UPDATE: Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. leaves this comment:
Neil Adger sent me a response for posting. You can see it as an update on the original post:
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html
He says cock-up, not conspiracy. I say, don’t tell untruths to start with. Have a look and make up your own mind. Thanks.
Mark Steyn writes at The Corner (NRO): Score-Settled Science
Since being sued by fantasy Nobel Laureate and global warm-monger Michael E Mann for mocking his hockey stick, I’ve taken a greater than usual interest in the conformity enforcers of the settled-science crowd. So I was interested to read this tidbit from Roger Pielke, Jr, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. He’s no climate “denier”, merely a little bit too independent-minded for the movement’s tastes. Hence:
Five days ago I critiqued a shoddy paper by Brysse et al. 2013 which appeared in the journal Global Environmental Change. Today I received notice from the GEC editor-in chief and executive editor that I have been asked to “step down from the Editorial Board.” They say that it is to “give other scientists the chance to gain experience of editorial duties.”
Over the past 20 years I have served on the editorial boards of about a dozen or so academic journals. I have rolled off some when my term was up, and continued for many years with others. I have never received a mid-term request to step down from any journal.
Hmm. A few months ago, when Michael Mann sued NR for the hitherto unknown crime of “defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient”, Professor Pielke wrote:
Mann’s claim is what might be called an embellishment — he has, to use the definition found at the top of this post, “made (a statement or story) more interesting or entertaining by adding extra details, esp. ones that are not true…” Instead of being a “Nobel Peace Prize Winner” Mann was one of 2,000 or so scientists who made a contribution to an organization which won the Nobel Peace Prize…
The embellishment is only an issue because Mann has invoked it as a source of authority is a legal dispute. It would seem common sense that having such an embellishment within a complaint predicated on alleged misrepresentations may not sit well with a judge or jury.
This situation provides a nice illustration of what is wrong with a some aspects of climate science today — a few scientists motivated by a desire to influence political debates over climate change have embellished claims, such as related to disasters, which then risks credibility when the claims are exposed as embellishments. To make matters worse, these politically motivated scientists have fallen in with fellow travelers in the media, activist organizations and in the blogosphere who are willing not only to look past such embellishments, but to amplify them and attack those who push back. These dynamics are reinforcing and have led small but vocal parts of the climate scientific community to deviate significantly from widely-held norms of scientific practice.
Very true. And now Professor Pielke, expelled by the palace guard of climate conformism, appears to have been felled by the very pathology he identified.
==============================================================
Yes, “climate amplification”…it’s not just for the poles.
This episode reminds me of exactly the sort of condescending elitism we saw in Climategate:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
And it also reminds me of this: The tribalistic corruption of peer review – the Chris de Freitas incident
GEC Editor Neil Adger is part of the Climategate emails, and was at UEA, so I guess I should not be surprised, he’s now at the University of Exeter. The three main editors are quite a tight crowd it seems.
date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:43:29 +0100 from: "Neil Adger" <N.Adger@uea.ac.uk> subject: Re: GEC to: "Andy Jordan" <A.Jordan@uea.ac.uk>, "'Mike Hulme'" <m.hulme@uea.ac.uk> Andrew Please go ahead and inform Martin or the publisher (as you think approriate) that Mike and I are interested in co-editing the journal. This is at least a starting position and of course would be completely dependent on the right deal from the publisher. Please also note that Mike and I would only negotiate with the publisher over this, not with Martin. Let us know if you want further information etc. Note that I am away till 22nd October after today. Thanks. Neil ----- Original Message ----- From: [1]Andy Jordan To: [2]'Mike Hulme' ; [3]'Neil Adger' Sent: Monday, October 06, 2003 3:10 PM Subject: FW: GEC Hi Things have started moving in roughly the direction that I expected: see below. At this stage I will simply signal to Elsevier that I want out, but if you like I can look for ways of involving you in the discussion with Martin/the publisher. Please advise. Cheers Andy _______________________________________________ Dr Andrew J. Jordan Lecturer in Environmental Politics; and Editor, Environment and Planning C School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ United Kingdom Tel: (00) (44) (0)1603 592552 Fax: (00) (44) (0)1603 593739 CSERGE website: http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/cserge/ Personal website: http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/faculty/jordanaj.htm Environment and Planning C website: http://www.envplan.com/ _________________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: PARRYML@aol.com [mailto:PARRYML@aol.com] Sent: 06 October 2003 14:54 To: A.Jordan@uea.ac.uk Subject: GEC Dear Andrew: See below for my action on GEC. Mary Malin has been away until today I believe. Regards, Martin Dear Mary: I know you have been away. As soon as you return can you call me on my mobile, about the matter below? Regards, Martin CC: Subj: Editorial handover for Global Environmental Change Date: 26/09/2003 To: [4]M.Malin@elsevier.com CC: [5]A.Healey@elsevier.co.uk, [6]g.brooks@elsevier.co.uk, [7]Cynparry Dear Mary: I would like to explore with you a change in Editor of Global Environmental Change, since I am now coming up to my 12th year. I suggest we aim to identify a new editor, who would start handling new papers from Jan 04, with the first new issue being 4/04. If more time is needed to find a suitable successor, then the dates , respectively, could be April 04 and 1/05. I understand from Andrew Jordan that the Institutions would probably effect a change at the same time. Looking ahead, the schedule would then look like this: 1. Issue 1/04; due to publishers from Parry Oct 03 2. Extra (i.e. funded additional) special issue Water: papers received from Guest Ed (Dr Adeel), currently being read by Parry; to be published early 04 3. Issue 2/04; due to publishers from Parry Jan/04 4. Extra (i.e. funded additional) special issue Climate Change (paid by DEFRA); edited by Parry; papers to publishers November; to be published c. Feb 04 5. Issue 3/04: Special issue on Co-Benefits (under guest editor, responsible to Parry) 6. Issue 4/04: first issue under new editor 7. Issue 1/05: Special Issue on Adaptation. I am away next week. But perhaps you could call me either this afternoon, or on the morning of 6th October. Best use my mobile: 07884 317108. With kind regards, Martin Dr Martin Parry, Co-Chair Working Group II (Impacts and Adaptation), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hadley Centre, UK Met Office, London Road, Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK. Tel direct: +44 1986 781437 Tel switchboard: +44 1344 856888 direct e-mail: parryml@aol.com e-mail for WGII Technical Support Unit: ipccwg2@metoffice.com Dr Martin Parry, Co-Chair Working Group II (Impacts and Adaptation), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Hadley Centre, UK Met Office, London Road, Bracknell RG12 2SY, UK. Tel direct: +44 1986 781437 Tel switchboard: +44 1344 856888 direct e-mail: parryml@aol.com e-mail for WGII Technical Support Unit: ipccwg2@metoffice.com
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Peterr in Ohio syas:
Is that true? Do “serious skeptical scientists” (whatever that means) only differ in terms of feedbacks and do all “serious scientists” agree with the “well established” direct effect of CO2 on atmospheric warming?
=====
I have a laugh every time I read that. The standard physics of CO2 producting 1.2 C warming is a static model, and the earth iis dynamic. My bet is that the warming due to a doubling of CO2 will be less than 0.4 C, ie, not even measurable on most of the earth, but only measureable in northern latitudes and at night.
In other words, a total non issue.
climatereason says: February 21, 2013 at 8:35 am
Adger is also “very closely involved” with the IPCC’s AR5: He is a Coordinating Lead Author for WGII’s Chapter 12 – Human Security.
which would fit perfectly with your observation that:
As for:
Well, that might depend, at least to some extent, on which of Adger’s three “stories” – or … uh … “Drafts” – should be accorded the strongest weight!
As I had concluded in a comment today on Pielke’s blog:
Setting aside the fact that 2010-2012 looks more like a two-year term than a three-year term, if this “Third Order Draft” is the “correct” version of “history”, why was it even necessary to ask anyone to “step down”?!
Furthermore, after Roger had graciously acceded to Adger’s request to “step down”, why is it that Adger did not immediately respond by apologizing and indicating that what he really meant to say was something along the lines of ‘Thanks for your service, but at the end of your current term, we shall not be inviting you to serve for a third term’?
And this chap is an IPCC AR5 WGII Coordinating Lead Author?! Such fuzzy and self-contradictory “thinking” does not augur well for the quality one might anticipate in this “gold standard” assessment report.
“The standard physics of CO2 producting 1.2 C warming is a static model, and the earth is dynamic. My bet is that the warming due to a doubling of CO2 will be less than 0.4 C”
Iff the dampening effects are that strong — which they may be.
Oh, he’s probably capable of clearer thought and communication than this at least. But since he’s handled this so badly, I doubt that either serve [his] perceived interests at the moment.
*his
hro001 says:
February 21, 2013 at 1:54 pm
Thank you for this excellent post. I think that your concise, clear, but penetrating analysis of Adger’s actions says all that needs to be said.
hro001’s website is worth checking out.
I love Pielke Fils, but he should learn that some who call themselves ‘progressive’ are ‘regressive’ instead. Regressing to what is your guess to make.
=====================
Theo Goodwin says: February 21, 2013 at 5:27 pm
Thanks, Theo! And …
Theo Goodwin says: February 21, 2013 at 5:32 pm
I totally agree … but this could be my “confirmation bias” kicking in 😉
I came across this quote a few decades ago. I have no record nor recollection of where or who it came from, but it seems appropriate:
“The supreme irony of mass insanity is the persuasion that those who refuse to join the insanity,
the ones who vainly try to resist, are the truly abnormal.”
Hmm. I think the second “insanity” should be “madness,” as in:
… those who refuse to join the madness, the …
If anyone can identify it’s source, I would be appreciative.
(I’ve tried search engines without success, so far…)
Thanks.
The more I learn about academe and the antics of ‘academics’, the less regard for it – and them – I have.
I’ve spent thirty plus years in industry and commerce and in that world both parties here would get a quick kick up the arse, be told to shape up or ship out and not be allowed any more sweeties or cookies until they had proved that they had grown out of nappies (diapers).
Assuming that there is any point to the academic world at all (a proposition I am finding increasingly difficult to support), can you not all start acting like responsible adults to justify the public money that is spent on your pay and rations? You get a nice cushy life ..and you repay us with tantrums.
This little spat does not rise above ‘Mummy, that boy over there stole my toy car’. Neither side here shows themselves to be better than 3-year olds.
Grow up the lot of you!
I note with interest that Neil Adger has not changed his spots. Might I remind those who followed the outcomes of climategate II that it was he, my former colleague, who felt it necessary to inform CRU of my heinous crime of lecturing to UEA first-year undergraduates about evidence that did not fit with the ENV view of climate change. An action that led directly to my exclusion from teaching this material in the first-year programme – a parallel to “clearing out the opposition”.
@lanK
“Pielke Jr. appears to get booted from a journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science”
That wasnt peer review. It was a blog entry. There is a big difference. His blog entry had nothing to do with the paper being or not being accepted.
Havnig followed this story a little both here and at RPjr’s blog, I get the impression that the timing of his removal from the GEC editorial board and the critical commentary on the Brysse paper probably are coincidental – I can’t see that a publisher the size of Elsevier would respond so quickly to Dr Pielke’s commentary as to dismiss him in 5 days.
Now, whether his removal from the editorial board is more generally because of his perceived skepticism is a different question, and fits better with the timeline that has been described. Obviousy, RPjr is not a skeptic of significant warming caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but it is interesting that his blog was one of those identified as ‘skeptic’ by Lewandodgy’s questionnaire, and he is very strongly critical of the current meme of extreme weather being caused by climate change (for the simple reason that in about 99.9% of cases there is too much noise and not enough signal in the data to back up the claims – my understanding is that the one exception is summer heatwaves in temperate areas). Dr Pielke is one of the few people who seems to be content to let the data speak for itself.
I too have experienced such treatment. Even matter-of-fact presentations calmly critiquing some overly presumed “valid and reliable” theory or practice, can and often do lead to such letters. My file is filled with them. I have no doubt I am presented before the board as a poorly performing teacher, hard evidence to the contrary. Maybe I need to teach in a state that rewards for observed student achievement.
– – – – – – – – –
Pamela Gray & Aan Kendall,
My experiences professionally (40 years of engineering in international commercial nuclear power) I never had any blowback from being aggressively critical of alarming AGW by CO2. In fact virtually all of the people I interacted with where just as critical as I. That was on the professional level. On the private level there have seldom been confrontations on climate, most private contacts are rather unknowledgeable and uncommitted to a position.
But, as a nuclear professional in the 1970s and early 1980s there were frequent private and public sphere instances where I was considered persona non grata because of the anti-nuclear sentiment at that time.
John
“Those who don’t know history are destined to repeat it.” – Edmund Burke.
The situation here reminds me of what happened to Ignaz Semmelweis. He thought it would be prudent for doctors to wash their hands with Chlorine and lime juice to stop people from dying from contamination. When this was put into practice the level of death drastically dropped and yet because he was going against the grain he was an outcast and as a result they returned to the old ways and death rose again. Eventually he died in his forties in an Insane Asylum and it wasn’t until later than due to the work of Louis Pasteur that he was vindicated and now it is common knowledge that we should be washing our hands before and after activities that might cause germs to spread. It is amazing how such simple thing was rejected when it was first introduced and yet now it is a fundamental medical practice. The history of science is littered with many examples of those who have gone against the grain and lost, but were eventually proven right.
This is the mission/policy statement of the “Elsevier Journal” – ‘Global Environmental Change’. :-
“Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Dimensions is an international, interdisciplinary journal spanning the social and natural sciences. It publishes high-quality original theoretical and applied research and review articles across the entire field of global environmental change. Areas include biodiversity and ecosystem services, water resources, climate change, international agreements, North-South relations, land use and cover change, institutions and governance. The journal interprets global environmental change to mean the outcome of processes that are manifest in localities, but with consequences at multiple spatial, temporal and socio-political scales. The journal addresses issues of public policy, economics, equity, risk, and resilience, science policy, international development, and health and well-being.”
In this journal, which is aimed squarely at all tertiary/university educated readers/academics, who fully support the pro global warming theories A through Z.
Roger A Pielke jr., advanced tertiary educational qualifications, shows an MA in 1992, on Public Policy and a Phd in Political Science.
“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.” ― Mark Twain
Nullius in Verba