In the post: The tribalistic corruption of peer review – the Chris de Freitas incident Dr. Chris de Freitas has left a response. Rather than argue his own position. Dr. de Freitas lets the director of the publication Climate Research speak for him in a letter sent in 2003 settling the matter.
He writes:
Chris de Freitas Submitted on 2011/11/28 at 10:58 am
Hello All
See copied email below:
=============================================
Thu, 3 July 2003 12:42:48 +0200
To CLIMATE RESEARCH
Editors and Review Editors
Dear colleagues,
In my 20.06. email to you I stated, among other things, that I would
ask CR editor Chris de Freitas to present to me copies of the
reviewers’ evaluations for the 2 Soon et al. papers.
I have received and studied the material requested.
Conclusions:
1) The reviewers consulted (4 for each ms) by the editor presented
detailed, critical and helpful evaluations
2) The editor properly analyzed the evaluations and requested
appropriate revisions.
3) The authors revised their manuscripts accordingly.
Summary:
Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor.
Best wishes,
Otto Kinne
Director, Inter-Research
————————————————-
Inter-Research, Science Publisher
Ecology Institute
Nordbuente 23,
D-21385 Oldendorf/Luhe,
Germany
Tel: (+49) (4132) 7127 Email: ir@int-res.com
Fax: (+49) (4132) 8883 http://www.int-res.com
======================================================
The Team should be ashamed. Dr. Phil Jones and Dr. Tom Wigley should resign, in my opinion because rather than argue the science, they formed a tribe, and used the collective influence of the tribe to smear the reputation of the editor, de Freitas.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wonder what the Team has been saying about Otto Kinne, though?
Damn right!
A nice, understated response to the critics which depending on your country of origin, is the equivelant to the raising of one or two digits in their general direction.
It’s nice to see that peer review does not allways fold to peer pressure!
I wonder if prisons have climate science departments…. they may be getting an influx of inmates shortly. The humour possibilities are limitless but less than the grief caused by said individuals.
OOPS, Meant:
Tierney says:
November 28, 2011 at 11:35 am
Look at 5321.txt and see for yourself.
Last sentence: “…tribe to smear the reputation of the editor, de Frietas.” Please correct in “de Freitas”.
REPLY: Fixed thanks, A
crosspatch says:
November 28, 2011 at 11:42 am
Look at 5321.txt and see for yourself.
yeah. A “de Freitas clone.” Nice. This is in keeping with their M.O. I doubt this letter from Kinne that de Freitas released will shame them very much.
Goodness, it does seem as though a lawsuit smackdown of the perpetrators is in order, ESPECIALLY after this letter is in hand. Present this letter and the climategate emails to the jury. Simply forcing the hockey team to attempt to defend the indefensible in a public forum would be worth the cost of admission. How do you defend an obvious conspiracy to smear the character of somebody, apply pressure to them to alter the way they are doing their job, and try to get them fired all for publishing a paper after a fair review process that disagrees with you?
rgb
Somethimes I kind of feel sorrow for them. Sort of, the same feeling you get when you see a small child crying when plaing in a sandbox, getting sand in its eyes.
Then, suddenly I remember some of the consequences of what they have done, and the feeling sort of disappear.
Their gut reaction, I think, and by that I mean the reaction of The Cause, would be one of naturally coming to the conclusion that if you disagree with them, that is in and of itself evidence that you aren’t a climate scientist and shouldn’t write papers on the subject because the act of disagreeing makes you “fundamentally dishonest” (according to Mann). It is very handy. The act if disagreeing automatically disqualifies your opinion!
crosspatch says:
November 28, 2011 at 11:42 am
“Look at 5321.txt and see for yourself.”
Excerpts:
Mike Mann ueber Otto Kinne:
Michael E. Mann wrote:
Thanks Mike
It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous,
At 07:51 04/07/03 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
Mike (Mann),
I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone.
I (DirkH) find this absolutely wonderful; I will from now on refer to Mike Mann as “this ‘Mann’ character”; and to Wigley as “a ‘Mann’ clone”…
Try these for starters
105794165
0255
105794482
106000234
1457
1695
Just put Otto Kinne in the search box at
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=8693
which gets 17 results of which these are a few.
Mann is a real nasty piece of work ain’t he? It shines forth like ‘darkness visible’. Ugh.
‘> Dear All,
>REDACTEDFinally back in the UK after Asheville and IUGG. Attached is an
> editorial from the
> latest issue of climate research. I can only seem to save it this way.
> Seems like we are
> now the bad guys.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> At 07:51 04/07/03 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote:
> >Mike (Mann),
> >I agree that Kinne seems like he could be a deFreitas clone. However, what
> >would be our legal position if we were to openly and extensively tell
> >people to avoid the journal?
> >Tom.
> >__________________________________
> >
> >Michael E. Mann wrote:
> >>Thanks Mike
> >>It seems to me that this “Kinne” character’s words are disingenuous, and
> >>he probably supports what De Freitas is trying to do. It seems clear we
> >>have to go above him.
> >>I think that the community should, as Mike H has previously suggested in
> >>this eventuality, terminate its involvement with this journal at all
> >>levels–reviewing, editing, and submitting, and leave it to wither way
> >>into oblivion and disrepute,
> >>Thanks,
> >>mike
Ten thousand jet-setters going to Durban
make more CO2 in two weeks than poor millions do in a year,
but Big Media ignores it.
Biofuel causes starvation in the Third World,
but Big Media ignores it.
American windmills kill thousands of birds
(and maintenance workers too),
but Big Media ignores it.
Britain’s Green-stoked fuel-poverty kills the vulnerable,
but Big Media ignores it.
When the Team’s chicanery is uncovered,
Big Media tries to ignore it,
but the Internet and Fox News don’t.
Can we please vote this crud out next November?
Let Big Media try to ignore that.
“…Summary:….Chris de Freitas has done a good and correct job as editor….”
That’s what he’s being accused of! He has let down The Cause by doing a correct job. Didn’t he know he was supposed to do a biased job…?
crosspatch says: November 28, 2011 at 12:08 pm: Their gut reaction, I think, and by that I mean the reaction of The Cause, would be one of naturally coming to the conclusion that if you disagree with them, that is in and of itself evidence that you aren’t a climate scientist and shouldn’t write papers on the subject because the act of disagreeing makes you “fundamentally dishonest” (according to Mann). […]
Yes, that’s a psychological warfare technique (well, propaganda): redefine the terms, create a new reality, trash your opponent with it. As in, for instance, “the people” means “the party’s secretariat”, and an ennemy of the people gets new meaning. It’s not even lying, it’s an entire alternate reality. After a few months everybody playing your game uses that frame of reference, and who doesn’t is a lackey of Big Something or whatever the chosen term is.
For instance, if it’s unknown to The Team, it’s an improper referee panel. If its against The Team’s propaganda, it’s not science and it has been long debunked. If a journal publishes the wrong paper, it’s not peer-reviewed literature and shouldn’t be quoted. And so on.
Oops. Instead of “alternate reality” please read “alternate description of reality”.
Sallie Baliunas on weather cooking.
I’ve been wondering about why such fervent tribalism would emerge in climate science, and the obvious answer is the Climate Ca$h. NCAR, GISS, Academia don’t want any “non-believers” trying to siphon off any of their Climate Ca$h, particularly for projects which attempt to reduce the impact of their work.
It’s long past time to turn off the government money spigot for climate science. Let the climate scientists fend for themselves in the private and non-profit sectors…
If this lot is ever up in court of law that will be a good day, for to see them totally lost without pal review or back starching and having to deal with real questions [snip over the top]
Well, there is a lot more than just grants to institutions for the research. The research gets fed into bodies such as IPCC and then policy recommendations flow out of UNFCC to the various governments. So then people like the EPA in the US produce regulations at the federal level and also state groups such as CARB in California produce their own regulation. These often force money into “Green” concerns causing a diversion of billions of dollars into industries that would not find that cash flow if they had to compete only on the merit of their product. Often these industries are headed by political cronies and collect huge amounts of taxpayer money.
The scale of the corruption is boggling. It is all one giant international fleecing of the world’s public and at great cost at a time when we really don’t have the money to waste on stuff like this.
The wikipedia entry on this affair needs a lot of editing! It is still quite libelous.
RobertInAz says:
November 28, 2011 at 1:02 pm
Hey, I think I like Sallie!
Enough is enough with these Global Warming faux scientists, their abuse of their positions and standing, and their arrogant stone walling and cover ups.
Given the Billions of Taxpayer dollars wasted on Global Warming fraud committed by these faux scientists and their politicking, it is time for law enforcement agencies in each faux scientists’ respective countries to bring the stated in for questioning. Along with serving warrants on each faux scientists’ employer for the immediate release of all their documents, data, and work.
After those investigations have taken place, the appropriate faux scientists must be arrested and charged with fraudulent use of government funds, along with any other applicable charges. In a few faux scientists’ cases they should be charged with sedition against their respective countries for attempting (for personal reasons or profit) to institute external political control over their countries by a Global governing group.
Next up, should be the political figures who were involved in the Global Warming fraud. Followed by the media outlets that assisted in selling the public on the fraud.
Summary: It is time for heads to roll.