Gatekeeping at Geophysical Research Letters

Dr. Judith Curry writes:

As the IPCC struggles with its inconvenient truth – the pause and the growing discrepancy between models and observations – the obvious question is: why is the IPCC just starting to grapple with this issue now, essentially two minutes before midnite of the release of the AR5?

My blog post on the Fyfe et al. paper triggered an email from Pat Michaels, who sent me a paper that he submitted in 2010 to Geophysical Research Letters, that did essentially the same analysis as Fyfe et al., albeit with the CMIP3 models.

Assessing the consistency between short-term global temperature trends in observations and climate model projects

Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, John R. Christy, Chad S. Herman, Lucia M. Liljegren, James D. Annan

Abstract.  Assessing the consistency between short-term global temperature trends in observations and climate model projections is a challenging problem. While climate models capture many processes governing short-term climate fluctuations, they are not expected to simulate the specific timing of these somewhat random phenomena—the occurrence of which may impact the realized trend. Therefore, to assess model performance, we develop distributions of projected temperature trends from a collection of climate models running the IPCC A1B emissions scenario. We evaluate where observed trends of length 5 to 15 years fall within the distribution of model trends of the same length. We find that current trends lie near the lower limits of the model distributions, with cumulative probability-of-occurrence values typically between 5% and 20%, and probabilities below 5% not uncommon. Our results indicate cause for concern regarding the consistency between climate model projections and observed climate behavior under conditions of increasing anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions.

The authors have graciously agreed for me to provide links to their manuscript:   [manuscriptMichaels_etal_2010 ] and [supplementary material Michaels_etal_GRL10_SuppMat].

Drum roll . . .  the paper was rejected.   I read the paper (read it yourself), and I couldn’t see why it was rejected, particularly  since it seems to be a pretty straightforward analysis that has been corroborated in subsequent published papers.

The rejection of this paper raised my watchdog hackles, and I asked to see the reviews.  I suspected gatekeeping by the editor and bias against the skeptical authors by the editor and reviewers.

Read more: Peer review: the skeptic filter

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Heresy! Burn the Heretics! Burn the Books! Burn the Witch!!!
some things never change. Probably because human nature never changes.

Mark Bofill

Climate Etc. has a heck of a troll infestation problem. Crazy distribution of quality and garbage comments IMO.

EW3

Just helping to hide the decline.

albertalad

Leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted,
saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’
and they should focus on decades or centuries.
The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its tune after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years. Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was
exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat – and suggested using
1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming.
————————-
Taken from Daily Mail.

Tim Ball

This is sad and shows the extent to which the bullying tactics of the people at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) with regard to their attempts to control peer review and climate research extended. It appears that their successful efforts to have former GRL editor James Saiers fired, as detailed in the leaked emails, had a frightening impact.
I remember when Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) first started publishing papers related to climate. It was the among the first to address the cross-disciplinary nature of climatology, which previously was restricted to just a few climate and meteorological journals.
At the time there were very few journals publishing climate materials, especially historical and paleoclimate reconstructions. It was why the work of Reid Bryson and especially H H Lamb was so ground breaking. The major journal relatively newly on the scene was Stephen Schneider’s “Climate Change”.
I have been accused of not publishing in Nature or Science, but they were rarely publishing climate papers at the time when I was very active in publishing. I can speak about this with understanding because in two of my graduate level climate courses the students had to write articles and determine where they would submit them for publication. I wanted them to learn about the narrow and specialized focus of journals, as well as the procedures of editorial instructions. I also occasionally submitted papers to a journal to determine the limits of their acceptance and to get feedback from the editor or hopefully reviewers so I could adjust and increase potential for publication.
The behaviour of journals and especially their editors has been a disgraceful episode in their lack of objectivity essential to good science. There area variety of causes not least the taking over of journals by publishers. Profit became the driving force and sensational papers producing the prevailing political wisdom the hall mark for high sales. Of course, there was also the realization that control of editors was essential if you wanted to control the scientific method – something the CRU people did with frightening efficiency and effect. They also realized that even being editors themselves gave inordinate control. They could hide behind the secrecy of not disclosing reviewers to peer-review each others work. Donna Laframboise, author of two books on the corruption of the IPCC apparently identified this problem for the Journal of Climate.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/08/23/the-journal-of-climate-the-ipcc/
The extent of the damage done by the CRU people and the IPCC is only gradually coming to light, but the few of us who watched the entire research area of climatology hijacked for a political agenda knew what was going on and were easily attacked and marginalized as skeptics and then deniers.
I must say in retrospect I would not resist again knowing the price paid, but I am beyond the point of no return. I am at the point where I realize there is no pleasure in “I told you so.” I am also at the point where I am afraid there will be no accountability for the damage done, the lives impacted and the money wasted. I write this after reading a headline about new EPA regulations shutting down coal plants throwing people out on an increasingly crowded street all based on the false science created by the CRU, the IPCC and the cowering editors of once fine journals.
[“There area variety of causes not least the taking over of journals by publishers… ” is intended to be? Mod]

gopal panicker

cooling started three years ago…have fun

MattS

WWS,
Historically, heretics were burned at the stake, witches were hung.

GunnyGene

It was obviously rejected because it doesn’t support the political agenda of global domination by Progressives,etc. You are familiar with Agenda 21, I presume?

James Evans

Witches were “hanged”, I think you’ll find.

That’s a sad tale you’ve had to live through, Tim. All you can do is make the dirt you know as public as possible – the public opinion “climate” is growing more amenable by the day.
No, there will be no accountability for the scamsters, for people like that spend their lives jumping from scam to scam, but there will most definitely be Consequences. One set of those consequences is quite amusing and profitable to me, personally, although I can’t say the same for the general public. Allow me to explain:
I make my living from the oil and gas exploration business, which of course is booming here in the US due to the fraccing revolution. (I was in the field for years, but it’s all legal/office work now) I also read that headline about EPA regulations killing coal plants, but I somehow doubt that people outside our industry realize how darkly amusing that is to us who are part of it. We are used to “oil and gas” always being vilified as the Big, Bad, Meanies of the energy world, while for so many years Coal has gotten a special pass, probably because so many good Union members make their living from it. (Oil and Gas is a notoriously non-unionized industry) Funny thing is, most of the greens are now lumping ALL energy producers together as “bad guys” without realizing that the Coal business and the O&G biz are made up of completely different players, for the most part, and in the states, we are all fighting over the same pie. Everything that cuts Coal usage INCREASES Oil and NatGas usage. (Especially NatGas!) That’s because, especially in electrical power generation, there are no realistic alternatives anymore. Nuclear construction is shut down – no more hydro-power plants are being built. (in fact they’re being torn down; look at what the enviros are saying about Hetch Hetchy) New wind installations are dying because they’re money losers, and solar was always a joke. (Geothermal? Have you heard anyone even mention that in years? All of the projects went broke, if you didn’t know) So, if you shut down coal, since oil is too expensive and too much in demand around the world, then Nat Gas is the only game in town. By Government DIktat, virtually EVERY now power plant built in the US for the next decade (if not the next 2 or 3) is going to be Nat Gas fired. Hooray for those of us in the biz – our future is now guaranteed, and it’s a darn good one!
Long story short, in spite of the fact that the greens have hated the oil and gas people from day one, today EVERY new regulation and requirement and regulation makes the oil and gas business richer, bigger, and more powerful every day. Because nobody is going to have anyplace left to turn for energy EXCEPT for what we sell! Thanks, Obama, you’ve guaranteed my and my families, and my friends future. Too bad about your voting public who isn’t going to be in on the benefits, and who are going to pay for all of this in needlessly inflated prices for the next 2 or 3 decades, at least, because there’s not going to be any competition. But that was your choice, not ours.
P.S. Now you know why Chesapeake Energy was making such big donations to the Sierra Club. Looks like money well spent, once you realize what the stakes really were.

“Leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.”
This is far from over. Even if we are on the way to the next glacial period before long global temperatures will surely rise. At which time Alarmist will have a field day. “See, we told you so! It’s worse than we thought.” What’s our plan then?

milodonharlani

MattS says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:12 am
The fashion in witch execution varied by time & place. In 17th century America, they were hanged, but in Europe more often burned, like Joan of Arc in the 15th century, or drowned. The “ducking” stool could be used in their trials as well.

milodonharlani

PS: Beheading was also possible.
Had Kepler’s mom been convicted in western Germany, she would probably have been burned, but in the previous century in Bavaria, drowning in the convenient Danube appears to have been usual.

MattS

milodonharlani,
Joan of Arc is not a counter example to my claim. Yes she was burned at the stake, but it was for being a heretic, not for being a witch.

Martin Lewitt

Since when is James Annan a “skeptic”? He couldn’t get them past the skeptic filter?

MattS

Martin Lewitt,
Of course he couldn’t. The principle authors were still skeptics.

Mark Bofill

Gah, preview provided but not taken advantage of. I suck. Mods, would you delete prior post?
It’s sort of interesting when you dig into the story over there and at Lucia’s. As I understand it, someone named ‘Zwiers’ has submitted essentially the same thing and it was published. Even better, one of the hostile reviewers insisted that the uncertainty was being under-represented and that ‘Zwiers’ be called in to resolve the issue!
I thought it was neat to see the knee jerk response of some of the commenters:
“I haven’t read the paper, but my guess is that it just wasn’t very good…”
“I have now read the paper since it has been officially leaked. It is not research quality. It is in fact one of the worst POS papers on earth sciences that I have recently come across. No original work equals not publishable in a research journal.”
“Journals must publish all submitted articles…or Judith sees a conspiracy!!”
more or less all ignoring that Zwiers has published the same thing.
BTW it’s worth it to dig through and find Lucia’s extremely polite and professional demolitions in the comments if you enjoy that sort of thing. I certainly did! 🙂

MarkW

As near as I can tell, the reviewers are declaring that it is not fair to compare the models to the real world.

milodonharlani

MattS says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:52 am
Before formal witchcraft statutes, witches were often convicted of heresy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_executed_for_witchcraft
You’ll see that burning, sometimes in combo with strangulation, was generally the norm in Europe, but subject to regional variation, as beheading in Sweden.
The English wanted to try Joan for witchcraft, but couldn’t, so went for heresy. In effect, it was a witch trial by another name. The punishment was the same.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1431joantrial.asp

MattS

milodonharlani,
“The English wanted to try Joan for witchcraft, but couldn’t, so went for heresy.”
Reading your second link, I it doesn’t support your suggestion that the English wanted to try her for witchcraft.

MattS

milodonharlani,
I wouldn’t credit the wikipedia list. Looking at it, the very first entry is a straight up heretic.
Johann Albrecht Adelgrief d. 1636 German Executed after claiming to be a prophet.[6]

James Evans says September 20, 2013 at 10:24 am
Witches were “hanged”, I think you’ll find.

What was that float vs not-float test thing all about then?
Or maybe it involved dunking? Oh, perhaps a precursor to establishing who was or was not a …
Partial excerpt: Ordeal by water was associated with the witch hunts of the 16th and 17th centuries: an accused who sank was considered innocent, while floating indicated witchcraft. These tests came to be part of what is known as the Salem Witch Trials. Some argued that witches floated because they had renounced baptism when entering the Devil’s service. King James VI of Scotland (later also James I of England) claimed in his Daemonologie that water was so pure an element that it repelled the guilty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunking
.

M Courtney

albertalad says September 20, 2013 at 10:03 am, “Taken from the Daily Mail”.
Word to the Wise; I really wouldn’t bet my moderately good name on what I read in the Daily Mail.

milodonharlani

MattS says:
September 20, 2013 at 11:25 am
I wonder how many instances of burning for witchcraft it would take to convince you that this means of execution was the norm for most countries most of the time in the late Middle Ages & Early Modern periods? Please read all the cases in the link I provided. It should convince you.
On the connection between witchcraft & heresy, please see this case from 14th century Ireland:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petronilla_de_Meath
After it became associated with satanism, witchcraft was heresy, so, as in Joan’s case, it was a distinction without a difference.
As for the Fordham link, you’ll note that it plainly calls her trial a witchcraft proceeding. If what you want is evidence that Henry V’s brother Bedford & the other English in France wanted to try her as a witch, there is this, among many other sources:
http://www.maidofheaven.com/joanofarc_duke_bedford.asp
IIRC my 15th century history correctly, the Duke’s own wife was among the women who confirmed that Joan was a maid, hence under French law couldn’t be tried for witchcraft. So the English & their French & Burgundian stooges went for heresy.

albertalad

M Courtney says:
September 20, 2013 at 11:36 am
albertalad says September 20, 2013 at 10:03 am, “Taken from the Daily Mail”.
Word to the Wise; I really wouldn’t bet my moderately good name on what I read in the Daily Mail.
————————–
LOl – I am an unashamed skeptic and in most circles these days I rate somewhere between a low down scum and a garden variety slug – or so I have been told, many times. Fox news also carried something similar as well –

Gail Combs

James Evans says: @ September 20, 2013 at 10:24 am
Witches were “hanged”, I think you’ll find.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Witches were killed by a variety of methods. link
The Salem MA Witch Trials are of interest because of the connection to the climate.

20 people and 2 dogs were executed for the crime of witchcraft in Salem. One person was pressed to death under a pile of stones for refusing to testify….
Massachusetts was experiencing some of the worst winters in memory.….

If it was thought that the public would not turn against them, ‘True Believers’ would love to treat deniers like witches. There have been a few trial balloons floated.
…University of Graz music professor calls for skeptic death sentences
The 1010global org/ nasty, vicious Video [that] explodes skeptical kids in bloodbath

Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki
…David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.
At a Montreal conference last Thursday, the prominent scientist, broadcaster and Order of Canada recipient exhorted a packed house of 600 to hold politicians legally accountable for what he called an intergenerational crime….

Clearing House for Environmental Course Material
VIDEO: Crimes Against Humanity 2012: Dr. James Hansen On Climate Change

Never make the mistake of thinking we are now too ‘Civilized’ for these types of ‘Witch-hunts’ Dr. Rummel’s studies leading to his books on DEMOCIDE: DEATH BY GOVERNMENT show we are just as vicious as ever with just a thin coating of civilization.

….169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]
…Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5′, then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century….
…what is covered here? This book presents the primary results, tables, and figures, and most important, an historical sketch of the major cases of democide–those in which 1,000,000 or more people were killed by a regime. The first chapter is the summary and conclusion of this work on democide, and underlines the roles of democracy and power. ..
…After eight-years and almost daily reading and recording of men, women, and children by the tens of millions being tortured or beaten to death, hung, shot, and buried alive, burned or starved to death, stabbed or chopped into pieces, and murdered in all the other ways creative and imaginative human beings can devise, I have never been so happy to conclude a project. I have not found it easy to read time and time again about the horrors innocent people have been forced to suffer. What has kept me at this was the belief, as preliminary research seemed to suggest, that there was a positive solution to all this killing and a clear course of political action and policy to end it. And the results verify this. The problem is Power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom.

Mac the Knife

albertalad says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:03 am
“Leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.”
The pressure exerted by politicians from various nationalities to suppress an honest discussion of the 17 year long hiatus in global warming while CO2 continues to accumulate further illustrates the UN IPCC AR5 report is a political marketing tool, not a scientific report. Anyone who acquiesced to such political pressure is a tool as well.
MtK

M Courtney

albertalad says… fair enough.
I’m just wary of suspending my scepticism about AGW news when it comes to the otherwise politicised news from the Daily Mail (or Fox News).

MattS

milodonharlani,
“I wonder how many instances of burning for witchcraft it would take to convince you that this means of execution was the norm for most countries most of the time in the late Middle Ages & Early Modern periods?”
I don’t know for sure, but your not going to get there using wikipedia as a source.

MattS

milodonharlani,
I don’t care what they called her trial. The executed her for heresy because that’s all they managed to produce evidence of.
Even today, the government frequently gets convictions on different charges than what are initially brought.

milodonharlani

M Courtney says:
September 20, 2013 at 11:55 am
Here’s the report from the AP, a bona fide Leftwing source:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/09/20/climate_report_struggles_with_temperature_quirks_120017.html

milodonharlani

MattS says:
September 20, 2013 at 12:01 pm
If it doesn’t matter to you that Joan’s enemies considered her a witch & wanted her burnt alive for that offense, OK with me.
But the incontrovertible fact remains that tens of thousands of people were burnt to death for witchcraft in Europe, c. 1300 to 1800, probably more than by any other means of execution. America was unusual in hanging them to death.

milodonharlani

MattS says:
September 20, 2013 at 11:57 am
I’m not using Wiki as a source, just a conduit.
How about clicking on every name linked burned person in the list, then noting at the bottom of each entry the actual sources? If you’re really interested in the topic, I can suggest some good books & academic papers.

Gail COmbs

MattS says: @ September 20, 2013 at 12:01 pm
…Even today, the government frequently gets convictions on different charges than what are initially brought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Al Capone and tax evasion….
One of the reasons for the tens of thousands of pages of regulations in the USA with no right to a jury trial is that it allows ‘punishment ‘ of political enemies. link

Jimbo

MattS says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:12 am
WWS,
Historically, heretics were burned at the stake, witches were hung.

————————————-

James Evans says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:24 am
Witches were “hanged”, I think you’ll find.

What did they do to climate witches? Burnt or hung I don’t think they cared afterwards. 🙁

Climatic Variability in Sixteenth-Century Europe and Its Social Dimension
Pfister, Christian; Brázdil, Rudolf; Glaser, Rüdiger (Eds.) 1999, VI, 351 p.
………..Results are compared to fluctuations of Alpine glaciers and to changes in the frequency of severe floods and coastal storms. Moreover, the impact of climate change on grain prices and wine production is assessed. Finally, it is convincingly argued that witches at that time were burnt as scapegoats for climatic change.
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1005585931899
————————-
THE WITCH TRIALS OF FINNMARK, NORTHERN NORWAY, DURING THE 17TH CENTURY
….Witches were burned (85 persons), hanged (three), killed in prison (two) or died of torture (two); only 22 persons were acquitted; the rest received lighter sentences of fines or imprisonment….
http://absentis.org/ergotism/the_witch_trials_of_finnmark_norway.pdf

milodonharlani

Gail Combs says:
September 20, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Inconvenient people were often accused of witchcraft, too, as an excuse to get rid of them or steal their property. The Fulda witch trials resulted from the local Prince Bishop Balthasar von Dernbach’s efforts to re-Catholicize his bishopric during the Counter-Reformation. About 250 innocent people were executed wrongly, mostly by burning.

milodonharlani

Jimbo says:
September 20, 2013 at 12:23 pm
Clearly climate witches should be hanged, then rapidly buried to sequester their carbon. Burning not only frees the victims’ carbon but creates excess black carbon & carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere.
Ditto books.

Eric Gisin

Gail COmbs says September 20, 2013 at 12:17 pm

One of the reasons for the tens of thousands of pages of regulations in the USA with no right to a jury trial is that …

That statement is not quite true; while your first ‘level’ in contesting a ‘charge’ or citation is before an ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) your final appeal (and a trial) will before a normal judge and jury.
.

more soylent green!

MattS says:
September 20, 2013 at 10:12 am
WWS,
Historically, heretics were burned at the stake, witches were hung.

From Blazing Saddles — Bart returns unexpectedly after being sentenced to death:
Charlie: They said you was hung.
Bart: And they was right.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071230/quotes

Dr. Curry is getting some grief from the nutters, but strangely, none of the sane Warmists are joining in. And the nutters are being overwhelmed with knowledge and logic.

KNR

Its one of the way AGW fanatics can their is no science that rejects ‘the cause ‘ is by having such gatekeepers that turn down such paper while pushing through any old rubbish if it supports ‘the cause ‘
In the long term such approaches are bad for science in general and its really very sad that the scientific establishments as kept its mouth shut or even supported these approaches. A feature we may all end up paying the price for .

Peter Miller

Does anyone really now believe the Climate Inquisition does not exist?
This is just one more instance of its acolytes in action, except here the pal reviews of holy alarmist articles are replaced by pravda-style reviews using nit-picking irrelevancies or inaccuracies.

milodonharlani says September 20, 2013 at 12:25 pm

Inconvenient people were often accused of witchcraft, too, as an excuse to get rid of them …

Kinda like the Tom Delay prosecution where Ronnie Earle ‘shopped’ his charges before a number of different grand juries before finally getting a bite?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359032/delays-vindication-texass-shame-editors
.

richard verney

As discussed previously, the IPCC are in a difficult position, made more of a dilema for them, by the fact that AR5, and its worth, will not be judged in 2013, when published, but rather in 2015 when the next climate conference takes place. This presents a dilema since no one knows what the temperatures will do over the course of the next couple of years.
If there is a positve ENSO event between now and 2015, then it is likely that temperatures will rise (if only short lived) and this would enable the IPCC to claim that the ‘hiatus’/’pause’ is over and that warming has recommenced. They will be able to argue that Santer’s 17 year period was never exceeded. So if you are a gambling man, there is a chance that things could pan out in your favour and, in this scenario, the IPCC would not be so embarrassed by the divergence between model projections and reality.
Of course, there may be no resumption of warming (as the Met Office predicts). In which case, by 2015, the 15 or so years without statistically significant warming will have become 17 or so years (on some data sets more than 20 years).
Of course, it is possible that between now and 2015, global temperatures will fall. If that is the case then things will look very bad as the divergence increases and the length of no statistically significant warming lengthens. In this sceario, there could even be a negative anomaly trend as from 2000, and quite likely as from 1998.
Added to all of this is that it is probable that there will be more papers published suggesting a lowering of climate sensitivity. This is almost inevitable if the ‘hiatus’/’pause’ continues.
So what does the IPCC do? Does it acknowledgge the ‘hiatus’/’pause’ and give it some significance, in effect acknowledging that past reports had exaggerated the warming (and thereby climate sensitivity)? or does it gamble hoping for a resumption of warming (most likely fueled by an ENSO event). If only IPCC and their models were better able to predict ENSO, it probably would be able to consider the odds and act accordingly.
Now added to this dilema is that the IPCC is an inter-governmental body dancing to the tune of its pupet masters, the politicians. Reading between the lines (from the Daily Mail report referred to above), it appears that many governments wanted the IPCC to not address the ‘hiatus’/’pause’, to cover it up and for it to not affect its reasoning and summary (no doubt for their own political purposes tax schemes etc). However, more recently some other governments want the ‘hiatus’/’pause to be specifically addressed and explained. That has of course caused extreme difficulties for the IPCC and no doubt this explains why this issue is only being addressed at this late stage, just days before publication.
I think that it is reasonably safe to conclude that had it not been for a few governments wanting the ‘hiatus’/’pause’ to be specifically and patently addressed, the IPCC would have substantially ignored it and carried on with business as usual.

milodonharlani

_Jim says:
September 20, 2013 at 12:37 pm
At least DeLay wasn’t beheaded, strangled, drowned, burned or hanged, so he survived to be vindicated.

Gail Combs

_Jim says: @ September 20, 2013 at 12:30 pm
That statement is not quite true; while your first ‘level’ in contesting a ‘charge’ or citation is before an ALJ (Administrative Law Judge) your final appeal (and a trial) will before a normal judge and jury.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry _Jim, I thought that too but the Supreme Court does not agree.

….The right to trial by jury is not constitutionally guaranteed in certain classes of civil cases that are concededly “suits at common law,” particularly when “public” or governmental rights are at issue and if one cannot find eighteenth-century precedent for jury participation in those cases. Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission (1977). Thus, Congress can lodge personal and property claims against the United States in non-Article III courts with no jury component. In addition, where practice as it existed in 1791 “provides no clear answer,” the rule is that “[o]nly those incidents which are regarded as fundamental, as inherent in and of the essence of the system of trial by jury, are placed beyond the reach of the legislature.” Markman v. Westview Instruments (1996). In those situations, too, the Seventh Amendment does not restrain congressional choice.
link

(That is why I provided the link)

milodonharlani says September 20, 2013 at 12:49 pm

At least DeLay wasn’t beheaded, strangled, drowned, burned or hanged, so he survived to be vindicated.

With 12 million spent on legal fees (never mind the other factors like the stress on a marriage, ‘quality of life’, etc.)? I’d say he was … a simple ‘ducking’ wouldn’t take near a decade or cost 12 MM …
(Are you otherwise approving of such practices? Either one …)
.

Gail Combs says September 20, 2013 at 12:56 pm

Sorry _Jim, I thought that too but the Supreme Court does not agree.

The ‘applicability’ is in narrow cases; you would like to assert it is applicable to all cases and it is not, particularly when the evidence or nature of same is in contention.
But, you read it the way you want to, as you always do anyway.
.

“Joan of Arc is not a counter example to my claim. Yes she was burned at the stake, but it was for being a heretic, not for being a witch.”
Well, let’s be clear, she was burned for humiliating the English in battle. They couldn’t beat her in open combat, so the only way they could get rid of her was to pay the Burgundians to dishonorably capture her and then pay an even bigger amount so they could put her out of commission permanently themselves. (The Burgundians didn’t like her, but even they wouldn’t dare to harm her). It was a disgrace under the laws of England, the laws of France, the laws of War, and the Laws of the Church, even by the low medieval standards of the day.
There was actually *no* evidence, even under medieval standards, of witchcraft or heresy presented at her trial. Her trial was a dirty, shameful, business, which is why twenty-five years after her execution, an inquisitorial court authorized by Pope Callixtus III examined the trial, pronounced her innocent, and declared her a martyr.
Her intellect was much greater than that of her accuser’s; at one point they asked her a question which, under the accepted theology of the day was a verbal minefield, designed to force the accused to give a heretical answer, since either a “yes” or a “no” was damning. Joan effortlessly made mincemeat of the question, and of the questioner: “Asked if she knew she was in God’s grace, she answered: ‘If I am not, may God put me there; and if I am, may God so keep me.'”
They never found anything more damning than that to condemn her, and yet condemn her they did. Then, as now, Hatred knows no bounds.
[Reply: Absolutely correct. Joan d’Arc apparently had second sight, which enabled her to destroy her opponents in battle. This is a matter of historical record. She stood far above her adversaries, who were a collection of louts; much like the purveyors of the CAGW narrative in modern day political global warming shenanigans. But history has a way of sifting the truth from the lies… ~mod.]