Rud Istvan, sends this open letter along for publication and writes: This puts UQ on the horns of a terrible dilemma. The preferred political response is always to sweep such a situation under the rug and ignore it.
The letter follows.
Prof. Alistair McEwan, Acting-Pro-Vice Chancello, University of Queensland
Ms. Jane Malloch, Esq. Head Research Legal, University of Queensland
Mr. Graham Lloyd, Environmental Editor, The Australian
Prof. Richard Tol, University of Sussex
5/22/2014
Prof. McEwan:
On May 20, 2014, you issued a formal statement concerning the controversy published by The Australian on 5/17/14 surrounding Cook et. al, 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024, ‘Quantifying the Consensus’, hereinafter QtC. That statement presents the University of Queensland (UQ) with an ethical and legal dilemma. I call your attention to it expecting UQ will do the right thing.
Your statement makes it quite clear that UQ considers QtC was done under the sponsorship of and with support from UQ. This is indisputable. The solicitation for volunteer raters for the analysis that became QtC was: survey.gci.uq.edu.au/survey.php?c=5RL8LWWT2YO7. UQ released a statement about the importance of QtC in the UQ News on January 16, 2014 headlined, “UQ climate change paper has the whole world talking.”
Your 5/20/14 statement said in part:
“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.”
And that is precisely your dilemma.
The published paper itself identified all the individual research participants (raters). They were either named authors (with affiliations provided, for example second author Dana Nuccitelli affiliated with UQ associated website SKS, as noted in UQ’s 1/20/14 news release, or were specifically named without affiliation in the paper’s acknowledgement. Lest you doubt this, following is that portion of the paper as originally published.
Your dilemma is this. If the UQ ethical approval exists as you officially stated, then the paper as published grossly violated it. QtC is therefore unethical according to UQ policy, and should be withdrawn forthwith.
We need not cite here all the governing Australian principles that UQ is obligated to follow under such unfortunate circumstances. Those include but are not limited to www.uq.edu.au/research/integrity-compliance/human-ethics
There is 2014 retraction precedent concerning another unethical climate related paper from the University of Western Australia. If, on the other hand, there was no such ethical approval, or that approval did not require concealing rater identities, then you have officially misrepresented grossly invalid grounds for withholding the anonymized additional information needed for replication, such as date and time stamped ratings by anonymous rater. Said information has repeatedly, formally been requested by Prof. Richard S.J. Tol (Sussex University (U.K.), and an IPCC AR5 lead author) for his legitimate research purposes concerning what UQ said is a seminal paper. That data should still exist, and should be provided to Prof. Tol under UQ Policy 4.20.06a §8.2 and §9.1 (as last approved 11/28/13).
Either way, you and UQ both appear in a very bad light. It appears that UQ congratulates itself on gross ethical breaches (especially when basking in so much notoriety), while at the same time withholding anonymized primary data underlying a self admitted important research paper in contravention of UQ written research data policy. Either retract the admittedly unethical paper, or retract the grossly mistaken excuse and release the requested data to Tol.
I note in passing there is a third possibility, to wit Tol’s requested data does not exist. In which case, QtC should be retracted for being unsupportable if not also unethical. As you are probably aware, there have been many recent instances of unsupportable research subsequently retracted. These include but are not limited to papers from Ike Antkare in 2010, and many recent papers from the SCIgen group (which interestingly bears surficial similarities to SKS) now being retracted by Springer and by IEEE. Those two precedents may be particularly germane to UQ’s instant dilemma.
This letter is as copyrighted as those Ms. Malloch writes concerning this matter on UQ behalf. You and anyone else in the whole wide world are hereby granted permission to freely reproduce it in whole or in part. I suspect some may.
I look forward to whichever decision (retraction or data provision) you think best for UQ under the aforesaid circumstances.
Sincerely yours, s/s
Rud Istvan, Esq., JD/MBA
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@Ken Hall – I am not sure it is checkmate,but I think their only option left is to sacrifice the queen.
philjourdan says:
May 22, 2014 at 5:56 pm
I strongly concur. The best move for UQ now would be to sacrifice the Red Queen, ie Cook.
Or Black Queen, given his penchant for Nazi storm trooper uniforms.
“The best move for UQ now would be to sacrifice the Red Queen”
else we’ll send in the Black Knight!
UQ will sure ignore this and hope it goes away.
However, I assume the UQ Administration is accountable to some body or persons but really have no clue about how such things are organized down under. Perhaps Rud Istvan’s excellent letter could be sent those in a position to ensure that UQ doesn’t just bury the thing?
Nick Stokes says:
LOL. +1 Nick.
Roger Dewhurst says:
May 22, 2014 at 3:24 pm
Ms. Jane Malloch, Esq.
Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!
I saw that and thought it odd, too. Perhaps the legal world has archaic honorifics that normal mortals know little about? Of course “Esquire” is masculine, but may be applied to those who have reached a certain level in the legal food chain, and since in medieval times women were not part of the legal world, the archaic honorific is applied now regardless of gender.
The thing about Cook et al’s study that interests me is its self-evident poor quality. I’m not currently involved in any area of university study where the Cook study would fall within its ambit, but if I were, and I were marking the paper as if it were a submitted assignment, it would get a fail. That UQ could approve of, and tout the results as if they are startling news, when in reality the paper would be a big fat fail for a third year geography student, says a lot about UQ policy in my view. Or lack of ethics, more likely.
James (Aus.) says:
May 22, 2014 at 4:08 pm
Has UQ any wind farm investments?
————————————————————-
Don’t know about wind farms, but they have 2 huge sola PV installations. ( for experimental work and Grants )
I did you the favor of politely informing you that the premise of your open letter is wrong. You have no cause to question my intent. Further, your suggestion that a paper ought to be retracted on the basis of an error in the acknowledgements is silly.
I appreciate your advice vis thinking ahead. I might return the favor by suggesting you think in the first case.
Here’s one of climate skepticism’s most well regarded bloggers on the matter,
“Steve McIntyre
May 19, 2014 at 10:31 pm
Brandon: you say “I’ve so far found public records showing 16 of the 24 raters’ identities”. YOu counted Honeycutt twice – you only listed 15. Other SKSers commenting in the The Consensus Project forum include Brian Purdue, Daniel Bailey. rustnever – is shown as a George Morrison.”
One or two more have been identified but the count is nowhere near “all.”
“The ethics process was designed to protect participants. I can’t see anyone taking up Mr Istvan’s concern for their welfare if they have no complaint.”
This comment just highlights the very disjointed, non-sensical relationship between the nature of the paper and the UQ’s comments on it. The only standing the raters could have to make a complaint is if they were subjects of the paper, if they were being studied. In that case, it’s not a study of climate papers at all, but of how people rate climate papers. You can’t even assume they have the expertise to do that job if they are the subjects.
But if they were recruited to analyze the papers and given the training to do so with the view to getting an accurate assessment of the papers themselves (and not the raters ability), then they aren’t the subjects of the study (the papers are). They are, in effect, (limited) co-authors. And since when is the ethics process designed to protect authors. It would be like me going to court to get a restraining order against myself. And if the raters somehow do need to be covered by an ethics agreement for working with John Cook, what does that say about him? Will all co-authors need ethics protection from each from here on out? Can Lars Bengtsson get ethics protection from the co-author who threatened to pull out of their paper (in effect bad-mouthing him)?
Some Aussie sites who question CAGW who will gladly reprint your open letter:-
http://joannenova.com.au/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
http://donaitkin.com/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/
http://australianclimatemadness.com/
Interesting places, there are plenty more, I will give them the link.
This POS was a literature study, conducted by a team of researchers, not a psychological study of people who volunteered as research subjects. There were no research “participants.” Referring to the assistant researchers as “participants” is a red herring, a totally unsupported allegation by the University.
I’m wrapped up in some other things right now, but I need to point out Rud Istvan’s response to DGH:
Is wrong. This is what the acknowlegment of the paper said:
Nothing about that claims everyone listed (there or as co-authors) rated papers. The most anyone can claim is this incorrectly says the listing is complete. That criticism could be entirely addressed by adding the words “some of” between “just” and “those” in the last sentence. Misusing a single pronoun is hardly a flaw so significant the paper needs to be retracted. It certainly doesn’t parallel the claim made in this post as Istvan uses it.
As for the wrongness of the rhetoric, I don’t think that needs to be explained. Well-mannered corrections should be embraced, not reacted to with hostility.
But I thought any research more than 2 years old was outdated? (as a warmist wrote in the Garudian the other day). 20 year old data?
What species of deer is that, out there in my headlights ??
Rud Ivstan, UQ has Code(s) of Ethics which are required if the they are complying with the Queensland Public Sector Act because the Act includes Universities and all public financed education establishments. The minimum content of the Code of ethics is all the items specifically mentioned in the act. The Act says “The ethics obligations apply to all public officials”. Those who breach the Act by not full filling their obligations can be referred to a Misconduct Tribunal under the Criminal Justice Act.
I would suggest that the letter from UQ Lawyer authorised by Prof Harris could be consider to breach the Public Sector Act on a number of points such as a) issuing a threat, b) accusing Brendon of Hacking, c) being impolite to a member of the public (ie not repecting persons ) d) this point (should not improperly use his or her official powers or position, or allow them to be improperly used) and e) this (11. In performing his or her official duties, a public official should ensure that public resources are not wasted, abused, or used improperly or extravagantly)
Why are we even discussing consensus? It doesn’t matter how many people believe a wall is brown. If it’s blue they’re all wrong. Being an expert on the color brown doesn’t make them less wrong. Science by popular opinion went out with the ancient Greeks. If we had clung to science by consensus we’d all be sure that we live in the center of the universe and that the sun and planets circle us on crystal spheres. We’d have no radio, TV, GPS, cell phones of other modern technology. The science to create such things would be outlawed.
This forum wouldn’t and couldn’t exist.
Here’s a clear hypothetical example of the superiority of the scientific process over the idiocy of science by consensus. A group of scientists who have lived underground all their lives start arguing about the color of the sun when directly overhead at noon. One young scientist suggests they open an ancient window and observe the sun directly. The other scientists all scoff at the naiveté of the lone heretic. Studies are undertaken to analyze the effects of how different gases in the atmosphere affect the way the sun might look from earth. After 25 years and billions of quatloos spent, a vote is held and 97% of the scientists agree that the sun is lime green. Done, science settled, consensus. No one may question the dogma.
The sheer idiocy of this so called science is that a single, real world observation would obliterate the accepted scientific truth in less than one second. No major studies or peer reviewed articles required. A single piece of empirical evidence that contradicts the consensus demonstrates the inestimable idiocy of science by vote.
The only reason anyone shouts about consensus is to distract you from the fact that if you have actual, observed evidence to support your theory then you don’t need to poll scientists in the first place.
So why are we even entertaining this moronic concept that was dismissed as scientific nonsense over 2,000 years ago?
To paraphrase Einstein, “two things are infinite. The universe and human stupidity. And I’m not certain of the universe.”
I doubt the UQ will readily take part in any “discussion” on this – more like they will try and ignore it.
But what a tremendous example of a total lack of joined up thinking!
The UQ has the chance to come clean on this – if they do not – they will be seen for what they are by people who have an open mind.
The bottom line is the ‘need’ to blindly support the mythic 97% tells us much about the area under review. Normal science accepts that if it makes a claim, it can be challenged and if found incorrect, the claim is changed or dropped. Special climate ‘science’ view is that once something as entered into its ‘dogma’ its unchangeable or unchallengeable even if , has in this case , it fails a on its basic maths let alone its logic , and most be defend unto death.
That Cook work was poor from top to bottom , and would not have been met an acceptable standard for undergraduate handing in an essay in any other area of study not that seems a problem for ‘research’ in climate ‘science’ . Is just icing on what is already a rather awful mouldy long past its sell by date cake.
Although the logic is fine the letter could be better written. There is at least one error in the sentence below.
“These include but are not limited to papers from Ike Antkare in 2010, and many recent papers from the SCIgen group (which interestingly bears surficial similarities to SKS) now being retracted by Springer and by IEEE. ”
Where Rud Istvan wrote surficial similarities he presumably meant superficial similarities. Furthermore, assuming that he was referring to the papers from the SCIgen group, he should have stated that they bear (not bears) superficial similarities to SKS. If he was referring to the paper by Antkare then bears is correct but in that case the sentence is ambiguous.
Although this is a bit pedantic mistakes like that create a bad impression in an important letter sent to very senior university staff. Of course, if English is not Rud Istvan’s first language then my criticisms are rather harsh because many native speakers could have made similar mistakes, and although I am reasonably fluent in a couple of foreign languages I know how difficult it can be to avoid minor errors in writing.
‘Esq’ as a suffix for a female looks curious to much of the English-speaking world. However, it seems to be standard practice in USA as an honorific for a qualified lawyer, regardless of sex. The language changes, as different people use it in different ways. (In the 19th century, English solicitors – qualified lawyers who do not normally speak in Court, and were somewhat looked down – were said to be ‘gentlemen by Act of Parliament’!)
Solicitors talk to the client, the barrister talks to the judge. In local/magistrates courts in this country (Oz) solicitors regularly speak in court.
I would reckon that the UQ international rating has just plunged to below third world level. Perhaps courses by correspondence in brown paper bags or the equivalent via internet is its future? Terribly sad really, but would you enrol your kids at UQ now?
Yeah Roy…..like putting a comma between pedantic and mistakes…..
Or did you mean “pedantic mistakes”?
kcom says:
May 22, 2014 at 7:23 pm
==============================
Interesting point. Exactly what is a study “participant”?