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
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
The following is a paragraph from Pielke’s critique:
“For some reason Brysse et al. neglected to consider a 2010 paper (co-authored by Michael Oppenheimer) which warned of the threat of a dramatic increase in poor Mexicans migrating north into the United States due to climate change. Talk about drama! However, an unnoticed 2012 paper in the same journal found that the original migration paper contained some serious methodological flaws, so never mind. This apparently was a case of Erring on the Side of Too-Much Drama (ESTMD – I can make up scientific-sounding concepts too). We could go on like this all day, and it would not provide any enlightenment.”
I wonder if this is not the straw that broke the camel’s back. I read this paper by Oppenheimer shortly after it was published and came away with the impression that it was a brazen attempt at fear mongering. I strongly agree with Pielke’s criticisms of this paper by Oppenheimer and his larger criticisms expressed in his critique of Brysse et al.. Perhaps the authors and the journal editors simply could not stomach a blanket criticism of attempts to infer sociological claims from climate theory (the content of Oppenheimer’s paper) or criticism of attempts to infer claims about climate science from a theoretical sociology of climate scientists (Brysse et al). Perhaps they experienced so much pain that they slammed the door shut.
Hmmmm, suddenly I find that I can’t copy a posting and paste it here. I hope that this is a temporary glitch…..
I wanted to say that there are many comments here that we read and then pass over, but which really should be recognized for the wisdom, etc., contained in them, even if they are only a sentence long.
*****************
Now, a few minutes later, I seem to have mastered the copying operation. What I wanted to comment on favorably was:
Bloke down the pub says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:03 am
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.
*********
I have made the same observation many times, particularly about politicians, but also other prominent people like business leaders. Often they say things that are outrageously and transparently wrong, yet the media and a number of the public lap up uncritically what they say. What comes from the “climate consensus” is so often debatable or counterable, yet no one in the media actually does so.
So, here’s to Blokes down the pub, whoever you are. Your comments are not skipped over.
IanM
Shhhhh! We don’t mention that in polite circles.
Suffering shades of RICO! Some smart prosecutor could make his career and fortune weeding this mess out! Not to forget that by investigating the climate hooligans he’d render most CAGW vapid political opponents as unworthy to serve insuring himself and his cohorts easy election seats.
Whadda ya say; any lurking up an coming prosecutors here?
This is only an opening move.
The game is for the AGW extremists to move all who doubt, question, demand good science, dare to point out errors, as well as plain ol’ skeptics, to get booted out of every organization, publication, media outlet, faculty, etc. The extremists have already been able to get away with simulataneoulsy invoking conspiracies to explain sketpics/resistors of AGW while also diagnosing skeptics/resistors as conspiracy kooks. Other opinion leaders in the AGW fanatic camp have openly spoken about limiting licenses/certificates/etc of those they do not approve of.
It makes sense to go after the most moderate voices, like Pielke jr., first. It makes the AGW true believers look more reasonable only the most extreme skeptics are left in the public square.
I will not be surprised if Pielke, jr. is not soon moved out of his academic position.
The AGW true beliver extremists are playing for keeps.
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.”
Sadly the response will be standardized BS to cover themselves.
Pielke, Jr. just said in the comments on his blog that he received an apology from Elsevier.
Well — no kidding. Much deserved, I would say.
Christoph Dollis says:
February 21, 2013 at 7:28 am
Incidentally, check out this video and tell me it isn’t an excellent summary of the situation we find ourselves in:
——————————
To the non-scientist (me), that video is a nicely presented summary…at least something I can understand.
I do have one question for anyone willing to answer though. At about 1′ 45″ the narrator says:
“The serious skeptical scientists have always agreed with the government climate scientists about the direct affect of CO2.” He goes on to say they differ in terms of the expected feedbacks.
At about the 30 second mark he says: “The direct effect of CO2 is well established physics based on laboratory results and known for over a century.”
Is that true? Do “serious skeptical scientists” (whatever that means) only differ in terms of feedbacks and do all “serious scientists” agree with the “well established” direct effect of CO2 on atmospheric warming?
Mr Lynn says:
February 21, 2013 at 8:34 am
…..We need a ship of our own, and officers who can take on the Powers That Be at their own level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is a darn good reason to get involved with politics and politicians (Bleck, gag) even if it is only at the local and state levels. I managed to get a federal congressman to withdraw co-sponsorship of a bill so they can be educated if you can show them the facts.
One can draw fairly clear parallels between the Augean stables of mythology and anything with Oreskes among the authors.
Whether or not reviewing such ordure could be considered a Herculean task, the editors took on the king’s role pretty well too.
I think the journal did a poor job of communicating this to him, but I can’t disagree with their decision. I work in biological sciences. My mentor is on the board of a journal and gets up to 50 requests a year to review manuscripts. I personally do approximately 20/year. I’m stunned the GEC has so low a requirement for ‘editorial board’ status. I’m not sure his interest (better word involvement?) was waning, but rather seemed below expectation from the start.
Theo Goodwin says:
February 21, 2013 at 8:47 am
The following is a paragraph from Pielke’s critique:
“For some reason Brysse et al. neglected to consider a 2010 paper (co-authored by Michael Oppenheimer) which warned of the threat of a dramatic increase in poor Mexicans migrating north into the United States due to climate change. ….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Climate Change! The Idiots.
This is on the same level of lying as the Guardian blaming the suicides in India on Climate Change when it was the result of the World Trade Organization and World Bank’s structural adjustment policies. link
Seems these ‘Scientists’ didn’t bother to do a simple internet search and read the paper commissioned by the Mexican government showing 75% of Mexican farmers were wiped out thanks to NAFTA and the promised industrial jobs never materialize.
Crime pays? Mexico’s unemployed youth a driving factor in organized crime ~ Eight million youths are unemployed in Mexico, and cartel work can have a big draw: An enforcer for a large cartel can make nearly three times as much as the national average salary.
Yes. However, somewhere in the comments of the YouTube video you watched, I believe a commenter drew a contrary conclusion and referred to a post here on WattsUpWithThat (misunderstanding it).
Here is a post from Anthony where he debunks an experiment Al Gore allegedly did which strong appears to show that air traps heat better than CO2, but not that Anthony never makes that claim. From the same post:
Peter, I tried answering your question, but I think it got caught up in WattsUpWithThat’s spam filter. Hopefully it gets retrieved.
Short answer, though, is, “Yes.”
Christoph – Thanks for the reply. I don’t want to hijack this thread but I’m not sure how to get clarity without asking when I see something I am unsure about.
I do remember the Al Gore Bill Nye “experiment”, but that isn’t really what prompted my question. Over the time I have been visiting this site I have seen several discussions that have left me believing that the effect of CO2 directly on atmospheric warming may not be as quantifiable as the video suggested.
I appreciate the clarification.
Please reapply the Neil Adger email. The right side of the email appears to be cut off as it appears on the WUWT page. As such, the reader doesn’t have access to what was said. Perhaps I missed it, but providing a link to a pdf file might help too, if formatting it to fit here is a problem.
As for Dr. Pielke, Jr.’s situation. It says he was asked to “step down from the Editorial Board.” Is it possible for him to decline the invitation to act in that manner and to serve out his full term?
@Ben use the left-right scroll bar at the bottom
If this story is true, it means they are still brazenly trying to “redefine what the peer-review literature is.” I have to wonder how much pressure the GEC editor received from the usual suspects to remove Roger Pielke, Jr. It’s sad to think they are not the slightest bit chastened by Climate Gate.
“There is a new paper out by Brysse et al. in Global Environmental Change (here $) which includes as co-authors Naomi Oreskes (author of Merchants of Doubt) and Michael Oppenheimer (long-time IPCC contributor and a contributing lead author for the AR5).”
————————
co-author Naomi Oreskes
What more do you need to know about this paper. Anything coming from the crazed mind of Naomi Oreskes is guaranteed to be worthless propaganda and has no place in any journal that claims to be publishing scientific work.
Climate science has been corrupted by political ideology and money. I would put this incident into the “money” category of corruption. The Journal is worried about its circulation. Publishing articles that don’t tow the line is bad for circulation. Rejecting articles that validate readers beliefs is bad for circulation. And having editors who question any aspect of the catechism of CAWG is ultimately bad for circulation.
I have never viewed the corruption of climate science as a “conspiracy”, rather it is caused by the corrosive incentives that exist within the climate science industry.
Though not definitive, politics rarely is, it shows the continued ‘redefining peer review” process at work. real Science continues to suffer from this mess.
From Neil Adger to Roger in which he lists the facts regarding the incident as he perceives them:
Sounds like there might be a purge going on. It would be interesting to find out who was not re-appointed and why. It will also be interesting to see who the replacements are and what they bring to the editorial table.
The fact that they published that garbage by Brysse et al is an indication that they are inclined to venture into the realm of post-normal science and that perhaps a purification of the board is underway.
Send your complaints about GEC Editor Neil Adger to the Chairman of Elsevier, the GEC publisher, Youngsuk (Y.S.) Chi:
http://www.elsevier.com/about/management/ys-chi-bio
newsroom@elsevier.com
If he is interested in the value of his brands he will listen.
http://chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/how-rude-reader-comments-may-undermine-scientists-authority/32071
So, the Chron writer concludes, critical comments should be censored. Now, they’re spinning it as discouraging “rudeness”, but it sounds to me more like another attempt to stretch PC to another pet cause and shut down all other voices.
Gail Combs says:
February 21, 2013 at 10:02 am
Theo Goodwin says:
February 21, 2013 at 8:47 am
“Climate Change! The Idiots.”
Unbelievable, isn’t it? That’s the level of Oppenheimer’s and Orestes’ social science. I heard another good one recently: “coming drought in northern Mexico will cause increases in the drug trade.”
The Oreskes-Lewandowsky breed of ideologically-driven pop-sociology isn’t science, you can’t even see science from their front door.
Peterr in Ohio syas:
Is that true? Do “serious skeptical scientists” (whatever that means) only differ in terms of feedbacks and do all “serious scientists” agree with the “well established” direct effect of CO2 on atmospheric warming?
=====
I have a laugh every time I read that. The standard physics of CO2 producting 1.2 C warming is a static model, and the earth iis dynamic. My bet is that the warming due to a doubling of CO2 will be less than 0.4 C, ie, not even measurable on most of the earth, but only measureable in northern latitudes and at night.
In other words, a total non issue.
climatereason says: February 21, 2013 at 8:35 am
Adger is also “very closely involved” with the IPCC’s AR5: He is a Coordinating Lead Author for WGII’s Chapter 12 – Human Security.
which would fit perfectly with your observation that:
As for:
Well, that might depend, at least to some extent, on which of Adger’s three “stories” – or … uh … “Drafts” – should be accorded the strongest weight!
As I had concluded in a comment today on Pielke’s blog:
Setting aside the fact that 2010-2012 looks more like a two-year term than a three-year term, if this “Third Order Draft” is the “correct” version of “history”, why was it even necessary to ask anyone to “step down”?!
Furthermore, after Roger had graciously acceded to Adger’s request to “step down”, why is it that Adger did not immediately respond by apologizing and indicating that what he really meant to say was something along the lines of ‘Thanks for your service, but at the end of your current term, we shall not be inviting you to serve for a third term’?
And this chap is an IPCC AR5 WGII Coordinating Lead Author?! Such fuzzy and self-contradictory “thinking” does not augur well for the quality one might anticipate in this “gold standard” assessment report.
“The standard physics of CO2 producting 1.2 C warming is a static model, and the earth is dynamic. My bet is that the warming due to a doubling of CO2 will be less than 0.4 C”
Iff the dampening effects are that strong — which they may be.
Oh, he’s probably capable of clearer thought and communication than this at least. But since he’s handled this so badly, I doubt that either serve [his] perceived interests at the moment.
*his
hro001 says:
February 21, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Thank you for this excellent post. I think that your concise, clear, but penetrating analysis of Adger’s actions says all that needs to be said.
hro001’s website is worth checking out.
I love Pielke Fils, but he should learn that some who call themselves ‘progressive’ are ‘regressive’ instead. Regressing to what is your guess to make.
=====================
Theo Goodwin says: February 21, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Thanks, Theo! And …
Theo Goodwin says: February 21, 2013 at 5:32 pm
I totally agree … but this could be my “confirmation bias” kicking in 😉
I came across this quote a few decades ago. I have no record nor recollection of where or who it came from, but it seems appropriate:
“The supreme irony of mass insanity is the persuasion that those who refuse to join the insanity,
the ones who vainly try to resist, are the truly abnormal.”
Hmm. I think the second “insanity” should be “madness,” as in:
… those who refuse to join the madness, the …
If anyone can identify it’s source, I would be appreciative.
(I’ve tried search engines without success, so far…)
Thanks.
The more I learn about academe and the antics of ‘academics’, the less regard for it – and them – I have.
I’ve spent thirty plus years in industry and commerce and in that world both parties here would get a quick kick up the arse, be told to shape up or ship out and not be allowed any more sweeties or cookies until they had proved that they had grown out of nappies (diapers).
Assuming that there is any point to the academic world at all (a proposition I am finding increasingly difficult to support), can you not all start acting like responsible adults to justify the public money that is spent on your pay and rations? You get a nice cushy life ..and you repay us with tantrums.
This little spat does not rise above ‘Mummy, that boy over there stole my toy car’. Neither side here shows themselves to be better than 3-year olds.
Grow up the lot of you!
I note with interest that Neil Adger has not changed his spots. Might I remind those who followed the outcomes of climategate II that it was he, my former colleague, who felt it necessary to inform CRU of my heinous crime of lecturing to UEA first-year undergraduates about evidence that did not fit with the ENV view of climate change. An action that led directly to my exclusion from teaching this material in the first-year programme – a parallel to “clearing out the opposition”.
@lanK
“Pielke Jr. appears to get booted from a journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science”
That wasnt peer review. It was a blog entry. There is a big difference. His blog entry had nothing to do with the paper being or not being accepted.
Havnig followed this story a little both here and at RPjr’s blog, I get the impression that the timing of his removal from the GEC editorial board and the critical commentary on the Brysse paper probably are coincidental – I can’t see that a publisher the size of Elsevier would respond so quickly to Dr Pielke’s commentary as to dismiss him in 5 days.
Now, whether his removal from the editorial board is more generally because of his perceived skepticism is a different question, and fits better with the timeline that has been described. Obviousy, RPjr is not a skeptic of significant warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but it is interesting that his blog was one of those identified as ‘skeptic’ by Lewandodgy’s questionnaire, and he is very strongly critical of the current meme of extreme weather being caused by climate change (for the simple reason that in about 99.9% of cases there is too much noise and not enough signal in the data to back up the claims – my understanding is that the one exception is summer heatwaves in temperate areas). Dr Pielke is one of the few people who seems to be content to let the data speak for itself.
I too have experienced such treatment. Even matter-of-fact presentations calmly critiquing some overly presumed “valid and reliable” theory or practice, can and often do lead to such letters. My file is filled with them. I have no doubt I am presented before the board as a poorly performing teacher, hard evidence to the contrary. Maybe I need to teach in a state that rewards for observed student achievement.
– – – – – – – – –
Pamela Gray & Aan Kendall,
My experiences professionally (40 years of engineering in international commercial nuclear power) I never had any blowback from being aggressively critical of alarming AGW by CO2. In fact virtually all of the people I interacted with where just as critical as I. That was on the professional level. On the private level there have seldom been confrontations on climate, most private contacts are rather unknowledgeable and uncommitted to a position.
But, as a nuclear professional in the 1970s and early 1980s there were frequent private and public sphere instances where I was considered persona non grata because of the anti-nuclear sentiment at that time.
John
“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” – Edmund Burke.
The situation here reminds me of what happened to Ignaz Semmelweis. He thought it would be prudent for doctors to wash their hands with Chlorine and lime juice to stop people from dying from contamination. When this was put into practice the level of death drastically dropped and yet because he was going against the grain he was an outcast and as a result they returned to the old ways and death rose again. Eventually he died in his forties in an Insane Asylum and it wasn’t until later than due to the work of Louis Pasteur that he was vindicated and now it is common knowledge that we should be washing our hands before and after activities that might cause germs to spread. It is amazing how such simple thing was rejected when it was first introduced and yet now it is a fundamental medical practice. The history of science is littered with many examples of those who have gone against the grain and lost, but were eventually proven right.
This is the mission/policy statement of the “Elsevier Journal” – ‘Global Environmental Change’. :-
“Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions is an international, interdisciplinary journal spanning the social and natural sciences. It publishes high-quality original theoretical and applied research and review articles across the entire field of global environmental change. Areas include biodiversity and ecosystem services, water resources, climate change, international agreements, North-South relations, land use and cover change, institutions and governance. The journal interprets global environmental change to mean the outcome of processes that are manifest in localities, but with consequences at multiple spatial, temporal and socio-political scales. The journal addresses issues of public policy, economics, equity, risk, and resilience, science policy, international development, and health and well-being.”
In this journal, which is aimed squarely at all tertiary/university educated readers/academics, who fully support the pro global warming theories A through Z.
Roger A Pielke jr., advanced tertiary educational qualifications, shows an MA in 1992, on Public Policy and a Phd in Political Science.
“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.” ― Mark Twain
Nullius in Verba