the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Ten reasons why we cant trust the committees on climategate

Posted by Jeff Id on July 13, 2010

10 – No effort was made to examine the true issues and avoid the non-issues.

9 – Committee members were often insiders with direct benefit from AGW global warming policy.

8 – Government had too much to lose by a truthful finding.

7 – No comprehensive effort was made to put ‘hide the decline’ or other emails in context.

6 – Openness and transparency of the review process was blocked.

5 – Efforts to question scientists were minimal at best and completely undocumented in most cases.

4 – The accused UEA was allowed behind the scenes to establish which papers and issues were in question.

3 – None of the critics who understood the problem were questioned.

2 – No forensic efforts were made to determine whether emails were in fact deleted.

1 – They got the wrong answer.


23 Responses to “Ten reasons why we cant trust the committees on climategate”

  1. Black Sabbath said

    One reason we can’t trust any of the climategate people:

    FOLLOW THE MONEY

  2. Gary said

    Other reasons are:
    – done in haste put the matter to rest.
    – failure to establish a priori a comprehensive set of rules and questions to answer.

  3. Eric Anderson said

    Good list, Jeff. I might swap #2 and #3. Forensic efforts could be a fair amount of additional work, could be beyond their immediate expertise, etc. But not even talking to critics who understood the problem??

    BTW, in #8, what is the government planning to loose — the great dragon? Or maybe you meant “lose”? 🙂

  4. Andoman said

    #8 Should be ‘lose’.

  5. Amabo said

    ‘1 – They got the wrong answer.’ 😀

  6. CTD said

    Re “the wrong answer” – I think you should strike that. That’s how warmists think, not skeptics.

  7. MangoChutney said

    agree with #6

    /mango

  8. BarryW said

    I’d change #1 to be:

    They never answered the question they were chartered to determine.

  9. stan said

    How about — they openly admit they never looked at the science.

  10. bob said

    All the white wash jobs were premeditated. Perhaps there was collusion amongst the investigating bodies?

  11. Giovanni Pellegrini said

    Sorry to make such a stupid question

    I am not a climate expert, but anyway I am used to publish in scientific journals, even if in totally different fields (nano-optics and plasmonics).
    If published climate research is so full of huge mistakes, maliciously modified data, etc… why not to publish something which proves the other scientists wrong. It’s seems to me that a lot of people who read this blog are qualified to do so, as McIntyre did in the old days.
    Scientific Journals are always interested (yes, I believe in peer review, I know how it works, I DO NOT believe in peer review conspiracy, a good paper sooner or later always gets through) in valuable contributions, and such an approach would certainly be much more productive than complaining.
    Furthermore, following this path also your scientific findings could be duly scrutinized.

    Best Regards

  12. Jeff Id said

    #11 There are several papers in review right now.

  13. Giovanni Pellegrini said

    That’s really good news

    Is it possible, in spirit of transparency, to have a list of the paper titles, and of the journals to which they have been submitted? I hope this isn’t a problem, since it is customary to list the submitted papers in a research group home page. This way I will be able (and along with me all the people who are interested) to spot them in my rss feeds once they are approved. I hope it is not Energy&Environment anyway😉.

    Indeed it would be a wonderful idea to keep track here, or at climate audit for instance, of all the submitted paper, so everybody has the idea of what’s going on. And now stop with the Off Topic

    Best Regards

  14. Wolfgang Flamme said

    “1 – They got the wrong answer.”

    So you better make it 9 reasons.

  15. […] Ten reasons why w&#101&#32&#99ant trust the committees on climategate « the … […]

  16. Russ said

    “1 – They got the wrong answer because of #2 to #10.”

    So no other 9 reasons required.

  17. PaulM said

    #11 Giovanni, have you read the climategate emails?
    Your comment suggests that you have not.
    In particular, email 1054748574.txt,

    From: Keith Briffa
    To: Edward Cook
    Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
    Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:54 2003

    I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please
    Keith

    You are experienced in the peer review process and publishing papers. Have you ever, as a reviewer, received a comment from an editor like this? In my field it would be considered unacceptable for an editor to steer a reviewer to a negative report, and equally unacceptable to say to reviewer B that reviewer A had recommended rejection.

    So another reason not to trust the Russell climategate review is that they seemed to think this is perfectly OK.

    Other relevant emails include 1089318616.txt, 1054756929.txt, 1080742144.txt.

  18. Giovanni Pellegrini said

    #17 PaulM

    In my opinion this email shows an example of bad practice. It should be up to the reviewer to judge the paper, and then up to the editor to reject or accept it, based upon what the referees say.

    I have met many examples of bad practice in my (very short) career, both as an author or as a reviewer. I have seen some of my papers rejected from one journal without review, and then accepted on another one (with higher impact factor) and chosen for the journal highlights. As a reviewer I have seen shameless self-plagiarism and reported it to the editor. I have rejected papers, containing absolutely no original results, and seen them resubmitted and accepted “as-is” on the very same journal. So I have seen enough.

    Nevertheless, if a paper is rejected following some bad practice, just send it to another journal, and if it is rejected again, try one more journal. If everybody rejects the paper, then may be it is really a bad paper. That’s all.

    Of course I would say that this kind of bad practice could call for some disciplinary action. Concerning the other relevant emails you highlighted, that is again bad practice. Of course, reviewers should have declared conflict of interest, but I believe that these episodes happens in many other fields, we just don’t see them. Again, if the paper is rejected send it to another journal and stop complaining.

    Best Regards

  19. Mark T said

    If everybody rejects the paper, then may be it is really a bad paper.

    Or they’re all using the same reviewers, hand-picked from the few gatekeepers that exist in the field.

    Read more around here, you’ll find that this is indeed the problem (er, one of the many) with “climate science.”

    Mark

  20. Mark T said

    Oh crap. Broken blockquotes… oh well, it looks obvious enough.

    Mark

  21. Giovanni Pellegrini said

    @Mark #19 and 20#

    Of course going on whining is still an option

    Best Regards

  22. TimG said

    #18 Giovanni Pellegrini said

    Nevertheless, if a paper is rejected following some bad practice, just send it to another journal, and if it is rejected again, try one more journal. If everybody rejects the paper, then may be it is really a bad paper. That’s all.

    Of course, you ignore the emails where Mann discusses organizing a boycott of journals that accept papers they do not like. You have also missed the frequent a priori dimissal of peer reviewed papers if they do not appear in one of the annointed alarmist journals (try referencing an E&E paper on RC and see what response you get).

    Roy Spencer seems to have taken the position that if he cannot get published in the annointed alarmist journals then it is waste of his time trying elsewhere because it would not influence the people that care about peer review. The people who don’t care are perfectly happy to read his blogs and books.

  23. Giovanni Pellegrini said

    @TimG #22

    153 Journal are listed under the category “GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY” in ISI Web of Science. Only a fraction of them is suitable for climate publications I guess, but I assume that they are more than enough. Furthermore, it is standard practice to provide a list of referees name when you submit a paper (It’s usually something like 5 names for the American Physical Society and the American Chemical Society), because this saves a lot of time and work to the editor. It is also standard practice to provide a referee blacklist (if you feel you must), i.e. people you do not want to review your paper.

    Best Regards

    P.S. @ Jeff Id
    What about my idea of a public list of the papers under review. I’m looking forward to hearing some feedback.

    Best Regards

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: