UPDATE: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. leaves this comment:
Neil Adger sent me a response for posting. You can see it as an update on the original post:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html
He says cock-up, not conspiracy. I say, don’t tell untruths to start with. Have a look and make up your own mind. Thanks.
Mark Steyn writes at The Corner (NRO): Score-Settled Science
Since being sued by fantasy Nobel Laureate and global warm-monger Michael E Mann for mocking his hockey stick, I’ve taken a greater than usual interest in the conformity enforcers of the settled-science crowd. So I was interested to read this tidbit from Roger Pielke, Jr, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. He’s no climate “denier”, merely a little bit too independent-minded for the movement’s tastes. Hence:
Five days ago I critiqued a shoddy paper by Brysse et al. 2013 which appeared in the journal Global Environmental Change. Today I received notice from the GEC editor-in chief and executive editor that I have been asked to “step down from the Editorial Board.” They say that it is to “give other scientists the chance to gain experience of editorial duties.”
Over the past 20 years I have served on the editorial boards of about a dozen or so academic journals. I have rolled off some when my term was up, and continued for many years with others. I have never received a mid-term request to step down from any journal.
Hmm. A few months ago, when Michael Mann sued NR for the hitherto unknown crime of “defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient”, Professor Pielke wrote:
Mann’s claim is what might be called an embellishment — he has, to use the definition found at the top of this post, “made (a statement or story) more interesting or entertaining by adding extra details, esp. ones that are not true…” Instead of being a “Nobel Peace Prize Winner” Mann was one of 2,000 or so scientists who made a contribution to an organization which won the Nobel Peace Prize…
The embellishment is only an issue because Mann has invoked it as a source of authority is a legal dispute. It would seem common sense that having such an embellishment within a complaint predicated on alleged misrepresentations may not sit well with a judge or jury.
This situation provides a nice illustration of what is wrong with a some aspects of climate science today — a few scientists motivated by a desire to influence political debates over climate change have embellished claims, such as related to disasters, which then risks credibility when the claims are exposed as embellishments. To make matters worse, these politically motivated scientists have fallen in with fellow travelers in the media, activist organizations and in the blogosphere who are willing not only to look past such embellishments, but to amplify them and attack those who push back. These dynamics are reinforcing and have led small but vocal parts of the climate scientific community to deviate significantly from widely-held norms of scientific practice.
Very true. And now Professor Pielke, expelled by the palace guard of climate conformism, appears to have been felled by the very pathology he identified.
==============================================================
Yes, “climate amplification”…it’s not just for the poles.
This episode reminds me of exactly the sort of condescending elitism we saw in Climategate:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
And it also reminds me of this: The tribalistic corruption of peer review – the Chris de Freitas incident
GEC Editor Neil Adger is part of the Climategate emails, and was at UEA, so I guess I should not be surprised, he’s now at the University of Exeter. The three main editors are quite a tight crowd it seems.
date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:43:29 +0100 from: "Neil Adger" <N.Adger@uea.ac.uk> subject: Re: GEC to: "Andy Jordan" <A.Jordan@uea.ac.uk>, "'Mike Hulme'" <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk> Andrew Please go ahead and inform Martin or the publisher (as you think approriate) that Mike and I are interested in co-editing the journal. This is at least a starting position and of course would be completely dependent on the right deal from the publisher. Please also note that Mike and I would only negotiate with the publisher over this, not with Martin. Let us know if you want further information etc. Note that I am away till 22nd October after today. Thanks. Neil ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Andy Jordan To: [2]'Mike Hulme' ; [3]'Neil Adger' Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:10 PM Subject: FW: GEC Hi Things have started moving in roughly the direction that I expected: see below. At this stage I will simply signal to Elsevier that I want out, but if you like I can look for ways of involving you in the discussion with Martin/the publisher. Please advise. Cheers Andy _______________________________________________ Dr Andrew J. Jordan Lecturer in Environmental Politics; and Editor, Environment and Planning C School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom Tel: (00) (44) (0)1603 592552 Fax: (00) (44) (0)1603 593739 CSERGE website: http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/ Personal website: http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/faculty/jordanaj.htm Environment and Planning C website: http://www.envplan.com/ _________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: PARRYML@aol.com [mailto:PARRYML@aol.com] Sent: 06 October 2003 14:54 To: A.Jordan@uea.ac.uk Subject: GEC Dear Andrew: See below for my action on GEC. Mary Malin has been away until today I believe. Regards, Martin Dear Mary: I know you have been away. As soon as you return can you call me on my mobile, about the matter below? Regards, Martin CC: Subj: Editorial handover for Global Environmental Change Date: 26/09/2003 To: [4]M.Malin@elsevier.com CC: [5]A.Healey@elsevier.co.uk, [6]g.brooks@elsevier.co.uk, [7]Cynparry Dear Mary: I would like to explore with you a change in Editor of Global Environmental Change, since I am now coming up to my 12th year. I suggest we aim to identify a new editor, who would start handling new papers from Jan 04, with the first new issue being 4/04. If more time is needed to find a suitable successor, then the dates , respectively, could be April 04 and 1/05. I understand from Andrew Jordan that the Institutions would probably effect a change at the same time. Looking ahead, the schedule would then look like this: 1. Issue 1/04; due to publishers from Parry Oct 03 2. Extra (i.e. funded additional) special issue Water: papers received from Guest Ed (Dr Adeel), currently being read by Parry; to be published early 04 3. Issue 2/04; due to publishers from Parry Jan/04 4. Extra (i.e. funded additional) special issue Climate Change (paid by DEFRA); edited by Parry; papers to publishers November; to be published c. Feb 04 5. Issue 3/04: Special issue on Co-Benefits (under guest editor, responsible to Parry) 6. Issue 4/04: first issue under new editor 7. Issue 1/05: Special Issue on Adaptation. I am away next week. But perhaps you could call me either this afternoon, or on the morning of 6th October. Best use my mobile: 07884 317108. With kind regards, Martin Dr Martin Parry, Co-Chair Working Group II (Impacts and Adaptation), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hadley Centre, UK Met Office, London Road, Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK. Tel direct: +44 1986 781437 Tel switchboard: +44 1344 856888 direct e-mail: parryml@aol.com e-mail for WGII Technical Support Unit: ipccwg2@metoffice.com Dr Martin Parry, Co-Chair Working Group II (Impacts and Adaptation), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hadley Centre, UK Met Office, London Road, Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK. Tel direct: +44 1986 781437 Tel switchboard: +44 1344 856888 direct e-mail: parryml@aol.com e-mail for WGII Technical Support Unit: ipccwg2@metoffice.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The editor who is trying to get rid of Pielke has changed his story. At first it was to
“give other scientists the chance to gain experience of editorial duties.”
When Roger started looking into how long other editors had served and pointing out that this explanation did not make much sense, the reason was changed to
“waning interest in the journal”
which is a bit curious since he had commented on an article in the journal just 5 days previously.
A shrewd move from a “Lecturer in Environmental Politics”
I think a couple of proverbs cover some of this.
Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a rich man whose ways are perverse.
Proverbs 28 v 6
When the righteous thrive, the people rejoice; when the wicked rule, the people groan.
Proverbs 29 v 2
James Bull
Yup–the leaders of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Genocidal Warmistas (CAGW) are at it again. They forget (conveniently) that WUWT gets about 100,000 readers a day, which undoubtedly dwarfs their miniscule readership. The tide is turning and will swamp their leaky little boat.
When will they ever learn?
While I’d want to hear the other side before making up my mind with certainty, on the face of it, it sounds disgraceful.
Not much in the way of “peer reviewing” if it’s expected to just be a rubber-stamp committee for those scientists espousing popular, favoured views regardless of the actual quality of their particular paper.
I can’t help but see aspects of climate science as a virus continually mutating to avoid extinction from the treatment (i.e. truth). Finally, the disease or the patient must succumb. Which of climate science or catastrophic anthropgenic global warming will survive? Perhaps neither!
Gatekeeping in climate science? Say it ain’t so! Surely this is just part of redefining peer reviewed science by carefully selecting those peers.
rgb
It is interesting that certain people in positions of influence, feel that either no-one will notice their methods, or that no-one can stop them.
Love how Mann continues to throw around the “Nobel Prize Winner” tag, as though somehow (even if he WAS a sole winner) it validates anything about his scientific acumen. It’s a PEACE prize, for heaven’s sake, the awarding of which says absolutely NOTHING about the validity of their work. (and then, top that off with the fact that Mann is one of 2000 “winners”)
Incidentally, check out this video and tell me it isn’t an excellent summary of the situation we find ourselves in:
I wrote to the editor Neil Adger and told him he’s welcome to publish a response here.
I hope he takes you up on it, Anthony, because it certainly looks bad for him at first glance. Please keep us posted on how/if he responds (as I’m sure you would).
What Global Environmental Change has established is that they are a political journal, not a scientific journal. Further, by changing their story mid-stream GEC have shown themselves to be less than honest.
This shows the corrupting influence of politics on science. The scientific method requires honesty regardless of how popular the truth might me. However, science requires popularity for its funding or it will be tossed out by the popular vote. Thus, honest science that is not popular will wither for lack of funding, while dishonest science that is popular will reign.
The descent into totalitarianism happens one seemingly tiny step after another. By the time most people notice, it is too late. That is why principles need to be held dear. My best wishes to Dr. Pielke, Jr.
Mann’s ongoing facebook glurge is astounding. He keeps posting about “thoughtful articles” and “the denier machine” (depending on point of view), waits for a few obsequious posters to slather him in praise, then deigns to be personable with these sycophants. It appears to be a fishing (dare I say “phishing”) expedition on Mann’s part, an obsessive desire to be validated, approved-of, and stroked, for which he seems bent on having to respond, albeit it a strangely sweet and condescending manner. A form of unsophisticated moaning, a trait he shares with a whole slew of wishy-washy yet vocal climate troubadours. It’s rather hilarious, if it weren’t so wretched.
Anthony Watts says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:31 am
I wrote to the editor Neil Adger and told him he’s welcome to publish a response here.
………………
This is one of the reasons I frequent this blog. Opposing views are not only tolerated, they are welcomed and invited.
ConfusedPhoton says:
February 21, 2013 at 6:59 am
I can’t help but see aspects of climate science as a virus continually mutating to avoid extinction from the treatment (i.e. truth). Finally, the disease or the patient must succumb.
————————————————————————————————————————–
Good analogy. I would add that the virus is ably assisted by the spondulicks greed bacteria in a powerful symbiosis process.
Slightly off topic but the paper by Brysse et al would seem to be a candidate for ‘Climate Craziness of the Week’. It’s hypothesis is beyond bizarre; up there with Lew paper.
neFAIRYious climate tails.
Neil Adger sent me a response for posting. You can see it as an update on the original post:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html
He says cock-up, not conspiracy. I say, don’t tell untruths to start with. Have a look and make up your own mind. Thanks.
Unhappily, the Climatists have practically everyone in positions of power, especially in academics and government (not excluding the President and the Secretary of State) in their “little boat,” which is effectively an armored dreadnaught. As far as I can tell, the 100k WUWT readers a day are throwing spitballs against that armor plate. There may be only a few in the ship, but they are forging ahead, oblivious to the protestations of Climate Realists.
We need a ship of our own, and officers who can take on the Powers That Be at their own level.
/Mr Lynn
The Pielke’s, both father and son, say what they think in plain language. [Their] assumptions are there for all to see and debate. They have the courage to face opposition from anyone. These two impress me especially being from the “Federation of Boulder” just north of Denver. They are living proof that anoxia is not an epidemic in Colorado.
They are two of the too few voices that prevent some of us from becoming so set in our arguments against human-caused global warming that we fail as skeptics and become “true believers” looking at only “our side” of the argument.
Keep up the good work guys – we need more like you.
Damn the politics – full speed ahead with good data!
( apologies to those who want to remember the Maine)
Mike
[fixed]
The uni of exeter where prof neil adger has his position is close to me and is a respected up and coming university . They are very close, in all senses of the word, to the met office and Neil himself is closely involved with Tyndall and the uni of east Anglia.
http://geography.exeter.ac.uk/staff/index.php?web_id=Neil_Adger&tab=external
The prof is heavily into the societal aspects of climate change and a glance at the publications he has written and the partners that Exeter has, demonstrates the very deep seated roots that environmentalism has on our institutions.
It will be very interesting to see a response from him so we can see both sides of the story
Tonyb
All,
Oops – need more coffee! Second sentence should be Their rather than They’re…
(for those english teachers out there)
Mike
An explanation from the journal editors, including Adger, and Dr. Pielke’s Jr.’s response are available here:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html?showComment=1361457963012#c9043128001183189816