A while ago, I wrote a post in which I put a series of Climategate emails together, and showed how the so-called ‘team’ (a group of leading IPCC scientists), conspired to have a journal editor sacked from his role as an academic journal editor, and also tried to have him sacked from his university. It is a long post, and continues in a second post, but you may wish to read them before continuing. When writing the post, I never imagined that people might actually try to defend the ‘team’, as the whole series of emails are in context, and very clearly show abysmal behaviour on the part of the team.
However, I have just engaged in an exchange of comments with someone who is actually trying to defend the team. He is not the first person to do so in the comments section (see my last comment below, this was a commentator called ‘Alex C), but nevertheless I am surprised that he is mounting such a determined defence. It is just plain odd. As such, I thought I would publish our small debate. It is interesting of itself, as I believe that it is illustrative of a willful disregard for the evidence of shabby behaviour on the part of the team. My point in posting the exchange is this; I simply cannot understand the motivations for defending the indefensible. I am just plain puzzled.
The comments come at the end of the post, and I simply cannot see what the commentator is trying to achieve – people will have read the emails. Why are they defending the behaviour that they are defending? Do they really believe the arguments they are putting forwards? I genuinely cannot see why they continue to defend this. With this introduction over, I will paste in the comments (I will not block quote them to avoid block quotes within block quotes which will be hard to read):
———————————————————————————————
John C
How is this corruption of peer review? The mails seem to describe a situation where an editor has allowed reports for publishing that should have never passed peer review.
This seems to be more about the lack of peer review on part of the editor than a corruption of peer review.
Does the blog author agree that a scientific journal which willfully publishes poor research should lose credibility?
————–
NZClimate:
I think that you may not know what peer review actually is? The papers were, as was stated in the emails, subjected to qualified people for review.
As for poor research, what about the work of Michael Mann? Are you suggesting that the work behind the so-called hockey stick chart was good science? Or, like those who sought to have Professor de Freitas sacked, do you think good science only involves findings of climate alarm? Nobody who has respect for science would find the attempt to destroy a person’s career, for simply allowing a peer reviewed paper to be published, to be acceptable. The process of science involves challenge, debate, and alternative explanation….do you not understand this?
I do not think anyone who reads your comment will be convinced….
Nice try.
——–
John C
How about we try to stick to the topic. Trying to change the subject is not an honest approach to debating.
Could you post the exact quotes that state that the papers went through actual, qualified peer review? Because this is what I’m seeing:
“the Soon and Baliunas work is just crap science that should never be passed peer review”
And another thing the e-mails seem to show is that this is not the first time de Freitas allows through papers of poor quality.
So again, how is this corruption of the peer review process? The actual corruption these e-mails indicate is that de Freitas allows through papers that are simply not good science, which undermines the integrity of the peer review process.
Do you disagree that if an editor keeps allowing poor research to be published, that is a problem? For example, an editor of a biology journal lets a creationist publish poor research attacking Evolution?
—————
NZClimate
I am sticking to the topic. You are following the ‘team’s’ method of ad hominem attack when you suggest I am not debating with an ‘an honest’ post. Michael Mann’s hockey stick has been discredited, and his presentation of his results was ‘crap science’ intended to create a false impression of the temperature record (see link below).
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/01/hide-the-decline-plus/
If you read the emails, you will find that Michael Mann is front and centre in this terrible behaviour. The paper at the centre of this was work which questioned his hockey stick. Does it not seem odd to you that the very people who had such a stake in a now utterly discredited piece of work are the very same people who are trying to wreck the career of the person who allowed publication of work that went against it?
You correctly point out that the emails accuse Professor de Freitas of allowing other poor quality papers through. It is not the role of a cabal of people to determine/decide upon the quality of work that is published, in particular when the work just happens to be contrary to their own work. Do you not think there is a conflict of interest here??? If your approach was, for example, applied to the idea of Phlogiston, with Becker as the person who determined the ‘quality’ of all subsequent work, would modern chemistry have ever have gotten off the ground? Science advances through fits and starts, with occasional wrong turns. However, alternative explanations need to be published in order to identify when science has taken a wrong turn.
Also, although calling my approach ‘dishonest’ do you not think this might describe your linkage with creationism? The Soon and Baliunas paper has flaws (as do many generally good scientific papers), but it is clearly work of science. Perhaps it is not a very honest approach to set a dishonest analogy and to try to sway the minds of readers with this analogy. The work of Soon and Baliunus cannot be compared with creationism. This is a rhetorical trick.
Returning to the question of peer review, this is is in the emails:
How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with bona fide scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that ‘anti-greenhouse’ science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on).
I have highlighted the point about bona fide, as the paper was reviewed by scientists. The ‘team’ may not like or agree with some scientists, but they are nevertheless bona fide scientists. What the team object to is that these scientists have a different theoretical position on climate change to their own. They object to the idea that these scientists are questioning their own theory. Well, tough! If their theory is strong enough, they can defend in the peer reviewed literature, but that peer review literature must not be subject to their interference! Why, if they have such a strong case, would they resort to the kind of behaviour that is evident in the emails? Is it because, for example, they were all aware that Mann’s hockey stick would not withstand scrutiny?
As I said in my previous response, I do not think you understand how peer review is supposed to work. It is not about a self-selected group ensuring that only work that agrees with their own is allowed to be published, where such a group determine ‘quality’ based upon whether work supports their own theory.
Again, I will leave it to readers to make their own judgement.
————
John C
That’s a lot of text. I would like to return to the core of the issue, as I am not here to discuss everything you can manage to bring up in a single comment.
Do you or do you not agree that if an editor keeps allowing poor research to be published, that is a problem?
Do you or do you not agree that the scientists you are accusing of corrupting peer review genuinely think the research was so poor it shouldn’t have been published?
Do you or do you not agree that the paper in question was a poor one?
Do you or do you not agree that if scientists notice that a journal is publishing papers that should have never been published in the first place, they are justified in dealing with that in some way?
Do you or do you not agree that a group of scientists should be allowed to discuss how to deal with a journal that keeps publishing poor research?
The reason I mentioned creationism is that it’s an easy example to use. Most rational human being reject creationism, so it’s a good way to see whether you are being consistent when you make your claims and arguments.
—————-
NZClimate:
I will answer you point by point:
Do you or do you not agree that if an editor keeps allowing poor research to be published, that is a problem?
You are making an assumption here that the research is poor. As I have said, even good papers might have flaws. (edit) see answer below as well.
Do you or do you not agree that the scientists you are accusing of corrupting peer review genuinely think the research was so poor it shouldn’t have been published?
I disagree with this. I do not believe they think it is poor research, they think it disagrees with their own work. They may dress this up, and try to convince themselves, but…their own internal dissent over the hockey stick chart suggests that they put their ’cause’ above science. In particular, many of the ‘team’ expressed serious reservations about Mann’s hockey stick, but they did nothing about it. If they are the great defenders of science, why did they not immediately publish a paper to express their concerns with the validity of the hockey stick?
http://climateaudit.org/2011/11/28/severinghaus-and-hide-the-decline/
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/12/2/tim-barnett-on-the-hockey-stick.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/05/tim-barnett-on-the-hockey-stick-statistics-were-suspectthe-rest-of-the-team-knew-of-problems-with-manns-reconstruction/
It doesn’t quite work does it. You are trying to portray the team as a group of scientists of integrity trying to defend the world against ‘crap science’ – but it is odd, is it not, that this integrity did not include getting a rebuttal of Mann’s hockey stick into the peer reviewed literature. Clearly, the ‘team’ thought the hockey stick was highly problematic, so why not act to correct the science? In short, the harping on about science appears as a crass case of self-justification for what they knew was wrong. For example, from the emails, Wigley acknowledged the nature of what they are doing:
Jim Salinger raises the more personal issue of deFreitas. He is clearly giving good science a bad name, but I do not think a barrage of ad hominem attacks or letters is the best way to counter this.
If Jim wishes to write a letter with multiple authors, I may be willing to sign it, but I would not write such a letter myself.
Look at the email, and look who is on the distribution?
Do you or do you not agree that the paper in question was a poor one?
As I state in the about section of this blog, I leave the details of climate science to others. I have read in other skeptic blogs that the paper had flaws, but was overall a good paper (see link below):
http://climateaudit.org/2011/12/06/climategate-2-0-an-ar5-perspective/
However, this is not the issue, is it? The peer reviewed literature is filled with papers with flaws, and the place to deal with these flaws is in the peer reviewed literature, not through seeking to attack individuals. This is corruption of the scientific process.
Do you or do you not agree that if scientists notice that a journal is publishing papers that should have never been published in the first place, they are justified in dealing with that in some way?
Again, you are making an assumption that this work should never have been published and relying upon the views of the people whose work is being questioned to say that it should not have been published. I am not sure you are getting the point here. If there were such a problem (and there is no reason to think this is the case), the proper way of ‘dealing with it’ is to seek to challenge the content in the peer reviewed literature, not to plot to damage the careers of those involved. It really is that simple…..
Do you or do you not agree that a group of scientists should be allowed to discuss how to deal with a journal that keeps publishing poor research?
Absolutely, if scientist believe that work is poor, then they should be able to discuss this. However, there is discussion of science, and then there is plotting to attack someone’s career through smearing their name, and running a campaign to have them sacked from an editorial position. This is not the same as discussing the merits of scientific work, is it?
Again, I will leave readers to judge between your defence of the emails. I do not think they will be convinced. In the end, the authors of the emails make my case for me, with their own words. When uncovering these emails, I remember my sense of shock and disgust. I am guessing that this will be the reaction of most readers, and this is reflected in most of the comments here.
————————–
[My comment: This was sent through as I was writing this post - determined does not express this.]
John C
1. The first question is a general question. I did not say whether it was poor or not in this case.
2. Why would they lie to each other and pretend that they geninely thought the research was poor in internal e-mails? That doesn’t make sense at all.
3. You leave the details of climate science to others, but it is clear that the paper was a poor one, as it has received significant criticism. Indeed, Wikipedia states that “the publisher subsequently admitted that the conclusions of the paper could not be supported by the evidence and that the journal should have requested appropriate revisions prior to publication.”
Furthermore: “Eventually half of the journal’s editorial board resigned along with von Storch. Von Storch later stated that climate change sceptics “had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common” and complained that he had been pressured to publish the paper and had not been allowed to publish a rebuttal contesting the authors’ conclusions.”
The issue is that an editor allegedly allowed poor research to be published. And this was not an isolated incident. There’s a major difference between finding flaws after publication, and overlooking or allowing major flaws and publishing it anyway!
Wikipedia links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas#Controversy_over_the_2003_Climate_Research_paper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
Do you still deny that the paper was a poor one, and should have never been published? It seems to me that others have already looked at the details of the paper and found it lacking. Indeed, they have found that it should have never been published, and the only reason it was published is that climate skeptics had identified the journal as not having a sufficiently rigorous review process.
4. The question about whether poor research should be published or not is a general question again. Do you think it’s OK to publish papers that are fatally flawed to the point where they should never have been published in the first place? And if not, it must surely be OK for someone to deal with this.
5. You first say it’s OK to discuss how to deal with a journal which allows poor research to be published, but then you say it’s not OK anyway?
Do you not agree that now that we have established that the paper did indeed not qualify for publication, and the only reason it was published was that the journal had a flawed and sub-standard review process?
And does it not follow from that that it was necessary to do something about this, so as to prevent further pseudoscience from posing as real science?
What should they have done, exactly?
—————————–
NZClimate:
You still have not explained why the response was not that which is the normal way for science to proceed. That is, if scientists have a problem with the quality of work, they should simply respond by putting their view of why it is wrong in the peer reviewed literature. It really is that simple. There is no need to conspire to have journal editors sacked from their editorship or from their job. In the end, you are just using smoke and mirrors to try to hide the fact that this is not the way that science proceeds. You do not address the problems of Mann’s blatant misrepresentation of data in any of your emails, but still continue to harp on about the quality of the Soon and Baliunas paper? Is this not odd?
In the end of your email, you talk about ‘pseudo-science’. We have now moved back on to the same method you used earlier, when you linked the paper to creationism. On what basis is it pseudo-science? I took the trouble to answer all of your points, so I will now ask you to answer one for me:
Do you think that Mann’s misrepresentation of data in his hockey stick chart is good science or pseudo-science?
I ask this question, because although there were flaws (and good points) in the Soon and Baliunus paper, they did nothing comparable to what Mann did with the hockey stick chart. However, you keep on focusing on the paper. You do so, because the behaviour of the team is abysmal. This is the smoke and mirrors. However, whilst defending this group of scoundrels, you keep on suggesting that they are defending ‘science’. However, you make no acknowledgement of the crass distortion of science in the misrepresentation of data in the hockey stick chart. If I were very cynical, I might suspect that you are Michael Mann, or one of the team. I also note that another comment defending this comes from a person called ‘Alex C’ in the second of the two posts (he gives two comments, and the defence comes in the 2nd comment).
An odd coincidence that you are both posting with the same name format? However, I have assumed that you are just an interested observer, and have responded on this basis.
You end this comment with the question of ‘what should they have done exactly?’
I think I have answered this question so many times, I am puzzled that you continue to ask. Endless repetition of the question does not change the answer. As such I will both say what they should and should not have done:
What they should have done: It is so, so simple. If they felt that a paper was wrong, they should simply write a paper and seek to publish it in the peer reviewed literature.
What they should not have done: They should not have conspired to have an editor sacked, should not have smeared his good name, and should not have sought to have him sacked from his job at his university.
I am sure that you can keep on going. I am sure that you will….I will let you have the last word here and will not respond further – life is too short and, more to the point, I will let readers judge for themselves. I really see no point in going forwards. I am also so puzzled by your determination to defend this behaviour that I am making a post out of our exchange here (you will be able to find it on the home page in a short while. I am genuinely puzzled at your determination to defend these people, and their shabby behaviour. Again, I am working on the assumption that you are just a genuinely interested party.
Over to you for (I hope) a final comment.
——————————————
That is the end of the exchange so far. No doubt, the commentator will respond, and you will find his answer in the comments section of the post. It really is odd, the accusation of Soon and Balunias as being pseudoscience, but no comment on the misrepresentation of data by Mann. All very, very odd. Comments, thoughts, explanations for this kind of determination to defend this are welcome.
