Rather than go quietly, they seem to be ramping up:
UQ and climate change research 20 May 2014
The following is a statement from UQ acting Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Research and International) Professor Alastair McEwan.
Recent media coverage (The Australian, 17 March 2013) has stated that The University of Queensland is trying to block climate research by stopping the release of data used in a paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
This is not the case. All data relating to the “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature” paper that are of any scientific value were published on the website Skepticalscience.com in 2013.
Only information that might be used to identify the individual research participants was withheld.
This was in accordance with University ethical approval specifying that the identity of participants should remain confidential.
=============================================================
Source: http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2014/05/uq-and-climate-change-research
This is the first news we’ve heard of an getting an ethics approval by Cook, and the raters are known and even acknowledged in the paper. See this screencap from the Cook paper:
Click to access 1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf
It seems the ultimate straw man argument.
And, what supposed harm would the knowledge that a few people did some ratings on this paper cause, especially when all of them are already widely known?
Brandon Shollenberger responds:
Suppose it truly is important to keep the identity of raters private. Why then did I just load this image at Skeptical Science:
That shows the identity of 11 raters, and it’s been viewable on Skeptical Science for a couple years now (archived for posterity here). So too has this one (archived here):
This one also identifies nearly a dozen individual participants. It’s true we only found out about these images because of a hack, but that hack happened nearly two years ago. Surely the authors of the paper shouldn’t leave confidential information in a publicly accessible location for two years, even if people have already seen it.
Read it in entirety:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/university-of-queensland-doubles-down-on-hiding-data/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One clarification to my recent post: “14% of Climate Scientists” should have been written ” 14% of Climate Science authors of papers analyzed by Cook et. al.”. My apologies.
DanMet’al,
Your link to Cook Papers seems off? http://wermenh.com/
Couldn’t find the referenced paper?
knr
I’ve heard this description (of Mann) many times, but cannot but shake my head at this. Nothing in Mann’s behavior strikes me as a ‘big ego’ ! Rather he comes across as a very small (and narrow) minded insecure individual, who wants to conceal this by lots of loud (but mostly empty) bluster. Possibly this demeanor has been exacerbated by some early limited and subsequently overblown achievment (roughly two lines at an angle)
I mean, has this man every dared to debate, or even just meet, any of his critics on an even field? What I know is that he avoids or even flees any such situation, only gives interviews
UQ’s new motto – check your intelligence at the door. I think they adopted it from an American university.
Hunter,
Cook is a former (?) cartoonist for whom climate SCIENCE is a hobby. He decided to study psychology and is now attempting to manipulate public opinion by manipulating the opinions of scientists. He believes that the reason people doubt “the science of agw” is simply because the MARKETING MESSAGE has been lacking. He believes that “shiney graphics” and catchy phrases are all the simple folk need in order to jump on his bandwagon.
What is hilarious is that it doesn’t really matter what he tries to dress it up like. The generation that has grown up being taught the principles of “how to market…yourself, an idea, a product, a pyramid scheme, a meme…” can smell a sales pitch a mile away. HE seems to be new to these principles himself, and in typical narcissistic form, he assumes that if HE is new to something, everyone else must be too. His methods are enthusiastically obvious to everyone but himself. He’s nothing more than a psychological used theory salesman.
Everyone, it’s important to note note all raters were listed in the paper, and not everyone listed in the paper did ratings. For example, Robert Way did not rate any papers, but he is an author of the paper. A few of us have been discussing that issue in the comments of one my posts:
hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/18/a-direct-challenge/
zootcadillac, I don’t care to revisit the subject at the moment (I have enough on my plate already), but Skeptical Science was hacked, and those images were made public knowledge as a result of it.
@DanMet’al says:
May 20, 2014 at 10:13 am
Survey response rates are subject to any number of influences. In the old days of mailed surveys, my dad, who was in advertising, once told me that typical response rates were around 1-3%, while a 10% rate was exceptional.
As a former academic, I can assure everyone that the academic environment, far from being free, is so ideologically hidebound as to be as intolerant of dissent as Nazi Germany. UQ’s behavior is par for the course.
If the subject of their research is the scientist’s papers and the conclusions of those papers then the people examining the scientist’s papers (Cook’s people) are the researchers and not the subjects and therefore hold no unique right to hide how each impacted that collating of papers.
Does that sound right?
cn
D.J. Hawkins says:
May 20, 2014 at 10:42 am
Thanks D.J. for your response. Though I don’t have quantitative calibration, like you do, I guess I knew (and wouldn’t have expected) a really high response rate from the authors, because they have busy lives etc . etc.. But I would have thought that the response rates to a survey request from a supposedly respected climate scientist (i.e. Cook) on such an important topic would get a much higher hit rate than an anonymous marketing survey appeal. After all, cold-calling is a lot different than an appeal to your tribe members.
But I admit I have no expertise or significant experience in conducting such external surveys.
Thanks again for your response and perspective.
Dan
Hey guys. All the time I’ve spent on the Cook et al paper has made me re-visit an idea I had some time back. I discuss it a bit in a new post of mine. The short version is, I’m thinking about creating a web site to allow for a public re-analysis of the “consensus.”
I’m curious if I could get some feedback:
http://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/a-re-analysis-of-the-consensus/
Here is an example of subjective Integrity => UQ demarcates climate science to include Cook. Cook demarcates climate science to exclude people who want to see all his data.
Here is a flawed hidden premise of UQ and Cook claims => they falsely presume to be in a position to demarcate correct climate science, but only the climate can demarcate what is climate science. The climate so far only supports demarcation of climate science to exclude the UQ’s or Cook’s imaginary consensus.
As to the publication of Cook’s ‘Consensus’ paper, the journal ERL lacked the intellectual tools to understand the flawed demarcation efforts of UQ and Cook.
John
I love the fact that the Chancellor is “Pro-Vice.” I am actually Anti-Vice myself, but then I am a skeptic too.
And as far as the marketing or sales acumen of the Skeptical Science folk, I believe that they are getting better at their craft, but they are about level with Snake Oil salesmen at this point. If you are so slick that you can sell “sh.. in a tinbox” you may be a great salesman, but it is still Sh..!
To Brandon, if you do a public reanalysis of the Cook paper, please give reviewers more choices as to the level of agreement with AGW, and hopefully distinguish between AGW and CAGW.
Kudos to Chuck Nolan for a very insightful distinction!!
Professor Alastair McEwan did not say Cook’s project underwent ethical approval, but that it was simply in accordance with that policy. Those weasel words were carefully crafted.
And this is a man who has no trouble with such things. He likely boilerplates similar things to refuse all other FOI requests the university gets.
He may find this item may not be so easy to sweep under the rug.
So the reviewers and people who “peer” review this paper are to be a University secret? How can one trust and even know that the paper was then reviewed?
Perhaps the review was by someone named
Mr. Rubber Stamp!
There is a BIG reason why courts are open to the public. Can you imagine if all court cases are to be held in private?
The REASON why court proceedings are held in public is so the public can have trust of the public system. I mean lawyers used to be VERY respected profession. These days I cannot say they reached the same disrespect as Wall Street traders or climate scientists, but certainly widespread disrespect does exist for the profession these days.
While the public has much distain for many court rulings these days, can you image HOW BAD it would be if courts were NOT held in public view? We would have ZERO respect for courts if the norm was private sessions.
Even some big auto shops now have big bay glass windows in the customer waiting area allowing customers to “peer” down into the working area. In other words the “fact” that customers can view is enough for those customers in general not having or even wanting to view their car being worked on – but they can!
The court system LONG ago realized that to have any public confidence in the system the public must have access to court proceedings.
The idea that the people who rubber stamp such papers has any such history or precedent that their names be withheld and the public is to be keep in the dark as to who approved such papers is not only insane, but not of historic precedent.
If one takes away the tradition of disclosure and public viewing of WHO approves and reviews papers then anything can be produced without any kind of scrutiny.
The result will only be public disrespect and mistrust.
ALSO the door and temptation becomes WIDE OPEN to abuse by the institution used to create such papers.
The result then is the University ONLY can rely on some perceived authority, not on its hard fought integrity.
I bet there are quite a few UofQ alumni squirming with embarassment? The UofQ ‘management’ are a bunch of complete and utter tossers! sorry, but it had to be said……………….
Brad says:
May 20, 2014 at 10:27 am
Sorry for the confusion. . . I tested my earlier post; but obviously messed up! Try this link; it’s an informative dialog.
Cook Paper
Dan
What I find odd, is that a supposedly reputable university would willingly associate with a rag like the ironically named skepticalscience.
At various points among this and other threads on this subject there have been suggestions that an Australian citizen might wish to submit an FOI request to the university, presumably because there is a conception that non-residents cannot do so. Knowing that here in the UK there is no such restriction, I have delved a little into Australian law. Unless I am mistaken, it seems that the position in Australia is much the same. The Aussie act refers only to “a person”, meaning (to me) anyone. True, there have been decided cases where corporations have applied but that was about the right of an individual to do so and whether a non-personal entity could do so.
I don’t wish to enter the fray for the well reasoned argument that too many combatants would be counter productive but those closer to that fray might wish to consider making a request, wherever they are located.
The top rater says:
“I am not a professional climate scientist, but just an interested layman who has been getting familiar particularly to the observational side of the issue by reading the research papers on the subject. I hope I can offer some relevant information on the subject especially as the public discussion on the subject tends to focus more on what climate models can do instead of emphasizing the observational body of evidence which is very large and in my opinion convincing by itself even without far-reaching climate theories or models (which is not to say that climate models are not important and useful tools – they are).!
Cold in Wisconsin, right now I know I want to have ratings for two different things:
1) Endorsement of the greenhouse effect
2) Endorsement of the idea humans are responsible for the majority of the observed warming.
I’m not sure if there’d be any need for a third category to cover whether or not that warming is dangerous. I think the distinction between that category and my 2 is important, but I’m not sure it’d be suitable for this data. There might not be enough abstracts to even look at that topic.
Then again, as long as people don’t have to select a rating for that for most papers (because the default is “no position”), it might not add much burden for the raters.
thank you for clearing up the details about the hack/leak issue. Clearly I am misremembering and conflating two separate issues. Heck, with the level of wine consumption here this weekend after a bereavement I may be making it all up in my head 🙂
albertkallal says:
May 20, 2014 at 11:57 am
So the reviewers and people who “peer” review this paper are to be a University secret? How can one trust and even know that the paper was then reviewed?
Perhaps the review was by someone named
Mr. Rubber Stamp!
=== === ===
Albertkallal,
I’ve just had a paper accepted for publication.
I can’t tell you by whom. Ever.
It does, however, clearly prove that CAGW-supporting Climate scientists have a smaller ~@ur momisugly~@ur momisugly~@ur momisugly ;@ur momisugly;@ur momisugly;’ – by about 1.5%/publication – then normal folk of their gender and age.
This is based on a sample of about N [I can’t tell you how many] – but is true with a significance of 0.NN [were I to tell you either of those digits, my colleagues in the S#S would be obliged to neutralize you].
Fortunately, my paper has been peer-reviewed by several other S#@ur momisugly*es – all of whom wish to remain anonymous – and accepted for publication by the Editor’s Premiere Planet’s Personalities Panel, who, it seems, have public order reasons for not being identified.
But there we go – it’s proven that CAGW-supporting Climate scientists have a smaller ~@ur momisugly~@ur momisugly~@ur momisugly ;@ur momisugly;@ur momisugly;’
Auto
Proudly Peer-reviewed Author [just don’t ask who or how!]
Hey – do I need to add /:Sarc?
If you think I don’t, please add.
if not – ignore.
This 797th Anniversary of the Battle of Lincoln
Consensus in science is just a waste of time. It’s like saying, we got 100 idiots to agree, so this is the absolute truth. Yea, because agreement is obviously the mark of correctness. Why if 200 doctors all agreed the best thing for your health was to jump off a bridge well I know some cartoonists who would obviously let others think for them and take the plunge.