As we’ve seen previously this week:
Enviro and Media Agenda on Extreme Weather – State Climatologist Invited, then Uninvited to Rally …”disinvitation” seems to be the latest tool for stifling debate.
From Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. Invited Letter Now Rejected By Nature Magazine
UPDATE: September 27 2010 – see the post “You Are Invited To Waste Your Time”
I was invited by Nature magazine to write a Letter in response to the September Exeter meeting http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/home, and have been working with a member of their staff on edits over the past two weeks. This morning, I received the startling e-mail below from Nature’s Chief Commissioning Editor. Quite frankly, the only way I can interpret this behavior is as an example of the continued bias in Nature’s reporting of climate issues. Their statement that “We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question” is a remarkable admission.
Dear Professor Pielke, Thank you very much for taking the time to write to Nature, upon request. And for the revisions you’ve made, again at our request. We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question. We have, I’m afraid concluded that we cannot offer publication on this occasion. We feel that there are too many nuances to this situation to be properly communicated by a short item (or items) on our letters page. We will however continue to track the evolving story for news or leaders, as appropriate. We apologise for having taken up your time in this way. Sincerely, Sara Abdulla Chief Commissioning Editor Opinion [incl Correspondence and Books & Arts] Nature
Here is what was rejected: Temperature dataset effort vulnerable to problems by Roger A. Pielke Sr. Peter Stott and Peter Thorne recently conducted a meeting in Exeter to improve the quality control and archival procedures for global surface temperature data, at which I was not present. I applaud the aim of this meeting (doi:10.1038/4661040d) — to solicit multiple views from the climate community on how to create confidence in raw data and metadata, and to provide a set of blind benchmarking tools for the assessment of data adjustment algorithms. But I worry that the group seemingly has yet to tackle some valid concerns about that data. I was glad to see in the meeting notes several candid admissions of the shortcomings of existing surface temperature data assessments. The group acknowledged the problem of undocumented changes to temperature records and a lack of international exchange of detailed stations histories, as well as the recognition that non-traditional climate scientists are now playing a significant role in constructing a better climate dataset. They recognized that there may be important, unresolved systematic biases and uncertainties in the current data, and acknowledged the value of efforts such as www.surfacestations.org, which has prodded the US National Climatic Data Center and others to examine their analyses more rigorously. The group’s commitment to quantifying and reporting statistical uncertainties and data adjustments is to be commended. But the meeting notes suggest that the group did not sufficiently address other valid concerns about data collection [Pielke et al 2007]. These include the need to improve the improve the documentation of humidity at temperature stations [e.g. Davey et al 2006; Fall et al 2010], the height of the observations [Klotzbach et al 2009, Lin et al 2007] and to pay more attention to the siting of surface stations. Many stations still have not been documented with photographs, for example – this is a simple problem that should be addressed immediately. I would like to see the Exeter group address these issues explicitly, and, importantly, make a commitment to having all analyses and findings from these data sets assessed by independent scientists [Mahmood et al 2010]. All too often in the past, results have been assessed by scientists associated with the agencies that performed the analyses. This should not continue. References Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229. Davey, C.A., R.A. Pielke Sr., and K.P. Gallo, 2006: Differences between near-surface equivalent temperature and temperature trends for the eastern United States – Equivalent temperature as an alternative measure of heat content. Global and Planetary Change, 54, 19–32. Fall, S., N. Diffenbaugh, D. Niyogi, R.A. Pielke Sr., and G. Rochon, 2010: Temperature and equivalent temperature over the United States (1979 – 2005). Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.2094. Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841. Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, K.C. Crawford, M. A. Shafer, and T. Matsui, 2007: An examination of 1997-2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma. Geophys. Res. Letts., 34, L24705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031652. Mahmood, R., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, D. Niyogi, G. Bonan, P. Lawrence, B. Baker, R. McNider, C. McAlpine, A. Etter, S. Gameda, B. Qian, A. Carleton, A. Beltran-Przekurat, T. Chase, A.I. Quintanar, J.O. Adegoke, S. Vezhapparambu, G. Conner, S. Asefi, E. Sertel, D.R. Legates, Y. Wu, R. Hale, O.W. Frauenfeld, A. Watts, M. Shepherd, C. Mitra, V.G. Anantharaj, S. Fall,R. Lund, A. Nordfelt, P. Blanken, J. Du, H.-I. Chang, R. Leeper, U.S. Nair, S. Dobler, R. Deo, and J. Syktus, 2010: Impacts of land use land cover change on climate and future research priorities. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 91, 37–46, DOI: 10.1175/2009BAMS2769.1
Welcome to the blow out phase of AGW mania: openly suppressing discussion of climate science so as to avoid dealing with any critique, challenge, thought or idea that unsettles the dogma of catastrophic climate change.
This social movement is to climate science what eugenics was to evolution.
Hold firm, Dr. Pielke. Your integrity will beat their lack of integrity. Your hunger for truth will beat their denial of truth. Your adherence to the scientific method and its highest ideals will beat their cynical transparent abuse of the same.
This kind of flip flopping is a sure sign that Nature editors have no independence and are having their strings pulled from above.
Hey Nature Editors! How does it feel to be exposed as puppets?
Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.-
Thank you so much for your efforts on this.
Years ago there was a political party in Australia that ran on the slogan “Keep the Bastards Honest”.
Keeping them honest requires many admirable traits and you have demonstrated they all.
Again, thank you for your efforts.
I think you guys need to stop assuming that Nature is a respected science journal – it is a glossy magazine. It went the New Scientist way several years ago chasing hype and attention by misreporting stories to gain maximum publicity for itself.
Don’t give magazines any attention. The truth will win.
One would think that a publication such as Nature would be encouraging the creation of a more accurate temperature data set.
Guess not…
Nature is not science. Just nature.
If a magazine is, after there was some noise over the last year on how data was made up to conform / confirm to the official view, not willing to have you in, your interpretation is right. There is a bias, a believe stronger than science.
We feel that there are too many nuances to this situation
…like some high-rolling wealthy politicos getting on the phone ….??????
This “nuance” thing is the last desperate resort of the political
Well, they are correct that this is something that is bigger than a “letters” page can accomodate. That said, you should be involved in the larger discussion and paper they develop – to do otherwise would be to whitewash the temp data, just like a good Mann-supporting pub would do…
Your truthful, reasoned, unemotional, well-referenced response obviously offended Ms. Abdulla’s panda bear.
How dare you aid the anti-science regressive movement trying to disrupt the coming beneficial regime of ecological caring and sanity that will save that panda bear’s natural habitat?!
☺
The intellectual corruption of the self-appointed keepers of credentials and the peer-review gateways is shocking, especially when those most guilty parade around in their moral superiority.
Yet another proof that CAGW and associated efforts are religious, not scientific. Boycott Nature magazine,
Quote
“The group acknowledged the problem of undocumented changes to temperature records and a lack of international exchange of detailed stations histories, as well as the recognition that non-traditional climate scientists are now playing a significant role in constructing a better climate dataset. They recognized that there may be important, unresolved systematic biases and uncertainties in the current data, and acknowledged the value of efforts such as http://www.surfacestations.org, which has prodded the US National Climatic Data Center and others to examine their analyses more rigorously”.
A couple of truths in there and i fancy they hit home…Hard!
When they do things like this because they can not take critisim they lose all credible
argument.
Have you asked who and what information prompted the decision, have you upset members of the TEAM!!
Do you know how many other people were invited to write letters and who they are?
Abdulla’s acknowledgment that “there are too many nuances to this situation” should lead to an attempt by Nature to help the scientific community understand what the nuances are and what to do about them. If they’re going to be a leading force in the community, this is something where they could lead.
Instead, they’ll “continue to track the evolving story for news or leaders.”
My guess that policy won’t make it into the pages of Nature either.
Hmm, I claim the primacy on “Too nuanced for Nature.” 🙂
Did Ms. Abdulla’s decision to shut down Dr. Pielke reflect her own judgment, or did she buckle under to someone else? Either way, she should be embarrassed, and concerned about her future in a scientific journalism community where openness is steadily increasing.
We have now reflected on the matter, and on some information from attendees at the meeting in question. We have, I’m afraid concluded that we cannot offer publication on this occasion. We feel that there are too many nuances to this situation to be properly communicated by a short item (or items) on our letters page.
We will however continue to track the evolving story for news or leaders, as appropriate.
So she knows who applied the leverage to spike your letter, and admits that the story isn’t over. That’s like tying your self to a sinking ship. There is dumb, and there is dumber.
RP Jr, keep up the good work, as per Josh’s cartoon, you are still right!
Disappointing, certainly, but surprising it is not.
“Nature”, perhaps more appropriately dubbed “The Trick”, continues its descent from scientific journal to activism rag. With such overt actions as this it is reasonable to assume that the shift is purposeful and unashamed.
You should use a little reverse psychology. Next time, beat them to the punch and tell them under no circumstances will you attend their meeting, etc., etc.
Science is settled,
Nuances are a nuisance.
Trust us, we’re tracking.
============
Nature? I wouldn’t even read it on the bog.
Jack Maloney says:
September 28, 2010 at 5:44 am
“where openness is steadily increasing.” – I am afraid I do not see this happening. Quite the opposite in fact. Entrenchment is the order of the day. The general public do seem to be wising up to the scam, and politicians seem to be aware of the sea change in public opinion. How much would you bet that Ms. Abdulla would lose her position and be shunned had she gone ahead with Dr. Pielke’s article? Sadly, we have a long road ahead. Damned if I will give it up, though. Hold Fast.
Advice: do not subscribe to this trash journal
Did they uninvite him because he mentioned the Surface Stations Project site?
These include the need to improve the improve the documentation of humidity at temperature stations
Hopefully this was a simply an error in transcription to this blog post, and didn’t pass the two weeks of editing with the Nature staff person.
OT but still relevant.
Well, there’s at least one seeker after truth who’s beginning to get (even if slightly back-handed) accolades and acknowledgments from the left-wing press:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100055793/steve-mcintyre-total-bloody-hero/
‘Steve McIntyre has been named one of the 50 People Who Matter by the left-wing journal New Statesman. He comes in at number 32. (Below a motley crew including Osama Bin Laden, Hugo Chavez, David Cameron, Julian Assange, Barack Obama, and the like). ‘
The originating article:
http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2010/09/climate-mcintyre-keeper
Note the comments – as Delingpole says, if these are the average readers of the New Statesman, we can begin to feel a little optimistic.
Since when is science intimidated by nuance? Maybe if there are too many “nuances” for a short letter, Nature should offer Dr Pielke a larger forum so the “nuances” can be properly explored.
I think there must have been some serious pressure brought to bear to cause them to rescind their offer.