I was over at Judy Curry’s place, reading her update to the Mail on Sunday story, and noticed she referenced URLs to the updated FAQs at the BEST website. I followed and was totally shocked to read this FAQ: (bold mine)
Why didn’t Berkeley Earth wait for peer review?
Some people think that peer review consists of submitting a paper to a journal and waiting for the anonymous comments of referees. Traditional peer review is much broader than that and much more open. In science, when you have a new result, your first step is to present it to your colleagues by giving presentations, talks at local and international conferences, colloquia, and by sending out “preprints.” In fact, every academic department in the sciences had a preprint library where people would read up on the latest results. If they found something to disagree with, they would talk to or write the authors. Preprint libraries were so popular that, if you found someone was not in the office or lab, the first place you would search would be in the preprint library. Recently these rooms have disappeared, their place taken over by the internet. The biggest preprint library in the world now is a website, arXiv.org.
Such traditional and open peer review has many advantages. It usually results in better papers in the archival journals, because the papers are widely examined prior to publication. It does have a disadvantage, however, that journalists can also pick up preprints and report on them before the traditional peer-review process is finished.
Perhaps because of the media picking up on talks and preprints, a few journals made a new rule: they will not publish anything that is distributed as a preprint or that is discussed openly in a meeting or colloquium. This policy has resulted in more attention to several journals, but the restrictive approach had a detrimental effect on the traditional peer review system. Some fields of science, for example String Theory, objected so strongly that they refuse to publish in these journals, and they put all their papers online immediately.
The best alternative would be to have the media hold back and not report preprint material. Unfortunately they refuse to do that. The situation is made more difficult by the fact that many of the media misreport the content of the preprints. For that reason Berkeley Earth has tried to answer the questions given to us by the media, in hopes that our work will be more accurately reported. The two page summary of findings is also meant to help ensure that the media reports accurately reflect the content of our papers.
==============================================================
I call absolute total BS on that. Why?
Because BEST contacted media in advance of the release of their papers and provided preprints. The October 20th release by BEST was planned and coordinated with media, such as the Economist, Guardian, NYT, New Scientist, and Nature, all of which contacted me before the release on October 20th. This FAQ on peer review was added sometime after that date, I don’t know when, but the FAQ headline obviously refers to past tense.
Remember the ethical quandary I wrote about on October 15th? I wrote then:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Imagine, if you will, that you are given a complete draft copy of a new paper that has just been submitted to a journal, and that paper cites your work, and it was provided as a professional courtesy before it has been peer-reviewed and accepted.
There’s a caveat attached to the email with the paper which says:
“Please keep it confidential until we post it ourselves.”
OK, fine and dandy, no problem there. Happy to oblige. I sent along a couple of small corrections and thanked the author.
Imagine my surprise when I get this email Friday from a reporter at a major global media outlet. I’ve redacted the names.
Dear Mr Watts
I’m the [media name redacted] new environment editor. I’m planning to write a pretty big piece next week on the [paper preprint name redacted], and wondered whether you might be able to give me your view of it. I think you’ve been sent the [paper preprint name redacted] paper… If you did happen to be able and interested, I’d be enormously grateful for a word about this on Monday. Might that be possible?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I objected to being put in an untenable position with confidentiality on the paper. I was asked for my confidentiality about one of the papers, but then they gave the paper to media, and the media came calling me asking me to comment on it. I had no warning they would do so.
The Economist was first and that’s the email from reporter James Astill above, and I had to ask permission from Dr. Richard Muller before I spoke with Astill, as I mentioned in my report on October 20th.
Elizabeth Muller told me herself that “this is coordinated for October 20th”. Dr. Richard Muller says he sent it to one outlet, but I got requests from other media outlets before October 20th release. How did that happen?
—–Original Message—–
From: Richard A Muller
Date: Friday, October 14, 2011 3:35 PM
To: Anthony Watts- ItWorks
Subject: Re: Our paper is attached
Anthony,
We sent a copy to only one media person, from The Economist, whom we trust to keep it confidential. I sent a copy to you because I knew you would also keep it confidential.
I apologize for not having gotten back to you about your comments. I particularly like your suggestion about the title; that is an improvement.
Rich
I have all my notes and emails from these exchange with BEST and media outlets who made request, so this isn’t a matter of recollection.
For example this from the WUWT contact form:
Jeff Tollefson
xxxxxxx@us.nature.com
http://www.nature.com/news
http://wattsupwiththat.com/about-wuwt/contact-2/
[Watts Up With That?] Contact
Subject interview query from Nature magazine
2011-10-18 @ 12:05:13 PM
Hello Mr. Watts, I’m preparing a story about the formal release of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature analysis on Thursday, and I was hoping to get your thoughts. Their embargoed release says they specifically looked at the temperature stations you flagged as suspect (as well as the urban heat island effect), and they say the trends hold true. Of course they already reported much of this unofficially back in May, but there you go. Would you have a moment to chat? My number is 212-451-xxxx. If I don’t hear back, I’ll see if I can’t track down your address through other means. Best, Jeff Tollefson US Correspondent Nature magazine
I wrote October 20th when the media blitz happened:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Readers may recall this post last week where I complained about being put in a uncomfortable quandary by an author of a new paper. Despite that, I chose to honor the confidentiality request of the author Dr. Richard Muller, even though I knew that behind the scenes, they were planning a media blitz to MSM outlets. In the past few days I have been contacted by James Astill of the Economist, Ian Sample of the Guardian, and Leslie Kaufman of the New York Times. They have all contacted me regarding the release of papers from BEST today.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now BEST is telling us it is the media who refuses to hold back on reporting preprints? Give me a freaking break.
Either the Muller team is grossly incompetent at public relations, or they are playing a unbelievably stupid game of CYA after the fact due to the negative reactions they are getting to the “press before peer review” fiasco they brought on themselves.
Either way, it’s gobsmackingly unscrupulous of them to now blame the media.
Too much smoke and too many mirrors for me. BESTgate anyone?
So, if they can’t be honest about this, what would bring the public to believe they were honest about their assessment of the temps?
The short answer is, there isn’t any impetus to believe this stuff. Look at their global app. It is incredulous. They have total Antarctica coverage in the 50s? Or, look at the 1890s. They claim total Africa and South American coverage. I wrote about it here…. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/10/21/is-that-the-best-they-can-do/ , but the thought didn’t seem to gain much traction. Perhaps it will now.
Either the Muller team is grossly incompetent at public relations, or they are playing a unbelievably stupid game of CYA after the fact due to the neative reactions they are getting to the “press before peer review” fiasco they brought on themselves.
“Either/or?”
I’m leaning toward “both”.
Does Dr. Curry fully support the Berkeley EST rationale on “Why didn’t Berkeley Earth wait for peer review?”
BEST = Blatant Effort to Sabotage Truth.
I think it was a brilliant sting to expose the gullible media!
…or maybe Dr. Muller is an incompetent boob.
The media is always at fault… 😎
Seriously, Muller and daughter tried to ride the media tiger with apparently non-brilliant results. But I wouldn’t discount them yet. At the very least, they are now known as generators of readership-increasing copy.
Lets just hope that Muller keeps tripping himself up. The public is not nearly as dumb as a lot of people think. They may not be able to follow the fancy math but they CAN follow lies and scandal.
OH, and I want my Whopper with cloud cover and a side of sea level fall.
Maybe they didn’t count on Dr. Curry to speak up?
One “FAQ” is: “It appears that Berkeley Earth’s analysis shows a temperature rise greater than others had previously published. Is this so? Can you explain?”
Note, they point out that since they only have analyzed the “land only data”, and ” Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect the total global warming to be less.”
OK, that sounds reasonable, but then why in the next “FAQ”: “Has Global Warming Stopped?” don’t they continue that line of reasoning and state that with only the land data included so far, as discussed in the previous FAQ, it is not possible to make any conclusions regarding the overall global trend?
But nooo, they then show a graphic with “95% confidence” that might appear to some to show that based on their admitted incomplete, land only data, “Global Warming” continues.
Bias anyone?
Death of a Dilemma:
A paper given to you as “confidential” and soon after given to the press
is instantly and permanently NOT confidential.
You are thereby released from your promise. QED and Voila!
Mueller’s manipulation is worthy of a third-rate politician.
Next time, ask the journalist if s/he were held to confidentiality, LOL.
it leaves you with only two choices….
A top climate scientist is stupid
A top climate scientist is crooked
[snip – even though I’ve been treated badly by Muller et al, this is a bit over the top] – Anthony
It’s not like peer review works at the best of time. William Briggs discusses a peer review failure over at his blog:
“A Case Of Failed Peer Review: Dust And Death”
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4587
“The distance between what civilians think peer review is and what it actually is suffers from the same failing as that evinced by Han Solo—rare pop culture reference!—when he boasted to Obi Wan Kenobi that the Millennium Falcon could do “the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.” Let him that readeth understand.”
I don’t see that BEST is being inconsistent at all.
If the media refuse not to report on pre-review prints, it is quite within the keeping of the described MO (“For that reason Berkeley Earth has tried to answer the questions given to us by the media, in hopes that our work will be more accurately reported. The two page summary of findings is also meant to help ensure that the media reports accurately reflect the content of our papers.”) to make a press release prior to the pre-review copy being circulated.
So I think that sober analysis of your calling BS on that, is that you could be mistaken.
Wombat,
Doesn’t it raise even tiny little questions in your mind to discover that Dr Muller’s side business will financially cash in from his so-called “sober analysis”?
It’s not like Muller has displayed any professional ethics to date.
Your vituperative backlash continues. A far cry from “I’ll accept whatever result they produce”.
REPLY: So, BEST is allowed to change the rules, play games, skirt convention, trash process, and post fabricated blame, but I have to adhere to what I said when they put on the air of false professionlism for me in March?
Yes, I was duped, I trusted them. How’s the weather in Chile? -Anthony
I agree. They should have taken inspiration from your own oh-so-coy-and-quiet behaviour in the couple of years before you actually published your own paper.
( 🙂 )
REPLY: The difference was that I had to advertise here to get the project done, I had to solicit volunteers and show progress. They got hugely funded. – Anthony
Individuals who lie are liars.
I thought the next FAQ was just as noteworthy:
“Is it time now to end global warming skepticism?
Our study addressed only one area of the concerns: was the temperature rise on land improperly affected by the four key biases (station quality, homogenization, urban heat island, and station selection)? The answer turned out to be no – but they were questions worthy of investigation. Berkeley Earth has not addressed issues of the tree ring and proxy data, climate model accuracy, or human attribution…”
I don’t see the scandal here. Knowing they couldn’t get the kind of preprint release that would be best for the scientific process, they decided to manipulate the release to the press to achieve the best effect they thought they could reasonably get. I may have missed something, but I don’t see anything wrong with that or contradictory with the FAQ. On the other hand, it does appear that they did try to “hide the decline” in the rate of temperature increase over the last decade.
Somebody please hand stevo and toto a hanky. They don’t like that Dr Muller is exposed for what he is: a self-serving guy whose side company gets payola according to the alarmism they promote.
“Latitude says: October 30, 2011 at 5:27 pm
it leaves you with only two choices….
A top climate scientist is stupid
A top climate scientist is crooked”
Which top climate scientist?
I understand Muller’s pants caught on fire just now.
Joe Romm at ThinkProgress already responded to the Curry analysis. I bet you can guess the kinds of things ol’ Joe had to say. LOL.
It does seem the arguments FOR global warming are getting narrower and narrower as they lose focus and reality contradicts the so-called “studies.”