Steve McIntyre comments on Wegman’s work and Deep Climate’s recent dissing of the Said et al paper. It seems there’s a clique of too close for comfort relationships that may have tainted peer review:
Lost in the recent controversy over Said et al 2008 is that the Climategate documents provided conclusive evidence of the hypothesis originally advanced in the Wegman Report about paleoclimate peer review – that reviewers in the Mann “clique” had been “reviewing other members of the same clique”.
I won’t attempt to analyze the plagiarism issues today (I will return to this on another occasion), other than to say that some recent literature on the topic attempts to distinguish between degrees of plagiarism e.g. Bouville, Clarke and Loui.
In addition, contrary to recent false claims by USA Today, Said et al 2008 was not “a federally funded study that condemned scientific support for global warming”. It does not mention global warming nor even climate. Nor is Said et al 2008 a “cornerstone” of criticisms of either Mann or IPCC as Joe Romm falsely claimed. For example, it has never been referred to or discussed at Climate Audit even in comments. (Nor at any other climate blog, to my knowledge.)
…”The Wegman Report was vindicated on its hypothesis about peer-review within the Mann ‘clique’.
‘The Wegman Report hypothesized, but were unable to prove, that reviewers in the Mann ‘clique’ had been ‘reviewing other members of the same clique’. Climategate provided the missing evidence, Climategate documents showed that clique member Phil Jones had reviewed papers by other members of the clique, including some of the articles most in controversy – confirming what the Wegman Report had only hypothesized”
Read it at: Climategate Documents Confirm Wegman’s Hypothesis
An important distinction to keep in mind is that while the Said et al paper has bee retracted (temporarily we hope) this in no way affects the Wegman report to Congress or its conclusions (i.e. it would not automatically cause a retraction of the Congressional report, which operates under a different scenario of rules and public record).
Just a final nail in the coffin of the importance of Said et al. to the overall debate,
I did not include it on my list and I specifically remember looking up Wegman’s work in relation to climate change. I had found Said et al. but was unable to obtain a full copy at the time and the abstract did not seem relevant,
“Social network analysis has proven to be a useful tool in analysis of many situations. We begin by giving an overview of social network analysis. We then illustrate the concepts by examining the social networks of co-authors of scholarly publications. Scholarly publication is in many ways the lifeblood of academic institutions and there are strong incentives, both in terms of prestige and financial compensation, for faculty members to publish. Different disciplines and individuals have evolved distinguishable mechanisms for coping with the publication pressures. We examine the co-authorship networks of a number of prominent scholars. Based on the clustering within the co-author social network, we distinguish several styles of co-authorship including solo models (no co-authors), mentor models, entrepreneurial models, and team models. We conjecture that certain styles of co-authorship lead to the possibility of group-think, reduced creativity, and the possibility of less rigorous reviewing processes.”
Game Over.
James Sexton says:
May 24, 2011 at 2:34 pm
The question is, were the climate scientists in such an incestuous position that their objectivity would have been severely compromised.
=============================================
Nice post James and yes that is the real question. It is not the lack of peer review that troubles me, but the apparent lack of integrity on the approach to the subject. There is little “seek the truth” in climate science and it seems as though those who question the science are pushed aside (at least in the past).
A well published friend of mine once said that some scientists approach publication with an agenda. This to me is the hallmark of climate science.
Some good points raised, but this is no ordinary scientific debate and no ordinary ‘clique’.
These ‘climate scientists’ seem to have a Teflon barrier around them that elevates them in the public eye and a manufactured mainstream level of support that places them to a level of public confidence that they seem to do no wrong. . Writers like Oreskes have been cruising in Australian waters for a while now, locking onto consenting MSM journalists, spreading the ‘correct’ message and elevating this ‘clique’ and smearing critics, their learned opinions and their qualifications.
I don’t think I have come across this phenomenon in my decades on this planet.
Look at the gentle treatment P Jones had in the Climate gate inquiry. These guys are treated as esteemed custodians and interpreters of the data and the establishment bows down to their judgements, in spite of the blatantly obvious abuse of the scientific process laid out for all to see in the Climategate emails.
This is going to be a tough nut to crack, Said et al can throw mud, but it merely slides off, and this clique shines through.
No, you ave very good at changing the subject. Staying on topic you get an F. Notice how I am just contesting your contention, not arguing the point you tried to divert the discussion to. That is staying on topic. Something you apparently have not learned yet.
Funny how your reading other blogs and come across a quotation that seems apt to other discussions.
‘Of course Jane wouldn’t have seen it like that.
In the words of the American Politician and Novelist Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.”‘
http://winstonsmith33.blogspot.com/2011/05/climbing-and-absailing-with-burglars.html
Actually, the journals make no secret of the fact that they want buddy review. This way, only insiders get in. For example, if you submit a paper to Science you are invited to designate as many as five reviewers for your paper. Climatic Change – the one started by Stephen Schneider – requires you to give names and academic qualifications of four reviewers for your paper. Should you want give less than four names because you don’t have connections you will not even be allowed to submit your manuscript. This is what goes for “peer review” today.
For the record, the 2006 Wegman report is footnoted in the “Verified
Petition for Mandamus and Injunctive Relief” filed May 15, 2011,
by the American Tradition Institute with the Prince William County
Circuit Court.
See:
http://www.atinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ATI_v_UVA_FOIA_First_Petition_final_5-15-11.pdf
This led to the current UVa/ATI consent decree for Mike Mann’s
research, e-mails, and other related public documents.
See:
http://www.atinstitute.org/court-orders-university-of-virginia-to/
For those who warmly embrace conspiracy theories (and those
warmists who see “anti-science” conspiracies all over the place):
Please note that the current Virginia Attorney General is listed
among George Mason University’s “Notable Alumni” see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Mason_University