Lindzen-Choi ‘Special Treatment’: Is Peer Review Biased Against Nonalarmist Climate Science?
by Chip Knappenberger
[Editor’s note: The following material was supplied to us by Dr. Richard Lindzen as an example of how research that counters climate-change alarm receives special treatment in the scientific publication process as compared with results that reinforce the consensus view. In this case, Lindzen’s submission to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences was subjected to unusual procedures and eventually rejected (in a rare move), only to be accepted for publication in the Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.
I, too, have firsthand knowledge about receiving special treatment. Ross McKitrick has documented similar experiences, as have John Christy and David Douglass and Roy Spencer, and I am sure others. The unfortunate side-effect of this differential treatment is that a self-generating consensus slows the forward progress of scientific knowledge—a situation well-described by Thomas Kuhn is his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. –Chip Knappenberger]
From Dr. Lindzen…
The following is the reproduction of the email exchanges involved in the contribution of our paper (Lindzen and Choi, “On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications”) to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The editor of the PNAS follows the procedure of having his assistant, May Piotrowski, communicate his letters as pdf attachments.
full story here
KR asserts that LC2011 does not address criticisms of LC09. This is incorrect, it does not do so to his satisfaction. Whether that means they did not adequately deal with the matter is a completely different question.
He also appears to be reading a different version of the paper (which he found on a random blog) instead of the one which was shown accepted at APJAS:
http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Lindzen_Choi_APJAS_final.pdf
All his criticisms are actually mentioned. Whether the answers are adequate or not, they give them. But to say they ignored the criticisms is just incorrect.
Smokey – Actually, Argument from Authority also occurs any time you assert that a statement is true because it came from an authority, without judging the actual merits of that statement. The fallacy there is in failing to actually evaluate the argument on it’s strengths.
Einstein stated “Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the “old one.” I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.” No greater authority in physics existed at the time. Yet he was incorrect; quantum mechanics is a provably better description of the world around us than anything Einstein could formulate.
Trust, but verify.
timetochooseagain – Thank you for the link to the published paper; I’ll take a close look at it.
Now that we have the actual paper to review (thanks TimeToChooseAgain), this can perhaps be a more productive discussion. In my mind, there will be two interesting things to watch. First of course is discussion of the paper’s content. The second is the level of certitude, proof and evidence that warmists will demand of this paper, which they do not demand of papers that support their viewpoint.
It will be enlightening to go back and dig up all the defensive responses to skeptical criticism of past ‘team’ papers. I seem to recall vast indignation at the apparent “extreme” degree of certitude and supporting data being demanded by skeptics. Many claimed that skeptics were simply being unreasonable by holding warmist papers to a ludicrous standard of unattainable perfection before accepting any of the warmist conclusions as valid or even directionally informative.
I suspect we are about to see the same situation unfold in reverse with the warmists attempting to hold Lindzen to a ludicrous standard that they themselves strenuously objected to. The interesting thing about all this is that Lindzen has shown exemplary scientific conduct by accepting criticism, plainly admitting error and openly working to advance scientific understanding. Compare this to the team’s tortuous gyrations to avoid actually admitting even the most blatantly egregious, obvious errors in their papers, much less actually correcting them to advance the interests of science.
That fundamental difference in behavior is one of the things that triggered the questions in my mind that eventually led me to change from an ardent CAGW believer into a skeptic. Even if a substantial error is found in Lindzen’s latest, I have no doubt he will graciously admit it, openly correct it and republish. The Team? Not so much (in fact, not at all – ever). The fact that skeptics like Spencer will openly criticize skeptical papers like Lindzen 2009 is another reason why the skeptics grow more credible than the alarmists every day.
I do not see a problem with two people coming to disagreeing conclusions: “Lin more directly assesses climate sensitivity from TOA measures, and strongly disagrees with Lindzen.” I do see a problem saying that Lindzen is wrong because Lin is a better person. Perhaps we should look at the methods of both, reproduce and compare.
KR, your argument about starting times and cherry picking applies to both sides of the argument. Are you saying that we have experienced terrible cherry picking and pal review issues with the warmist papers, and by gum there will not be any more of that, starting with the skeptical papers? I did not detect anything so far in what you wrote that applies your standards to the works of the warmists. Replying that we are not talking about warmist papers is not acceptable to me. You write as if Lindzen has failed to meet some standard that applies to warmist papers appearing in high profile journals. Perhaps you can comment on why MBH98 has not been withdrawn because it is, I believe, the most discredited scientific paper in recent history. And that includes the recent measles-autism mess. I want to know whether or not you are applying a double standard.
Your second comment I accept and it raised in me an interesting thought which I will share. You are quite clear about how the work should contain enough to reproduce the results. Quite so. Surely you are aware of the extreme lengths some skeptical writers have gone to to obtain the underlying works which were not provided but which generated some of the most well known alarmist papers? Are you an equally loud advocate of rejection of warmist papers that do not provide the methods or codes used to generate these amazing and so far incorrect projections, conclusions, warnings and generally catastrophist writings? Do you agree with the contention that Michael Mann should ‘show his work’?
To me, it seems you are trying to hold some authors to a standard much higher than that applied throughout climate science heretofore, particularly by Nature and Science. Some of the junk they print is embarassing to read it is so flawed. Some articles are reminiscent of New Scientist editorial ruminations, not real science.
The argument about appeals to authority is a waste of our time on this blog. It is well known that the immediate response to nearly every single skeptical statement is that “there are thousands of scientists who disagree with that notion…” said without a hint of addressing the issues raised by the skeptic nor awareness that it is no more than an appeal to authority. It is standard amateur warmist fare. It is all most people know, actually, about the climate: they believe that lots of other people believe that CO2 dominates the global temperature control.
That is what one of my neighbours believes. He has it on good authority. Climate science is in urgent need of a moral reboot.
Smokey says:
June 9, 2011 at 8:18 pm
… It is only a logical fallacy when the authority cited is not an authority on the specific subject. In this case, Prof Lindzen is certainly much more of an authority on the subject than his detractors. Thus, there exists no logical fallacy. Prof Lindzen’s papers go back to 1965 – well before the “carbon” scare, therefore Lindzen is a legitimate authority. If John B has a problem with that, he should fill out this form and submit it. …
Smokey,
I have to point out that the grounds for classifying an argument as an “authority” fallacy really have nothing to do with the legitimacy of an authority. The fallacy lies in assuming the authority’s statement has additional value because of the reputation of the of the individual. Even though an individual may be an acknowledged “authority” in a field, that does not in fact offer any grounds for assuming any additional credibility to anything that person says, even if it is in regard to his field of expertise. Any authority can be wrong, so the test of a statement is never who uttered it, but rather is always it’s substantive content.
Unhappily, when you look at climate science, the situation is confounded by the fact that no current theories appear to be adequate to the task of explaining climate. In any case battling authorities are about as informative as a couple drunks arguing in an alley: a lot of incoherent yelling, staggering rushes at each other, and an occasional lucky jab. Nature is the test of theory as Bacon said.
Interesting. Find for KR on this page gives 62 matches.
Be nice if everyone could be nice to each other and just assess each other’s work on scientific merit’s but then the grants might stop.
I think people that have a paper that goes against the orthodoxy must realise they are saying that the Politicians, climate scientist’s and UN are wrong and I don’t think this group of people will ever admit that, there’s far to much power they would be giving up.
L&C stands or fails on it’s own merits, regardless of “authority”. This one fails as science, and Lindzen’s complaints linked above do not change that.
KR, I would agree with you on this.
However, have you taken into account space limitation imposed by PNAS when you say the paper has weaknesses?
@KR
Your “argument from authority” position doesn’t apply here. From the observer’s viewpoint he must make a judgement on the debate thus:
Lindzen vs KR
Lindzen a known expert in his field who therefore can be relied upon to be reasonably honest in his public statements, otherwise he risks being exposed as a charlatan and ending his career.
KR is an anonymous contributor to a blog with unknown bias and motives and his comment that he has read all Lindzen’s papers may be a complete falsehood.
From this perspective the observer is perfectly entitled to conclude that he should put his faith in the named expert rather than an anonymous contributor. Thus the protest that this is an “argument from authority” doesn’t really apply here, since there is no reasonable challenge to this authority given by KR.
KR
Is an authority with special powers.
He can walk on water – if it’s ice.
However he astounded a gobsmacked audience at JONOVA recently when he said he had a device that could make heat travel spontaneously from a colder to a hotter surface.
Now that’s the kind of article that would be welcomed by any IPCC inclined journal.
Duster,
The ‘argument from authority’ discussion is a red herring intended to re-frame the argument. The fact is that Mann and his clique have gamed the climate peer review system. Since Climategate there is no disputing that fact.
Who first brought up the misdirection of the ‘authority’ argument? Everyone refers to authorities, that’s what peer review is all about: authority. That’s what professional degrees are all about: authority. KR has attempted to undercut an internationally esteemed Climatologist simply because KR is a climate alarmist, and he has made the issue political rather than scientific. KR never responded to my deconstruction of the IPCC’s debunked claim of 3°C per 2xCO2, which I falsified with observational evidence. Best to ignore pesky reality and MoveOn, eh?
That empirical observation blows the whole alarmist conjecture out of the water, so naturally it went unanswered by KR, in the hope that it will be forgotten. The planet is falsifying the alarmist position, because the alarmist conjecture is based entirely upon computer models, not on real world observations. Since the GCMs have been debunked, the alarmist crowd is reduced to nitpicking logical fallacies. They’re not making any headway there, either, but their misdirection takes the heat off of the inconvenient fact that the planet itself is falsifying their failed CO2=CAGW conjecture.
John B says: “Whether Mann et al get easy rides and miss details in their papers is beside the point. ”
Not really. Read what Crispin in Waterloo says above, it is on point. When/if MBH98 is withdrawn, the climate alarmist crowd can start to repair their lost credibility.
KR:”Multiple critiques over 10 years of major points of this work, and the majority are not only not addressed, but not even acknowledged?! ”
So what? It’s very possible Lindzen finds those “critiques” to be nonsense. If that is the case why would he address them? Just because YOU bow to the AGW altar does not make it fact.
Almost all of KR’s comments are of this form … the people I BELIEVE IN disagree with Lindzen so he must be wrong. Nothing but a disguised argument from (his own) authority.
In addition, we see KR is a believer of the “heat in the pipline”. He throws out “ocean lag” as a heat storage mechanism with nothing to support it. Pure nonsense.
KR says:
June 9, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences impact factor: 9.432
Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences impact factor: 0.355
For comparison:
Energy and Environment impact factor: 0.42, less than one citation every four years.
My impression is that Lindzen and Choi shopped the article out to a journal needy enough to publish it despite it’s flaws.
====================
Isn’t this an “argument from authority”?
It’s pretty obvious why the team did not want this paper published. It makes it difficult to keep the high sensitivity numbers they have always accepted. Once the high sensitivity goes away, so does the alarm. Big problem for the team.
The “peers” have written thousands of papers proving the moon is made out of cheese…
….thousands of other people have based their science on the moon/cheese
They believe their science is settled, and any other science is just wrong
Someone else writes a paper that the moon is made out of rock…..
Right off the bat, that paper is wrong…..
and anyone that expects it to be peer/pal reviewed is a moron
“Isn’t this an “argument from authority”?”
Yes it is. That is the point. Using an argument from authority to claim someone else has no right to argue from authority is specious, to say the least. Like sarcasm, it is the refuge of the desperate. Appeals to authority are one step above sarcasm. You will note in the exchanges above that both are used to defend the blocking of Lindzen’s paper. The review process has become a gate-keeping exercise, instead of a review to see that all the necessary data and methods are provided, and that the math is correct. “Review” has become a new animal: sort of elevating each reviewer to the status of an opinionated editor. A good, professional scientist reviewer does not have to agree with a paper’s content. This is not news, just pointing it out,
It is important to note that KR’s argument against appeals to authority hinges on an appeal to a different authority. It is not a rebuttal in the sense of proving an alternative case. When reading warmist responses, keep your eye on the ball. Distraction is a major ingredient of AGW argumentation. Always analyse the argument structure as was done above by several contributors. It was a productive and instructive exercise for those who have not studied Argument and Reason. Nothing wrong with a little daily learning at WUWT! It is such a refreshing site at which to hang. Note my predeliction to avoid the use of redundant direction (‘out’) with my closing verb.
And yet the sun shines….
KR says:
June 9, 2011 at 7:40 pm
Son, you are really full of yourself. No one, including you, should give a darn what you think about the quality of Lindzen’s paper, the one under discussion here. The quality of the paper is not the topic. The topic is whether the journal that rejected the paper showed bias in their choice of reviewers, gave evidence for the reality of Pal Review (review by The Team), and showed bias in turning down Lindzen’s request for a different reviewer. You have not addressed any one of these points. You keep changing the subject to your remarkably poorly stated and weak opinions on the quality of the paper. In proof of this point, you note just above in this forum that only today have you received a copy of the paper. Son, you do not criticize or analyze another’s arguments without referring to his exact words. That is an inviolable rule of scholarship. You should learn it. Now, will you address the topic of bias? If not, you have resigned from this debate.
KR says:
June 9, 2011 at 7:40 pm
“Perhaps a “cabal” of establishment reviewers exists, sitting in back rooms and shooting down dissent – I consider that a very improbable scenario, quite frankly. But this paper just does not address issues that have been pointed out repeatedly. It’s a bad paper, and should not have been published in the form I last saw.”
Perhaps? The Climategate emails established the fact beyond the shadow of a doubt. You should read them.
‘“Cabal” or not, there’s plenty of reason for this paper to have been rejected. Enemy action is not required if you shoot yourself in the foot.’
Your opinions about the quality of the paper are irrelevant to this debate. Let me use an analogy. When we investigate to determine whether a painting is a forgery, the quality of the painting is irrelevant. When we are investigating to determine whether the journal’s review process involves collusion, the quality of the paper that was reviewed is irrelevant. The factors that are relevant are the selection process for reviewers, the appeal process for authors, and similar matters. Please pay attention. So far, you have not. So far, you have performed as an excellent troll but you have accomplished nothing to further understanding of the issues at hand.
Theo Goodwin – I’m reading through the APJAS version of the paper now, and will I comment when I’ve finished. My initial comments were (as I stated) based upon the early version and the reviewers comments, which to the best of my reading reflected the content presented in that pre-print.
The quality of LC11 is absolutely of primary importance here. Lindzen insists he was rejected due to bias, but the initial paper has (in my opinion, but far more importantly in the opinions of the reviewers) severe faults as science. I can see why it was rejected on those reasons alone – as I stated earlier, enemy action is not required if you shoot yourself in the foot.
Again, if the paper failed as objective science (as per the reviews), bias complaints are not only irrelevant, but come across as sour grapes.
The APJAS version has a lot more detail, and there are elements there that apparently were not present in the PNAS version (does anyone have a link to a copy of that?), judging from the PNAS reviewers comments. Perhaps this was due to space limitations or other issues?
—
There’s been a lot of discussion of “Argument by Authority”, which I mentioned earlier. This was based on the statements by multiple people along the lines of “Lindzen is a highly respected guy – who are you, and why should we think you’re right or even listen?” In other words, you’ll take Lindzen’s arguments based upon his authority (rather than the content of his arguments), but not mine, because I lack such authority? Well, then, that’s an “Argument by Authority”.
It doesn’t matter who says “But, the Emperor has no clothes!” if indeed the Emperor is lacking in that regard.
KR says:
June 10, 2011 at 9:47 am
“Theo Goodwin – I’m reading through the APJAS version of the paper now, and will I comment when I’ve finished. My initial comments were (as I stated) based upon the early version and the reviewers comments, which to the best of my reading reflected the content presented in that pre-print.”
“The quality of LC11 is absolutely of primary importance here. Lindzen insists he was rejected due to bias, but the initial paper has (in my opinion, but far more importantly in the opinions of the reviewers) severe faults as science. I can see why it was rejected on those reasons alone – as I stated earlier, enemy action is not required if you shoot yourself in the foot.”
Stop Begging the Question. The Reviewers judgment is in question. You cannot logically appeal to the Reviewers’ judgment in your arguments. But a practical point is more important. If we discuss the quality of the paper here, are we supposed to take your opinions as worthy of merit? I think you are assuming that. I have seen nothing from you except the art of an accomplished troll. You have not stated on thing about the content of the amorphous material that you have falsely called “the paper” that is worthy of rebuttal.
“Again, if the paper failed as objective science (as per the reviews), bias complaints are not only irrelevant, but come across as sour grapes.”
You are assuming that the Review and Editorial processes are beyond question. How many times do I have to tell you that they have been called into question? Our topic is journal process, not the content of Lindzen’s paper. You are assuming that the journal that published the paper cannot be taken seriously. You are assuming that those
Reviewers and Editors are not competent at their tasks. How offensive do you want to be?
“The APJAS version has a lot more detail, and there are elements there that apparently were not present in the PNAS version (does anyone have a link to a copy of that?), judging from the PNAS reviewers comments. Perhaps this was due to space limitations or other issues?”
So, I guess you want a Hillary Clinton Reset Button?
KR,
You are coming across as completely blinkered partisan. All your peripheral issues are simply a devious attempt to nitpick what is happening: the “Team” is working behind the scenes to scuttle Lindzen’s submission.
Prof Richard Lindzen has had literally hundreds of papers published over the past 45 years [scroll down]. He knows exactly what is required to get a paper published in journals. And he knows when he is being ambushed.
Your armchair cirtique means absolutely nothing. That is the job of other scientists, who will read the paper and comment following publication.
Lindzen’s paper is being denied publication – while Michael Mann always gets his obviously faulty papers hand-waved through pal review with no problem. MBH98, MBH99 and Mann08 should have been retracted by now, but Mann’s pet journals wouldn’t dare. If they did the right thing, the entire CAGW story would implode. Instead, they play games with Lindzen, who has forgotten more climatology than Michael Mann ever learned.
Run along now to RealClimatePropaganda or Skeptical Pseudo-Science where you belong, they welcome naive true believers with open arms, and no scientific method is ever required.
KR says:
June 10, 2011 at 9:47 am
“The quality of LC11 is absolutely of primary importance here. Lindzen insists he was rejected due to bias, but the initial paper has (in my opinion, but far more importantly in the opinions of the reviewers) severe faults as science. I can see why it was rejected on those reasons alone – as I stated earlier, enemy action is not required if you shoot yourself in the foot.”
Son, this remark embodies the problems with your comments. All you do is express your opinion. You give no reason for holding the opinion you express. I repeat: you are full of yourself. I gave you an analogical argument to the effect that the quality of the paper is not our topic. You simply ignored it. Among polite scholars, that is not acceptable. Will you address my analogy or not? If not, why not?
KR says:
June 10, 2011 at 9:47 am
“There’s been a lot of discussion of “Argument by Authority”, which I mentioned earlier. ”
So KR, are you going to admit your earlier comment about “impact factor” is a “Argument by Authority”, or is there a difference between “argument from authority” and “Argument by Authority”?
I don’t see how using capital letters makes any difference.
Theo Goodwin, Smokey – “You give no reason for holding the opinion you express”, “Your armchair cirtique means absolutely nothing.”
Actually, I have given my reasons for holding these opinions. Many of my reasons, based upon my reading, match those in critiques of earlier versions of this work, which have been referred to earlier in the thread, as well as very clearly listed by the PNAS reviewers. The reviewers comments are quite consistent in noting that LC11 as submitted to PNAS did not address the criticisms of the earlier work.
Science is an ongoing discussion. LC09 was roundly criticized by multiple authors, who presented clear descriptions of what their issues were (extreme sensitivity to starting dates, no accounting for extratropical heat transport, extrapolating tropical data when global data was available and gave different results, etc.). LC11 appears to be a repeat of the arguments made in LC09 – but if it doesn’t address (adequately or even at all in some cases) the criticisms, it’s just not saying anything new.
The quality of the paper is absolutely part of the discussion. Lindzen claims it was shot down because of bias, not quality, but if it was indeed shot down because of basic quality, his claim is unfounded. Bad papers should be rejected, and I find it curious that they didn’t follow the recommendations of (for example) Reviewer #4, who gave several suggestions as to what it should contain to be an excellent paper.
Was it bias? Or was it quality? Lindzen claims bias. The pre-print demonstrates quality issues, as the major objections to earlier work were not even addressed, and all the PNAS reviewers comments indicated that lack as well.
How can you possibly call the quality off topic, Theo, when that quality is an essential part of Lindzen’s claims regarding bias? Your statements seen quite disingenuous to me.