the funding of research by the NSF and other agencies. I have summarized this for policymakers most recently in my testimony
Pielke Sr., R.A. 2011: Climate Science and EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulation. Testimony to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Power
where I wrote with respect to the CCSP assessment process [which is one of the source of information for the 2007 IPCC]
“The process for completing the CCSP Report excluded valid scientific perspectives under the charge of the Committee. The Editor of the Report [Tom Karl] systematically excluded a range of views on the issue of understanding and reconciling lower atmospheric temperature trends.
The Executive Summary of the CCSP Report ignores critical scientific issues and makes unbalanced conclusions concerning our current understanding of temperature trends.”
Ross’s article and Pat’s experiences document further that the exclusion of research papers in a number of major journals and research funding by the NSF and other agencies is a systematic and serious problem that has compromised objective scientific inquiry into climate science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A.W. Montford exposes the corruption in the climate peer review system in his excellent book The Hockey Stick Illusion [available on the right sidebar].
For a taste of Montford’s writing, see:
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
And for a funny account of the type of problems encountered by skeptics of AGW alarmism, read Prof Trebino’s account here.
Economics is just as bad. The Nobel Prize is consistently awarded to economists who follow the Keynesian (or even worse the post-Keynesian) consensus. But then economics isn’t a science
In fact if some are using climate science to defraud large parts of the World of their wealth, they are only following on from the example set by those abusing economics similarly. Amongst the guilty here, you will find global central bankers, the BIS, the IMF, the World Bank and the large investment banks.
The problem goes back to Eisenhower’s departing speech on government and science. Politics is driving the debate, and politicians do not want to be made to look the fools. So they are doubling down and using unethical methods to silence the debate on the subject.
It is similar to a situation in my state. The government outsourced the IT. It was supposed to save money and make things better. It of course has had the opposite effect, with no “customers” (the individual agencies) happy, and costs soaring through the roof. Yet has the state taken a look at the issue and said “oops”? No. Those who voted for it do not want to look bad, so they are doubling down on it. Even though no independent study has indicated that the project will ever benefit the “customers” or tax payers of the state.
Same with Climate change. Gore is not the only one who does not want to have egg on his face.
“I do not know what the solution is, since I have yet to see a case in which an institution or a segment of society, having once been contaminated or knocked off balance by the global warming issue, is subsequently able to right itself. But perhaps, as time progresses, climate science will find a way to do so. Now that would be progress.”
One expensive solution would be to start publishing a rival journal in climatology that is indeed fair and balanced. Over time, if both sides of a debate were fairly presented, one would see the subscriptions surpass that of the journal that is biased.
The Foxnews solution.
PhilJourdan says:
April 20, 2011 at 11:59 am
noaaprogrammer says:
April 20, 2011 at 11:56 am
The Foxnews solution.
==============
/seconded
I think I’ve discovered the reason for the current cooling – a solar eclipse.
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_512_4500.jpg or
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/latest_512_4500.jpg
I think it’s worth pointing out that if these people genuinely believed that AGW is correct, this sort of thing would not be occurring. As always, behavior tells all.
Sorry for the Off Topic. Wrong thread.
The more I read on Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption reporting, the more I am reminded of Pravda (the official Russian news service), Xinhua (the official mouthpiece of the Communist Party of China), FARS (Iran’s official news agency), and the news agencies of other dictators around the world. Their job is to ensure that only officially sanctioned news is reported and that any news inconsistent with the official view is modified to comply with the official view. Ironically, the New York Times and other left wing newspapers in the U.S. have been celebrating the role of social media played in getting around the state-controlled media in the current successful rebelions in the Middle East. Yet, these same newspapers do not seem to recognize that web sites such as WUWT are playing a similar role in the U.S. debate on AGW. The official media and “peer” reviewed journals can pretend that the global climate is changing according to model predictions, but they cannot continue to cover up the truth.
I just came from a site in which they were trying to disprove all the papers against AGW by claiming they were funded by, you guessed it, big oil. Popular Technology posted a rebuttal and showed that the scientists held skeptical positions before being involved with any thinktanks. Check this nonsense out: CarbonBrief.org 900 Papers Using Our Paper Is Misleading
Now they claim some of the authors want their names removed. I’m sure that has nothing to do with being threatened to lose their funding if they promote skeptical arguments.
OT
“Global Warming On Pluto Caused By The Sun”
“The change in brightness over the last decade is startling. ”
http://notrickszone.com/2011/04/20/global-warming-on-pluto-caused-by-the-sun-even-3-billion-miles-away/
It is at least as bad in the pseudoscience called Conservation Biology.
And the flip side to resistance to anything contradicting the party line is the ease with which anything that supports it gets through.
And I do mean anything. It is a junk science jamboree and there is a whole herd of newly pumped out ‘PhDs’ that are essentially tunnel vision clones.
Too funny! I showed this article to a friend:
“I wonder how many CFLs you need to use and for how long to offset the carbon footprint of burning a house down?”
onion:
The Nobel Prize in economics (yeah I know, it’s not a real Nobel Prize) is not reserved for Keynesians. Look at the list. Look at all the Chicago boys: 97, 95 92, 91, 82, 76; Also Buchanan of the public choice school in 86, etc. In the last decade the prize has gone for game theory, econometrics, institutional economics, real business cycle macro, etc. If anything, Keynesians have been dismayed at how often rival schools have won it.
noaaprogrammer says:
April 20, 2011 at 11:56 am
One expensive solution would be to start publishing a rival journal in climatology that is indeed fair and balanced. Over time, if both sides of a debate were fairly presented, one would see the subscriptions surpass that of the journal that is biased.
—
The problem here is that the journals in question have a history (been around for many years) and are often associated with major professional societies. As climategate clearly showed, most of the “gatekeepers” on the journal editorial staffs are CAGW true believers, and therefore will make it very difficult for any skeptic paper to get published.
Compound this with the fact that any professor who wants tenure needs to get published, and not just in any journals, but the “right” ones in their profession. So don’t expect many (or any) skeptic papers from academia. For government and private labs, there is sufficient pressure from the climate elites (many of whom are gatekeepers to government funding) to keep skeptic papers from being published.
Fortunately, we’re coming to a period in our history where our government is going to have to choose between basic services and wasteful “research” boondoggles that have become the hallmark of climate research (such as the Glory satellite fiasco). Make no mistake, the Climate Ca$h will run dry, and it will be interesting to see who fights over the little money left in the government research budgets…
Anthony,
You should have this post tagged as ‘normal science’ or ‘anti-post-normal science’. I would love to see McKitrick and Ravetz go head-to-head. McKitrick provides the experience of the historical contingencies that have warped climate science and which Ravetz prefers to gloss over in his focus on ‘facts uncertain, values in dispute, stakes high and decisions urgent’. It seems to me that the foundational difference between normal and post-normal science is ‘values in dispute’ – and we’re not talking about numbers here. That came to mind when reading McKitrick’s observation that: “It appears to be a profession-wide decision that, due to the conjectured threat of global warming, the ethic of scientific objectivity has had an asterisk added to it: there is now the additional condition that objectivity cannot compromise the imperative of supporting one particular point of view.”
I hope the matter of institutions’ righting themselves after being knocked off-kilter by global warming alarmism is just going to be a matter of time. McKitrick seems pessimistic. If science does not recover, then it’s good-bye to western civilization.
This book looks like a ‘must read’…
Fortunately, we’re coming to a period in our history where our government is going to have to choose between basic services and wasteful “research”
—-
If history is any guide, the first thing shed by govt in times of financial crises are basic services.
This is done primarily to prove to the skeptical public that govt cannot possibly survive on any less money than it is getting now. Thus tax increases are the only possible solution.
Think about your own state. Everytime there is a budget shortfall, all you hear on the news is about all those policemen, firemen, teachers, that are going to lose their jobs. You never hear about 3rd undersecretaries to the 2nd vice president and his staff losing their jobs.
Frank K. states:
“The problem here is that the journals in question have a history (been around for many years) and are often associated with major professional societies…”
It’s a slow process, but it’s their reputation that is being lost.
noaaprogrammer says: April 20, 2011 at 11:56 am
“One expensive solution would be to start publishing a rival journal in climatology that is indeed fair and balanced.” What is the difference between WUWT and an academic journal? The peer review! And what is it that is at fault with the academic review? The peer review!
I’ve often thought that if WUWT were to select articles for “publication” based on a suitably academic content and did the normal housekeeping of a journal like insisting on references, abstracts, etc., the this “academic” version of WUWT would be a climate journal for next to no cost and little extra effort.
Indeed anyone could do it, all they need is permission to republish the articles, in a suitable format for an academic journal, on a new website and ideally a link from WUWT.
Hey presto … you’ve got a new climate journal!
This post lends credence to Richard Lindzen’s claim that climate science is a corrupt field.
What is worrying is the lack of a path back from propaganda to science. Post-Khrushchev, death of Lysenkoism, anyone?
Here’s a thought, although I am sure not an original one, but here goes: what does it take to found a new scientific publication? Couldn’t a group of sceptical (i.e. genuine and honest) scientists found their own science journal, with an aim to restore respect to the scientific way and a healthy “f*** you!” attitude to those who oppose this philosophy? Of course the alarmists and everyone in their pocket would shun and continually poo-poo it – but it would be seen by others as a beacon of true science. There must be no shortage of exasperated scientists and editors willing to contribute.
Why not?
David, UK says:
April 20, 2011 at 2:01 pm
“Here’s a thought, although I am sure not an original one, but here goes: what does it take to found a new scientific publication?”
Depends on what you mean by “scientific publication.” To create a first-rate scientific publication, all you need are money for staff and for an editor who has the time and will to be a leader. Seems to me that the current state of climate science offers an excellent opportunity for creation of such a journal. Some patriotic American with the means should do this; also, they would make money.
If you mean a “scientific publication” that has the same pedigree as existing publications then that is an entirely different matter. It might be possible. You might get McKitrick in Canada to be the editor and he might get the blessing of his academic department and university. Short of someone like McKitrick as editor, the journal would not have an acceptable pedigree. Even then, the Warmista might kill it through ordinary means. A true leader would be needed as editor.
Several journals are needed. There is a desperate need for a journal whose topic is government funding for science and related matters, such as Green propaganda.
Prof. McKitrick,
Your attempts to get published in climatological journals are so reminiscent of Don Quixote! I can’t imagine the time and mental energy it takes to maintain your composure while you keep answering all the questions, the parsing, the re-phrasing, whatever.
Do you see parallels between current climatology with the court-sponsored science of the Renaissance? It wasn’t a great system; it all depended on the power of the purse. There were some free-wheeling patrons like Lorenzo de’ Medici, who had quite a collection of open-minded artists, humanists (and astrologers/mystics). Some were less tolerant, like Maffeo Barberini (Pope Urban VIII), who finally came down on Galileo about his silly little heliocentric ideas.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the whole AGW research gravy train is derailed semi-permanently before long. Between a worldwide fiscal crisis and a seas that stubbornly refuse to boil, taxpayer tolerance for continued research has got to dry up.
In the meanwhile, please keep working on getting published. There is a whole scare industry that tries to keep the public in a ferment and even targets little children. They make easy marks, with their trust and open-mindedness, and the fact that they have to sit in school and listen to teacher. Your work goes a long way in putting sanity back in the discussion.
The corruption in peer review would be a good place for the congress to look in determining the validity of all claims. An audit of the review process would show for one thing who is favored for review and who are not and why.
They could also determine if tax dollars are involved in any way.