There’s a lot of reaction to the front page story in The Times (UK) seen at left. Here is one from the Science Media Centre where they claim “science meets the headlines”. Indeed. But the reaction speaks more to tribalism than factual science, IMHO.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, professorial research fellow at the University of Reading, said:
“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.
“I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence. Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work.
“I was surprised by the strong reaction from some scientists outside the UK to joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation this month. I had hoped that it would be platform to bring more common sense into the global climate debate.
“Academic freedom is a central aspect to life at University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.”
Source: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-claims-climate-research-was-suppressed/
And there’s reaction from others there as well.
===============================================================
I agree that The Times went a bit overboard with the use of the words “cover-up” which really doesn’t apply since the issue is out in the open now. OTOH, that’s what all newspapers do. Just look at the overboard headlines and idiotic reactions (like Gov. Brown saying LAX would have to be moved). However, the phrase may apply if there’s an effort to prevent the names of the reviewers to come out, especially the one who said that Bengtsson’s paper would be “damaging”, never mind the science.
Professor Mike Hulme summed it up well in the SMC article:
“This episode tells us a lot about how deeply politicised climate science has become, but how some scientists remain blind to their own biases.”
Mostly what we witnessed so far is “science tribalism“. One tribe believe global warming is a serious and immediate problem that will affect their tribe, the other tribe believes global warming is a minor problem, and there is little to worry about, and what effects may be seen can be dealt with.
The tribe that believes it is a crisis works actively to suppress views of the other, something that is unsurprising and a basic human group reaction. The thing is though, scientists are supposed to be above such emotional actions. I thought this discussion of tribalism was interesting, especially for this:
In a group setting, will outcasting one member strengthen tribalism?
If the group is a tribe and if that member is of more trouble than he’s worth, it will strengthen the tribe.
Clearly, climate scientists aren’t free of tribal instincts, and even though he has “recanted”, Bengtsson will be branded by other members of the tribe until he dies. He’s not likely to be invited to participate in many activities he once was. I suspect funding will become harder to get or dry up completely and his papers henceforth will likely be him as the sole author.
One only has to look at the string of emotional outbursts and subterfuge we see from Mann, Gleick, Jones, Hansen, and others to know climate scientists aren’t operating on the professional level that scientists are expected to.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1. Professor Mike Hulme summed it up
wellinaccurately.Equating the Human CO2 Cult and its unsupported conjecture and speculation
with
Science Realists who rest their case on data and evidence
is inaccurate to the point of distortion.
************************************************
2. Re: Dr. Bengtsson’s mealy mouthed statement on Reading’s behalf,
here is, NO DOUBT, what happened:
Reading Administrator: The public is glaring at us, Bengtsson. They think Reading is just another East Anglia. Can’t have that, Bengtsson. Planning to do something about that, Bengtsson?
Bengtsson: I… uh, well… .
RA: Yes, Bengtsson, you are. Here. (hands him sheet of paper) You are going to say this.
B: (reading it) Oh, but, this isn’t exactly accurate, RA, I’m not sure… .
RA: Are you sure you want to keep your job?
B: (heavy sigh) Hand me the phone.
Publisher of Above Statement: (phone rings) Hello?
B: This is Lennart Bengtsson. “… {and finally} Academic freedom is a central aspect to life at University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.” Click.
Nick Stokes should supply us the titles of two articles already published.
One by Michael Mann that, in Mr. Stokes’ opinion, was actually too “crummy” to publish.
One by Lennart Bengtsson that, in his opinion, wasn’t so “crummy” that it shouldn’t have been published.
By the way, editors are perfectly capable of selecting reviewers who they know with considerable foresight will love or hate a particular manuscript.
I haven’t lived in UK since 1965, but the primary universities were Oxford, Cambridge, London, Edinburgh, and probably Exeter, as it is old. And Liverpool especially for Veterinary Science. Never heard of University of Reading, that’s near London. Some colleges like Balliol had prospective students sit entrance exams, in the 50s.
I don’t see many alarmists reports coming from them, do you?
she calls the cops cuz her spouse beat her.
the cops come. “what’s this, then?”
she tells them he’s really a great guy and he really respects her and go away.
[trimmed], Bengtsson.
or else.
re: Bengsston Affair
One aspect which has surfaced occasiovnally is whether comparisons of observational data with models, etc. are significant or worthy for a journal. The flashiest journals such as Nature and Science seem most given to favoring what seems hype-worthy, “innovative” and “original” “novel” etc. so long as it serves a favored messaging. We have now seen ERL do the same in disparaging interest in model-observation comparisons.
If I may repeat some observations I made at CA, I think scientists in various fields (especially climate-related) need to look for ways to push back against the shallow tyranny of novel-innovative-original.
To make a couple of broad observations about how many scientific journals, including ERL, seem to operate:
There seems to be (often) far too great an emphasis upon innovation and originality in determining what gets published.
While there are evident appeals to original and/or innovative papers which (may seem to) help to advance a field,
the very first requirement for any journal and any work of science should be ACCURACY and PRECISION. Congruence with known EMPIRICAL data should come before all attempts at innovation and originality.
Thus, a paper comparing empirical observations with models and/or hypotheses and/or theory should, in general, be regarded as a potentially valuable contribution. Whether a paper finds a good fit or a bad fit between model/theory and data (or anything debateable in between), this kind of comparison needs to be regarded as valuable and worthy of the space in any journal claiming to be scientific.
Similarly, this kind of issue also arises when people like Steve Mc and Ross, et al. seek to publish comments and criticisms regarding published papers…. any paper or COMMENT(s) providing criticism and corrections for a paper already published should be considered MORE important not less, if the corrections or updates are accurate.
How can editors and reviewers be brought to see that maintaining an accurate scientific record is the FIRST responsibility of any journal?
…. and if a journal has already published a certain paper then they have the highest responsibility to bring into the published record any corrections, controversies, or updates about said paper.
Why not specifically climate change, the courts have ruled that a university cannot base promotion upon articles protected by the right to free speech. This may well set a precedent for future actions against discrimination based on views on climate science.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/19/conservative-professor-blogger-wins-political-retaliation-case-at-trial/?tid=up_next
to know the child of c02 hysteria you have to know the fathers and in the uk at least the Met who do the models for ipcc is dominated by a christian doctrine of ‘saving things’ ie a saviour complex. where co2 is seen as a ‘sin’. and a ‘moral problem’ by those middle class people who have enough in the bank to hand wring and feel guilty about it.
“As a Christian I believe we have been put on the earth to care for it yet we’re not doing this. However, there is an enormous moral imperative for everybody, not just Christians, to face up to climate change. ……So I think we have to begin to change the way we think and the way we do things in order to have much more sharing in the world……..The imperative for Christians is to do something about this situation” Sir John Houghton http://www.ecostreet.com/ecospeak-an-interview-with-ex-ipcc-co-chairman-sir-john-houghton/
so if your boss thinks like that then you have to play monkey . Further he can choose staff who do think like that. Houghton is now at the climate model centre. So expect no change soon.
“dominated by a christian doctrine of ‘saving things’ ie a saviour complex.”
Saviour complex is not a Christian doctrine. It is an Atheistic doctrine since many (not all) feel inadequate with life so they go around saving things to make themselves feel better.
The situation is more than just tribalism. Because the hardcore that is close attached to UNEP UNFCCC, IPCC, WWF, Greenpeace etc..are well aware that they have to told the whole truth. Their “cause” is an international political agenda based on policy based climate information/propaganda(UNEP, UNFCCC, IPCC)
Those that have made a living of this scheme is also aware that the whole truth has not been told to the public. And they are afraid of losing their jobs if this comes out?
Have NOT told the whole truth …
bushbunny says:
May 19, 2014 at 8:25 pm
I haven’t lived in UK since 1965, but the primary universities were Oxford, Cambridge, London, Edinburgh, and probably Exeter, as it is old. And Liverpool especially for Veterinary Science. Never heard of University of Reading, that’s near London. Some colleges like Balliol had prospective students sit entrance exams, in the 50s.
I don’t see many alarmists reports coming from them, do you?
=======================================
In the 1970s lots of extremely attractive girls went to Reading University, and they had really good parties as well.
Dunno about the academic prowess though.
As I recently posted at BH …
[…] set aside, for a moment, the fact that the oh-so-noble journal in question, i.e. the IOP’s Environmental Research Letters (ERL), has no problem with Gleick on its “Executive Board”, this is the very same esteemed journal (and/or Executive/Editorial Board thereof) which saw fit to declare Cook et al’s “97%” paper – riddled with mediocrity, as it indisputably is – as “ERL’s ‘Best article of 2013’”
If readers will forgive me for a self-serving “plug”, as I had concluded my own post earlier today, the view from here, so to speak is …
[Source: Something missing in the “critiques” of Bengtsson’s choice]
Janice, Reading is just another East Anglia. They were on the UK TV last night spouting their ‘give me money’ meme. Summer heatwaves will be more frequent, winter cold will be more frequent, we are not going to have an ice age because of AGW but that’s not good because we will all die from the heat. Oh yes, they are sucking from the same teat. UK TAXPAYERS TAKE NOTE.
Steve B says:
May 20, 2014 at 12:04 am
“dominated by a christian doctrine of ‘saving things’ ie a saviour complex.”
Saviour complex is not a Christian doctrine. It is an Atheistic doctrine since many (not all) feel inadequate with life so they go around saving things to make themselves feel better.
Sorry Steve but you are fundamentally wrong. I cannot speak for all atheists and neither, I believe, can you. I am fundamentally a scientist and I see little or no proof either for AGW or for Gods. I am not responsible for death and destruction through the ages or for poverty and high birth rates. I am all for educating all chidren to the highest possible standards without the imposition of any religion whether it be AGW or not. The wish to save the planet and it’s analysios should be left to the likes of people like Lewandowski.
“The desire to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it” — H L Mencken
Just because we know of the incident, does not mean they did not attempt a cover up. We know about Watergate after all.
JunkPsychology says
“By the way, editors are perfectly capable of selecting reviewers who they know with considerable foresight will love or hate a particular manuscript.”
How true. That is why the words “peer-reviewed” should always be taken with a liberal pinch of salt. Some years ago the editor of a scientific journal sent a paper for review to two academics on opposite sides of a theory. One passed it with minor criticisms and suggestions for improvement, the second rejected almost every word and was very rude about the author’s competence.
The editor was anxious to publish so she sent the draft paper and the reviewers’ comments to me for a third opinion. She knew that, although I had never published with the author, we shared the same views. The paper was published.
Had she not wanted it published she could have invited a third reviewer known to be antipathetic to the author rather than myself or even enlisted one as the first reviewer instead of trying to select one from each camp.
If and when the paper is published by Bengsston and his four colleagues we will be better able to judge whether the reviewers’ comments were reasonable or not. .
Bengtsson says the “peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work.” I disagree. Public review is better in terms of assessing the science. Peer review is too narrow and subject to sample size bias. The internet now makes it possible, practical, and desirable to publish for a broad audience of varying expertise that can find deficiencies much better than a couple of hand-picked and time-pressed peer reviewers. The latest examples are Nic Lewis’ and Brandon Shollenberger’s public reviews of papers that passed the peer review but show questionable results. Mosher says to free the code, Eschenbach says to free the data. Climate Science needs to free the review process too.
Is a comparison of the actual Earth’s energy budget and temperature trends versus the climate models and the theory worthy of being published.
There have only been a few done. For the most part, the pro-warming ones are so obscure that you cannot figure out what they are talking about or how the conclusions were arrived at. The skeptical ones come up with results of 1.0C to 2.0C per doubling.
What is the Earth’s energy budget balance doing versus what the models predict? What does that imply about how much temperatures will increase?
The Earth is accumulating 0.535 W/m2/year right now while the total forcing is 2.29 W/m2/year (according to the IPCC AR5). Very interesting difference in the numbers. We have a lot of missing energy and/or a large Planck negative radiative feedback (which seems to never be taken into account as a feedback even though it is the biggest one at -3.2 W/m2/K).
This all needs to be brought out into the open.
Very few scientists are scientists at least in anything other than physics.
So no, I can’t agree with this. This is exactly how I expect “scientists” to think and behave. They’ve always been like this, haven’t they?
I have enormous respect for scientists, including in fields such as the social sciences. It’s just that there are so few of them.
So true. Until he could not believe that colleagues whom he had known for years were withdrawing their co-authorships etc. LOL. Get with the program Mr.
Phil Jones re-defining what the peer review process is.
Keeping that paper out somehow.
Talking to the editor etc.
[Sorry no direct references but it’s now hard to find.]
There has been an UN-systematic AND systematic scheme going on.
Last year the ANU Canberra sacked or terminated 100 academics as they hadn’t published any article in scholarly papers or written a book. It is well known that one publishes or you are damned. The thing I thought was lecturers were there to teach and their success was judged on how many students passed or failed their courses, rather than what they got published? Seems universities or rather some don’t agree. I have met some lousy on line coordinators of on line courses who leave the marking of essays to Ph.D candidates. That means they only have an MA.
@Jimbo
May 20, 2014 at 4:16 pm
“[Sorry no direct references but it’s now hard to find.]”
http://archive.today/zXtVH
Search-able Climate-Gate I & II:
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php
-Enjoy!