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.
I would like in a spirit of this discussion to ask a question: what would constitute a scientifically and theoretically proven evidence of CAGW? With my pure math background it is sometimes hard to identify the limits of a (climate) physics conjecture. Assuming that climate theory is falsifiable (eventually), what would actually satisfy those of us who agree with ‘skeptical’ ( for lack of a better word) arguments? Please do not take the question the wrong way, just trying to reconcile As and Bs.
“the article J Bowers references is available online by googling for the title. It provides wider context than his cherry picked quote”
Ironic, given what happened last week.
If anyone wants to read von Storch’s side here’s a LINK. Click on ‘editorial’ to see what he was blocked from publishing.
Dr. Chris de Freitas
NICE!
Dennis Nikols says:
November 28, 2011 at 8:11 pm
It is obvious that Jones et al. are being protected by some one with more political and financial clout then they have. I wounder who that might be? I wounder who they managed to buy this loyalty?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How about Dr. Robert T. Watson, who was Chief Scientist and Director, Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development for the World Bank at the same time he was IPCC chair??? The SAME World Bank who in the Danish text, a secret draft agreement, would get effective control of climate change finance. Seems like a great big hint right there.
International Bankers have a big money stake in this. Do not forget they are the ones who LEND countries fiat, created on the spot, money for all those “Green Projects” and the taxpayer pay interest on that funny money with their LABOR.
Without some knowledge of Fractional Reserve Banking practices, Central banks, the World Bank, IMF Structural Adjustment Programs and gold it is tough to see what the actual game plan is.
Fractional Reserve Banking
Fractional reserve banking means Joe Sixpack and Suzy Schoolteacher put $1500 each into the bank for a $3,000 total deposit. With todays three percent reserve requirement that means the bank can produce a $100,000 mortgage by making up the other $97,000 using an accounting entry. Today 97% of the US money supply is bank loans. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/featured/fractional-reserve-banking-part-ii/
Congress does the same thing only when they borrow from the Federal Reserve the entire million is an accounting entry and fiat money is created on the spot. Fiat currency in conjunction with fractional reserve lending allows politicians to buy votes and pay off campaign contributors with the Federal Reserve loans. Tax payers get the double whammy of having to pay interest on hot air AND see their wages dwindle because of inflation. Politicians do not even have to raise taxes if there is a graduated income tax. As the wage for the same work goes from $6,000/yr ===> $60,000/yr the tax rate is automatically raised. A PRIMER ON MONEY: by US House Committee on Banking and Currency
A second mechanism is also in place. The selling off of gold. Tony Blair sold off the UK’s gold at rock bottom prices and then later went to work for J P Morgan Chase. The USA’s gold was sold off long ago but no one outside the Fed knows just what happened and STILL there has been no audit. China on the other hand, being one smart cookie, is grabbing gold as fast as she can. There is a link below that describes why. But the short and sweet of it is to destroy the dollar as the world reserve currency.
What happens if the US dollar loses world reserve currency status? The creation of a “Global Currency” run by the bankers and possible Hyperinflation within the USA leading to “Currency revulsion” by US citizens and the acceptance of a different currency as happens in any country with run away inflation. Right now the USA has a very bad trade balance thanks to the ratification of the World Trade Organization as well as around a 20% unemployment rate.
So why the heck would bankers want to push the EU and the USA into bankruptcy by supporting idiotic carbon legislation?? ~ Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs). With a Structural Adjustment Program the Bankers dictate how a country will be run. It puts THEM not us in charge and bring us another step closer to the ultimate goal of “Gobal Governance”
That is the ONLY reason I can think of for the collusion between Bankers and International Corporations who are actually running this Hoax. They want to get rid of inconvenient National borders, National laws, Sovereignty and the constant bribing of politicians. They want to be completely in charge with out the illusion of democracy except at the local level as a means of keeping the ignorant masses happy.
We can see what is wanted just by looking at the EU. Just ask World Trade Organization Director-General Pascal Lamy: http://theglobaljournal.net/article/view/56/ and http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00047.x/full
The global debt clock: http://www.economist.com/content/global_debt_clock
References:
http://news.investors.com/Article/554439/201011191859/The-Climate-Cash-Cow.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text
http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/03/us-banks-operate-without-reserve.html
http://www.michaeljournal.org/appenE.htm
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/mom.html
http://theinternationalforecaster.com/International_Forecaster_Weekly/The_Fed_Participates_In_The_Destruction_Of_The_Economy
US Debt
http://www.helium.com/items/1858357-why-top-economist-arthur-laffer-predicts-collapse-of-2011-us-economy?page=2
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/19/opinion/kotlikoff-us-debt-crisis/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/markets/dollar/index.htm?iid=RNM
SAPs
http://www.whirledbank.org/development/sap.html
http://www.whirledbank.org/development/gender.html
GOLD
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/wikileaks-discloses-reasons-behind-chinas-shadow-gold-buying-spree
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/gold-standard-never-dies159.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262683/Brown-defied-Bank-warning-6bn-gold-giveaway.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/weber-c1.1.1.html
The team is down right vindictive (another V word for Phil Jones).
Galane says:
November 29, 2011 at 1:40 am
I shake my head in wonder at how Soros and many other ultra-wealthy people can support ideologies….
_________________________________
It is no wonder at all he is a graduate of the London School of Economics started by the Webbs who also started the Fabian Society. George Bernard Shaw was another founding member. Shaw also had a big mouth, therefore we get a glimpse under the sheepskin and see the wolf as depicted on the shield in the stain glass window he designed. The window now hangs at the London School of Economics and was recently installed with due ceremony by Tony Blair.
The Window depicts Sidney Webb and Shaw striking the Earth with hammers to “REMOULD IT NEARER TO THE HEART’S DESIRE,” the motto written at the bottom of the window.
Here are a few quotes from the “Real George Bernard Shaw” http://www.sovereignindependent.com/?p=7948
A lovely person was he not?
@Gail Combs, Margaret Sanger was equally nefarious
RobertInAz,
Thank you for the link to the Baliunas talk on weather cooking. It is the first time I have seen her on video. She is a presence.
Her talk highlights a wealth of parallels to a manipulation of our culture via fear spread consistently by the supernatural advocates of ideological environmentalism.
Is the basis of ideological environmentalism a reformation of the surviving remnant of 20th century totalitarianism? There are some convincing parallels.
Also, any western civilization cultural guilt utilized by the leadership of ideological environmentalism likely has some roots in the original sin of the Judeo-Christian traditions.
That a duped group of core (to the IPCC reports) climate scientists supported the fear, supernaturalism and quilt is pathetic.
John
Ryan says: November 29, 2011 at 3:04 am
Very well said. Thank you.
There is another factor to consider. Those who have least to say tend to shout loudest and quickest. Very often the threads here show little wisdom through all the first remarks. The first reactions to Climategates (hehe have to laugh at that) 1 & 2 were WOW!!!!!! SENSATION!!!!!!!! just as the Team’s reactions have been WOW!!!!!!!!! SENSATION!!!!!!!!!!! (the world is warming and its due to us, dudes, and we discovered it).
We all do this.
It takes time to distil the wisdom and combine that wisdom with targeting, to return the world to sanity. Now me, I’d like to see a wiki organized to help that, but all I can do at present is keep on suggesting it. Still, the idea is continuing to mature, and no doubt will eventually come to pass if Climategates still do not crack the problem.
Gail Coombs says
That is the ONLY reason I can think of for the collusion between Bankers and International Corporations who are actually running this Hoax.
(plus another 50 thousand words)
————————
Gail this hyper convoluted scheme you have come up with means you need to learn about Occam’ Razor. And that it is time to question your basic assumptions. At least that is what you would do if you were a scientist.
I am very glad that Soon & Baliunas is surfacing. I am looking forward to us looking at the whole paper. What I saw way back convinced me that the science was perfectly reasonable and not something to put von Storch’s nose out of joint. Moreover, I think the science is the bit we need – the solar effects.
Meanwhile, here is Emily Oster’s graph, adapted, to support Sally’s point about the persecution of witches correlating the bad weather of the cold times.
FYI, the the two monkish rascals who published Malleus Maleficarum used much the same trick to fool the Pope as did Wahl and Ammann referring to the unpublished Ammann and Wahl (whichever way round it was – the Jesus Paper) to get their tricks fraudulently accepted by IPCC. They put in the place of publication in all copies sold OUTSIDE that place, and claimed papal sanction, which they later forced the Pope to do because (as a result of the fraudulently-sanctioned book) everyone was already baying for the witches’ blood and the Pope had better concur hadn’t he?
Smokey says
The likely cause of the current rise in CO2 was the very warm global Medieval Warm Period [MWP],
———–
It also seems there is a timing issue. The MWP peaked at 1100 AD and plus 800 equals 1900 AD. So that would mean we should be seeing a fall off of CO2 over the last 100 years.
Also the period was only about 200 years. With an ocean time constant of 800 years the response of the system to the transient temperature change would be very small.
As an additional point a Japanese satellite has just produced measured CO2 fluxes. So in principle you should be able to add up all of the over ocean fluxes, average them over the 4 seasons and see if the value is positive or negative. My eyeball of the map says its negative over the great southern ocean and that is the dominant contribution. If my eyeball is correct that means the ocean is absorbing CO2, NOT releasing it.
From LazyTeenager on November 29, 2011 at 12:19 pm:
People are greedy. If we come across a resource, we will consume all of the resource possible (food, water). We seek security, as in we desire easy access to that which prolongs our survival. So we claim ownership and defend (cave, den, water hole, remainder of carcass). We will also seek greater security by “pro-actively defending” ourselves from those who may challenge us for resources (chasing off and often killing wolves, lions, humans, other predators).
When we do share, it is with family, our pack, those who act to prolong our own survival which may include genetic survival. But sharing is only done after our own needs are satisfied unless there is an overriding compulsion (mother-child bond, protecting offspring), and not among those not contributing to the survival of self or pack (abandoning of the weak). And the pack will seek greater security by “pro-actively defending” itself against those outside of the pack.
The concept “I have enough” is not natural to us, its seeming appearance comes when further expenditures will decrease survivability (territory is as large as can be defended).
This is basic human nature, hardwired by evolution. From this foundation is built the framework that Gail Combs writes thereof, the motives of those involved are easily seen. We are observing individual/pack behavior with the acquiring of greater security (greater control over resources). Confusing to some, we see cooperation among packs, but that can reduced to one group having dominance (coyotes control the plains, wolves stay to the forest, because the wolves prefer the forest, don’t want the plains, and drove the coyotes out of the woods).
It really doesn’t get much simpler than this. Occam’s Razor is satisfied. If it doesn’t makes sense to you, you need to alter your viewpoint and see things from the bottom up. Going from the basic principles of human nature, it can indeed be understandable.
In the case of climate science, it’s as simple as Occam’s “Fund Raiser”.
No need for a conspiracy when people can financially benefit from a common vested interest.
“In the case of climate science, it’s as simple as Occam’s “Fund Raiser”.”
I take it that includes de Freitas, Lindzen, Soon, Baliunas, Michaels, Idso, Idso, Spencer and Singer?
Sure, if you want to compare pennies to dollars.
J Bowers November 29, 2011 at 6:20 am, a strange affair: Storch describes himself as Editor in Chief then says he was appointed from 1 Aug 2003 and stepped down 3 days later having been refused the right to publish his editorial condemning the Soon et al paper.
A very brief “Editor in Chief” indeed. And I would have thought the correct way to criticise a paper is via another (reviewed) paper rather than via an editorial.
“Sure, if you want to compare pennies to dollars.”
I wouldn’t call: thousands a day for consultancy work; $100,000 for a contribution to a debunked report; $1 million dollars over ten years; and up to a quarter of a million dollars salary (plus bonus) …. which is only what’s known …. exactly pennies.
It appears you have a bit of a problem with “nuance”. I would call $1 millioin over ten years “pennies” when compared to billions of dollars to mainstream climate scientists and policy over the same period of time.
As they say in West Virginia (and figuratively at least in certain areas of climate science)…
It’s all relative.
“…when compared to billions of dollars to mainstream climate scientists and policy over the same period of time.”
How are those satellites doing? Of course, they just cost pennies, aren’t part of any international satellite rescue network, and don’t help contrarians and even outright fruitcake fringe theorists cry foul on mainstream science. Maybe up to two thirds of US business does not rely on climate services, or even if anthropogenic global warming had never even been thought of as plausible since the 19th Century billions of dollars would still not have been spent in order to plan for the future? In your dreams.
Calm down now. As far as I can make out from your fractured French, are you implying that proxy studies, subsidized trips to Bali and Cancun for climate scientists, and ethanol subsidies launched satellites?
I’m saying a number of sceptics make a fair penny from their advocacy.
If anything JB mainstream climate science has actually hindered the satellite programme. NASA has all but given up trying to send rockets anywhere but seems to have unlimited resources to spend on the Team and associated projects.
Thank you Anthony, for posting on behalf of de Freitas, who is posting on behalf of Otto Kinne, regarding the original review of Soon and Baliunas.
With such derivatives of derivatives being presented, one may forget the real reason that Soon and Balinuans became so controversial was the way the scientific REBUTTAL to the paper was handled. For those who are not aware, the rebuttal to Soon and Baliunas was refused by de Freitas and the directors of Climate Research, and this is why half the editorial staff, including chief editor von Storch resigned. To put it in von Storch’ own words :
“my resignation as editor of Climate Research had nothing to do with any pressure from Jones, Mann, or anyone else, but was instead “because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper”
Here is the rebuttal to Soon and Baliunas, which was published in EOS, since de Freitas refused it in Climate Research :
http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/eos03.pdf
Now, I know this is WUWT, and I understand that von Storch’ words make Anthony’s demand that “Dr. Phil Jones and Dr. Tom Wigley should resign” look silly, but maybe de Freitas can shed some light on the real reason Soon and Baliunas became so controversial, and why half the editoral staff resigned : Why did de Freitas refuse to publish this rebuttal to Soon and Baliunas ?
And this time, it woould be nice to hear de Freitas’ own words, rather than a second derivative.