From New Zealand Climate Change, this goes beyond “noble cause corruption”. This is outright malicious interference with the scientific process, and it’s damned ugly. I can’t imagine anyone involved in professional science who could stand idly by and not condemn this.
– Anthony
Climategate 2 and Corruption of Peer Review
The post here is a follow-up from my last post on some Climategate 2 emails, which I have tied together into a kind of narrative. Why should you read this? It is very simple. There are plenty of articles, views etc. out there claiming that the climategate 2 emails are being taken out of context. I have also seen Phil Jones has been saying that it is just the normal ‘to and fro’ of normal scientists going about their business etc. etc.
This is most certainly not the case in the emails that follow. There really is no hiding place for the authors, and no ambiguity. The emails will track how annoyance at the publication of a ‘contrary’ article in a journal develops into an attack on the editor, Chris de Freitas, an accomplished scientist. The attack includes a plot to see if they can get him sacked from his job at University of Auckland. Within the story, it is evident exactly what kind of ‘scientists’ the key authors are. The word scientist applied to these people has denigrated the meaning of the word.
Amongst those involved are Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Jim Salinger, Tom Wigley, Barrie Pittock, Mike Hulme + others. In addition Pachauri, the head of the IPCC is copied into many of the emails, meaning that he was fully aware that some of the key scientists in the IPCC were effectively out of control.
The post is very long, but please stick with it. The story unfolds, and is worth the effort if you really want to see what is going on. When quoting the emails, I do so minus annoying symbols such as >>>. Where I am commenting within the email text, I place the text as [this is my comments], and any bold text is my emphasis.
The starting point is email 2683, from 12 April 2003 when there is grumbling about a paper by Soon & Baliunas (S&B) published in the journal Climate Research (abreviated to CR in the emails). There is some discussion of the S&B study, and Mike Hulme discusses the potential of the paper on the thoughts of policymakers with Barrie Pittock:
Yes, this paper has hit the streets here also through the London Sunday Telegraph. Phil Jones and Keith Briffa are pretty annoyed, and there has been correspondence across the Atlantic with Tom Crowley and Ray Bradley. There has been some talk of a formal response but not sure where it has got to. Phil and Keith are really the experts here so I would leave that to them. Your blow by blow account of what they have done prompts me again to consider my position with Climate Research, the journal for whom I remain a review editor. So are people like Tim Carter, Nigel Arnell, Simon Shackley, Rob Wilby and Clare Goodess, colleagues whom I know well and who might also be horrified at this latest piece of primary school science that Chris de Freitas from New Zealand has let through (there are a good number of other examples in recent years and Wolfgang Cramer resigned from Climate Research 4 years ago because of it).
I might well alert these other colleagues to the crap science CR continues to publish because of de Freitas and see whether a collective mass resignation is appropriate. Phil Jones, I believe, is already boycotting reviews for that journal.
The first point to note is their concern is as much about the impact upon policy as it is about the science. This will become important for setting the context for the progressive process in which they eventually seek to destroy the career of the offending editor.We then get a response from Salinger, in response to Pittock’s call for someone to ‘take up the gauntlet’:
Dear Mike, Barrie, Neville et al
Saturday morning here and thanks for all your efforts. I note the reference to Chris de Freitas. Chris writes very voluminously to the NZ media and right wing business community often recycling the arguments of sceptics run overseas, which have been put to bed.
I, personally would support any of these actions you are proposing particularly if CR continues to publish dishonest or biased science. This introduces a new facet to the publication of science and we should maybe have a panel that ‘reviews the editors’. Otherwise we have the development of shonkey editors who then manipulate the editing to get papers with specific views published. Note the
immediacy that the right wing media (probably planned) used the opportunity!
Your views appreciated – but I can certainly provide a dossier on the writings of Chris in the media in New Zealand.
There are several points of note here. First of all, the positioning of de Freitas as being part of a right-wing, and there is even suggestion of a conspiracy. Finally, just to demonstrate that de Freitas is an ‘outsider’, Salinger will produce the evidence. Having a different view, it seems, is condemnation. Pittock then responds to Salinger:
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of ‘Climate Research’ can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr – the charge should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than publishing contrarian views as such. If a paper is contested by referees that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge.
‘Energy and Environment’ is another journal with low standards for sceptics, but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of stirring different points of view – the real test for both journals may be whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously with the sceptics’ papers so that readers are not deceived.
On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with. I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a reviewer.
Here we have our first indications that de Freitas may be about to face problems.
Excerpts:
People with bona fide scientific background should not review articles, as they might actually accept them for publication.
…
… is it not partially the responsibility of climate science to make sure only satisfactorily [agreeing with their views] peer-reviewed science appears in scientific publications?
…
We Australasians (including Tom as an ex pat) have suggested some courses of action. Over to you now in the north to assess the success of your initiatives, the various discussions and suggestions and arrive on a path ahead. I am happy to be part of it.
Again, good science is the science that agrees with their own views. Bad science is to take an opposing view. ‘Purity of science’ is taken to mean ‘agreeing with my views’. Again, this is disturbing, but more disturbing is the moral righteousness that leads towards the comment that Salinger is happy to be part of it.
…
Also assessing copyright as the ‘other’ Soon/Baliunas paper in Energy and Env. is essentially the same as that in CR. Hans wanted to try this first, but didn’t want to tell all what he was doing. Fears a backlash if de Freitas gets removed without due cause. So let’s all try and keep the emails down, and hope we can report something to all once the correspondence Hans initiates gets replies.
Here, they are trying to get de Freitas through other means, which is copyright violation.
…
This is all very tragic. I will, if I have time, try to finish the story, or others may want to take it forwards if they have the time or inclination. What I do know is that this particular case appears to be one of the most clear and damning I have yet seen with regards to the ‘team’ seeking to stifle debate, and ultimately destroy the scientific process. It is just all the more shocking for the tribalistic hounding of Chris de Freitas.
Read the full article here.
If you would like to see the next section of the story, it can be found here. It is even more damning, an excerpt:
email 4808.
Phil Jones is following up on the email of Mann, in which he proposes writing a letter to the other editors of Climate Resarch, asking for the editors to resign in protest at de Freitas being an editor.
Did anything ever come of this? [the email to the CR editors]
Clare Goodness was in touch w/ me indicating that she had discussed the matter w/ Von Storch, and that DeFrietas would be relieved of his position. However, I haven’t heard anything. A large segment of the community I’ve been in contact with feels that this event has already done its damage, allowing Baliunas and colleagues to attempt to impact U.S. governmental policy, w/ this new weapon in hand–the appearance of a legitimate peer-reviewed document challenging some core assertions of IPCC to wave in congress. They appear to be making some headway in using this to influence U.S. policy, which makes our original discussions all the more pressing now.
In this context, it seems important that either Clare and Von Storch take imminent action on this, or else actions of the sort you had mentioned below should perhaps be strongly considered again. Non-action or slow action here could be extremely damaging.I’ll forward you some emails which will indicate the damage that the publication has already caused.
Thanks very much for all your help w/ this to date, and for anything additional you may be able to do in this regard to move this forward.
UPDATE: Dr. Chris de Freitas has responded here, well worth a read.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Joel Shore says:
November 27, 2011 at 7:12 pm
==========================
Evidence of extreme cognitive dissonance.
Joel Shore — “Are you suggesting that there ought to be some sort of “affirmative action” (in the most extreme sense of this word) for such papers … Or, do you think that there should essentially be no peer review at all and all things, no matter how bad, be allowed to appear in the journal?”
Joel Shore, you are, in the above post, degenerating from some one educated and honest, to a troll with this inane comment. Gail made a simple point, only someone blind with prejudice could build or credit your strawman as she never remotely said anything like your piss poor represention.
Her point was that when scientific journals publish papers which other scientist think are poor science, the dispute is best conducted IN THE OPEN by showing why the science is bad, as in M&Ms sucessful destruction of the original hockeystick. In this way the bad science is laid to waste OUT IN THE OPEN, wheras if subterfuge and backdoor methods to discredit a person are conducted, then the percieved bad science continues to thrive, as only a person was defeated, and not a scientific perspective.
Yet CAGW fanatics continue to make such comments, unaware of how their obvious show of unreasoned emotion and bias is pushing people away from them as much as the reasoned arguments of sceptics is pulling unbiased researchers to a sceptical pov. The best bet of fanatics would be to never comment here as many of their comments, like their hidden emails, are counterproductive to their objective.
These are the exact same tactics that evolutionary biologists and paleontologists have been using against any scientist who doesn’t make the proper obeisance to the godless narrative of mud-to-man evolution. The climate change worshippers are cut from the same cloth and use the same playbook.
This stopped being about science a long time ago. This is simply the latest front in the culture wars. The zealots on the hockey team know this and they also know all’s fair in love and war. They see nothing wrong with anything they’ve done. Zealots are like that.
Hey REP – where’s that equal treatment for all you were talking about? Joel Shore is the object of a lot of ad hominem abuse in this thread. Do your duty or be found guilty of saying one thing and doing another. I don’t like a hypocrite. Fair warning.
Tribalistic?!
‘Tribalism’, i.e. like minded people grouping together, as a rough concept is not a bad thing: not doing bad things, as a group, is hardly bad.
So how is that the MOTIVING PRINCIPLE behind the behavior of the warmists? Mmmm? ‘Tribalism’ merely says they are ‘a group’, which is something everyone pretty much already knew.
Clearly these people are motivated by their liberal humanist ideology: i.e. saving the planet. It is, clearly, their motivating ’cause’. Just as was the case with Stalin and Mao. Just as was the case with the total DDT ban – with its TEN OF MILLIONS of (dead) victims, mostly children.
Calling this ‘tribalism’ is incorrect: it is in fact so very incorrect that it clearly begs a question. The time of granting the presumption of honesty and integrity upon any and all who would lay claim to it is over. And about time too: the missing voices of those dead children cry out against THIS.
Pamela Gray says: “I think they are caught up in their “we are right” blindness and fear of the absolutely necessary search for disproof.”
I’ve kept up with all of the various CG2 releases and so far have seen no EVIDENCE that will bring their towers down. But I do see plenty of evidence of bias – but that’s there for all to see on both sides – and an absence on the AGW side of the enthusiastic transparency, the pursuit of objectivity, and desire for challenge to their hypotheses, that characterise the very best science.
I have to agree with Pamela, and I believe that the cause of the problem is that the field has been overrun by second rate scientists at best. The very best minds on the planet probably can’t do more than guess at the future of Earth’s climate, and they’ll be honest and able enough to recognise that. Average minds, such as those which have coalesced around the IPCC’s products simply aren’t capable of appreciating how complex the problem is imv . . . .
More on the charming Jim Salinger
http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2011/10/one-mans-mission/#more-11719
Will NIWA ever be free of Jim Salinger? What will it take to rid the organisation of his pervasive influence? He was fired long ago for his maverick media mouth, but his spirit never leaves, and the bright ideas of his younger self, not good enough to attract other scientists, still torment NIWA’ management as they strive to defend them. Salinger’s youthful enthusiasm for the then-radical crisis of man-made global warming, hatched by his mates in his old stamping ground at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, has crippled New Zealand with a “scientific” temperature “record” that shows remarkable warming — a feature we now know is entirely reliant on fiction, not on fact. – RT
@crosspatch
There are actually quite a few S. Hemisphere studies which show a MWP. Granted, not nearly as many as in the N. Hemi., but still a fair number. You’re likely already well aware of that and were just under-emphasizing in your statement, but just in case, see: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/
re post by: Joel Shore says: November 27, 2011 at 7:12 pm
I have to say that this post rather appears to be a case of willful misunderstanding on your part, so you can move into logical fallacies of generalization and straw men. That or just a very poor understanding of the peer review process and how science itself progresses.
Peer reviewers are only supposed to evaluate and find any substantial flaws in the application of the scientific method, and pick up trivial items such as typos too of course. They are not supposed to decide if the results and conclusions are “correct” or not based on what they happen to think the ‘right’ answer ‘ought’ to be. A paper is only “bad” if the researcher(s) improperly applied the scientific method or have mathematical/statistical flaws – not because the results happen to be contrary to the general view or preconceptions of the peer reviewer. This means that there will be papers that have contrary research results to whatever the general or more common results in the discipline happens to be. What point would there be in having all papers be basically clones of each other for years on end? Then if other scientists find flaws in the logic or application, or take issue with results or conclusions, they publish commentary or their own research showing how the original work was in error or flawed – or how a different hypothesis fits the data better. This is how science progresses.
The “Team,” however, wants to label papers as “bad” or “flawed” not because of any misapplication of the scientific method or actual flaws, but simply because the work doesn’t happen to agree with their agenda and desired outcome. When they dislike a paper, rather than openly rebutting it scientifically, they delve into these behind the curtains campaigns and conspiracies to try to attack the researcher’s reputation, pressure them out, pressure journals to turn down their papers, etc. That’s NOT how science works – it’s pure agenda driven politics, dirty politics at that.
Frankly, this behavior by at least some of these ‘scientists’ is so egregious that I believe it reaches the level that the universities conferring their diploma’s ought to revoke them for the unethical and unscientific behavior. There ought to be some very serious professional consequences for this sort of underhanded inappropriate skulduggery.
R. Gates says:
November 27, 2011 at 10:25 pm
This is somewhat old news isn’t it? As it all was part of the 2009 Climategate release, and there is a rather long Wikipedia article on this general issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
==================================================
Additional evidence. None these new emails are mentioned in the wiki article. If there was any lingering doubt about the depth of the conspiracy to exert political pressure to get people fired instead of the normal response of scientific refutation there should be less doubt now.
The poltical response by these scientists cum energy policy advocates is just more evidence, like any objective person needs more evidence, that the climate science community has morphed into the energy policy community, or at least has designs on dictating energy policy. Investigators and policy makers shouldn’t be the same group. This is simple separation of powers. This is basically expressed in the negative, proverbial English idiom of one person being “judge, jury, and executioner”. This is diametrically opposed to traditional American political culture and practice. So don’t be surprised when it’s met with passionate resistance by the American electorate who’ve sacrificed an immense amount of blood and treasure over the last 250 years to establish and safeguard our heritage against any and all usurpers.
pat says:
November 27, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Bristow, the writer of the Archant piece, looks [like] it’s this guy:
Tom Bristow, Climate Change University of Edinburgh
http://www.hss.ed.ac.uk/climatechange/people/tom_bristow.htm
click on pic and compare with the Edinburgh Climate Change pic…
Tom Bristow, EDP and Evening News reporter
http://twitter.com/#!/tomsbristow
—- I clicked, compared, and come to the conclusion you are stirring the pot or visually impaired. Totally different people of a completely different age!
Anthony
One point you haven’t addressed is that they also plotted to bring down the publication after Dr de Freitas is exonerated.
Mann says we won’t review we won’t publish there and it will wither on the vine.
Vincent Jappi says: November 27, 2011 at 8:07 pm:
Yeah, right! No result of arithmetic calculation qualifies as a “scientific fact”.
Everybody knows that.
R. Gates says: November 27, 2011 at 10:25 pm This is somewhat old news isn’t it? As it all was part of the 2009 Climategate release, and there is a rather long Wikipedia article on this general issue:
With Connoley or whatsisname and a few others patrolling wikipedia, I certainly wont waste my time reading it. It’s as good as RealClimate. And it’s the reason I stopped contributing.
Hmm, I don’t see much to complain about here in terms of their treatment of these journals. They get somewhat emotional about their messianic belief in AGW but that’s to be expected. Sure it exposes severe confirmational bias because they are not open to opposing views, and obviously this is a religion to them. This we knew. I’m a sceptic and feel this is being overly weighted here – there are other stronger concerns exposed by the emails.
I would point out one thing – Team AGW are obviously all left-wingers, and know each other to be left-wingers. If this was not the case they would hardly start a discussion by dismissing someone as a “right winger”. The politics feeds into the “science” here for sure.
Wow one really gets the feeling now that it is actually going to be the end of AGW quite soon, these email are 100% damming thanks foia
@joel Shore
“…Are you suggesting that there ought to be some sort of “affirmative action” (in the most extreme sense of this word) for such papers … Or, do you think that there should essentially be no peer review at all and all things, no matter how bad, be allowed to appear in the journal?..”
Joel, you really still don’t get it, do you?
Nobody said all skeptical papers should be published. What was said was that such papers “should not be disallowed”.
Of course all papers have to compete for limited journal space. But they should compete on whether they are good or not – NOT on whether they toe the party line or not.
You are deliberately misconstruing what was said for debating purposes. It looks as if you really don’t care about good science….
fobdangerclose says:
November 27, 2011 at 6:10 pm
We need a chart of these frauds.
… Where to start,,, how this lie/fraud came into being via the above enablers. “”
They meet every year at least once. They invite guests, including politicians, and they get their story straight.
They are doing it again soon. I would suspect anyone who goes to that meeting.
fobdangerclose says:
November 27, 2011 at 6:10 pm
We need a chart of these frauds.
Many little connections, some larger connections. Where to start,,, seems there may be some of the failed ice age global freezing ones at the head of this long snake.
Big job but seems it can be done…..
_____________________________________________
It has been done and was posted over at Joann Nova’s site after Climategate 1.0 You can dig it out from there or the guy who created it, who sometimes comments here might give you the link.
pat says: November 27, 2011 at 6:15 pm
Archant Press (UEA-connected Board) weighs in:
27 Nov: Norfolk Eastern Daily Press: Tom Bristow: UEA’s Tyndall Centre rejects Mail on Sunday claims over influencing BBC policy
And a spokesman for the Tyndall Centre said: “We infrequently provide advice to media programmes for effective science communication when requested.
“We promote accurate information on climate change research, and will speak up against attempts to confuse the public with obscure, unsupported, or unbalanced reporting of the available evidence on climate change.
“The Tyndall Centre supports and encourages society to debate its options to manage our future climate. There is overwhelming evidence that the world is warming because of greenhouse gases.”
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/uea_s_tyndall_centre_rejects_mail_on_sunday_claims_over_influencing_bbc_policy_1_1138178
_______________________________________________
OH, I see the fact that you are bias, politically motivated and suppress opposition is proof that you “promote accurate information on climate change research” NOT.
This statement might make it if there was not clear evidence of the political agenda behind the research they consider “accurate” and the fact that the promoters are set to make trillions off the misery of the poor.
#3049
—–Original Message—–
From: Mike Hulme [REDACTEDREDACTED]
Sent: 14 January 2004 10:21
To: Curran, James
Cc: REDACTED
Subject: Re: “Bad Scientists”
James,
Thanks for this. Unfortunately Wogan isn’t the only one! Melanie Phillips in the Daily
Mail (it would be!) wrote an even more vitriolic attack on climate science, and Sir
David King in particular, just this week. And then just last night on Radio4, the
Climate Wars programme drew attention to a controversy that has blown up over the warmth
of the last millennium with powerful USA vested interests. This is one where we have
taken a stand and several senior climate scientists, myself included, have resigned from
the disputed journal.
We will certainly consider your suggestion; how much energy we – Tyndall – puts into
these types of responses is a tricky Q for us; one person could almost be employed
full-time. But it is also an issue I intend to raise at the new climate science-policy
forum DEFRA are convening later in January with Hadley, Tyndall, UKCIP, etc.
Best wishes for the New Year,
Mike
—————————————————————
UKCIP is hosted at the Environmental Change Institute (ECI), University of Oxford.
And paid for by the UK taxpayer
One question, if the Team did send a letter to the UA VC, would it constitute
defamation. In academia, ones personal reputation is quite important and
as a consequence defamatory statements have a larger potential impact than
in other occupations.
Dennis Nikols, Natural Philosopher says:
November 27, 2011 at 6:39 pm
Where did these people get their philosophical and ethical educations from?… They learned from two highly reliable teaching sources in western culture. The great religions and any politician you can find. This behavior raises “the ends justifying the means” to a level even Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli would need to work at conceiving.
These men have violated the one component of the philosophy of science that is necessary for it to even operate. That is Trust. I can accept their work even if they have no honor or shame but I can not, and never will again, accept anything they are involved with for they can not be trusted. Trusted to do what? Trusted to adhere to the most basic principals of science as described by Karl Popper and others.
At the very least this behavior is unethical and immoral, not things science is equipped to deal with…..
What to do? 1. Refuse to read or submit papers to any journal that would use these men as reviewers. 2. Refuse to be a member of any organization that would allow any of them to hold any office.
This kind of thing does great harm to our profession and I am angered, disappointed and hurt by it…..
__________________________________________
I agree that this does great harm to Science.
However the rank and file of the religious esp Christians are taught honesty and to tell the truth. The ten commandments and all that. (This from an atheist BTW) Were religions corrupt at the top and used to control the masses? Of course. As I said Maurice Strong got his idea for NGOs after working for the YMCA.
Where did they get the bone deep mind set that allowed them to be so dishonest??? They got this from the education system.
See:
http://www.ordination.org/dumbing_down.htm
http://www.khouse.org/articles/2001/365/
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message744652/pg1
http://ldolphin.org/humanism.html
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0804/0804textbooks.htm
http://chronicle.com/article/article-content/125329
Drugging the gifted child:
http://borntoexplore.org/gifted.htm
http://www.srmhp.org/0201/adhd.html
http://www.yourspine.com/Chiropractic/Ritalin+May+Cause+Longterm+Brain+Damage.aspx
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37134858/The-Hand-That-Rocked-the-Cradle-Rockefeller-Funding-1920-60
http://www.whale.to/b/ruesch.html
http://www.ritalindeath.com/education/school-violence.htm
With those as pointers you should be able to follow the thread. As usual Money, Power and Control are at the center of the story.
Religion is old news and with the splintering of the Christian churches on top of the First amendment religion got “out of control”. Therefore the churches were muzzled so Education and the News Media could do the brainwashing with no dissenting voice.
“…Prior to 1954, churches and non-profit organizations had no such restrictions on their freedom of speech or their right to speak out in favor or against political issues or candidates.
The history of Johnson’s IRS gag order is instructive…..” http://firebuilders.org/JAmCEC.htm
If you do not believe our civilization is “Guided” from behind the scenes read the well researched article that finally woke me up: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html
and the final nail in the coffin: http://www.whistleblower.org/storage/documents/Shielding_the_Giant_Final_PDF.pdf
This will not be the end of the team or agw hysteria, in the best case it will go away slowly over the next 10 years. As far as I can tell they can get away with anything.
Dodgy Geezer says:
November 28, 2011 at 3:45 am
You wrote:
“Joel, you really still don’t get it, do you?”
“You are deliberately misconstruing what was said for debating purposes. It looks as if you really don’t care about good science….”
Or, he may very well be terrified of what good science says
.