There has been quite a bit of comment on this web-blog about the importance of peer review (e.g. see comments following my post of 29th April 2005, titled What do Geologists Know about Climate?).
Peer review refers to a researcher’s work being vetted by his/her colleagues as part of the publication process. The idea is that the non-expert can have a high level of confidence in articles, reports, reviews, papers in ‘reputable’journals because the work has been thoroughly ‘checked’ by others with expertise in the field.
I generally believe in peer review as a process.
I greatly appreciated the constructive criticisms I received from anonymous expert reviewers when I published as a research entomologist. Indeed at that time I mostly only read the peer reviewed literature in my areas of expertise and interest.
However, once one moves from the relatively mundane-type of research I was undertaking in the 1980s to mid 1990s, into politically sensitive research on big ticket environmental icons like the Great Barrier Reef and Murray Darling Basin … well, I have discovered the peer review process just doesn’t seem to work.
Indeed it has been my observation that many research ‘managers’are being paid very high salaries to virtually ensure the research from their ‘research team’ actually confirms policy decisions that governments have already more-or-less made, often as election commitments, often as a consequence of intense environmental campaigning from organisations like the WWF.
It seems certain assumptions are just not allowed to be challenged!
I will use my work on the Murray River as an example to illustrate this point – perhaps in my next blog-post which will probably be tomorrow.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Then again people that publish unsound science will claim that is has been rejected because of “confirms policy decisions that governments have already more-or-less made” rather than admiting that the research is flawed.
What about the people that refuse to submit work to peer review?
In the politically charged fields of climate sciences and evolutionary biology, peer review is a godsend – a great tool which separates out the good from the bad.
Have read next to none of the literature on the MDB, I can’t comment on that specific issue, but generally I’ve observed that most of the papers which fail peer review are mediocre.
An exception, which illustrates my point, is von Storch’s criticisms of the uncertainties in the hockey stick graph of past temperatures. The work was of high quality and consequently got published despite its criticisms of a well regarded piece of science.
Labelling contrary scientific conclusions as unsound science is the usual fallback for authoritarians but it also points to another possbility – that both scientific viewpoints are wrong (hence the disagreement) and that a third alternative would most likely be the answer.
A case in point is plate tectonics – a large volume of scientific papers published refute plate tectonics somewhat comprehensively.
Harry Hess could be considered the father of plate tectonics and the the theory developed from the assumption that if there was spreading at the mid-oceanic ridges, and on the assumption of a fixed volume earth, then what comes up must come down.
In complete contrast was Carey’s expanding earth theory, where instead of drifting plates resulting in the interpreted present day continental arrnagement, it was caused by expansion.
There is a thrid geological camp – the earth coolers, in which it is contended that the earth has beenn continually shrinking from cooling over time.
Now peer review in this case would never allow a Carey supporter to be allowed to publish in the mainstream. In fact I know of one uni student who reckoned that expanding earth theories better explained some of the geological problems than plate tectonics, but was told that he would not pass his course if he did not change his way of thinking.
So I agree with Jennifer (as I would the mob would say) that as a result of science becoming mixed with politics, that peer review is failing.
As an aside, I am linked with the plasma physicists and these scientists cannot get papers published in the mainstream journals questioning the big bang etc. Astronomer Halton Arp is a case in point. Arp pointed out that redshift was related to age not velocity – and from what I gather, Hubble also settled on that explanation for the redshift.
Scientists are human and have their own agendas – Einstein was a Marxist, by the way, but this fact is not well known. So scientists too have political agendas and that affects the peer review system unless a particular scientist could transcend his political bias.
I copied this from Ccnet News – and it speaks for itself – Peiser’s paper flatly contradicted the data and Science refused to publish.
“It takes but one brutal fact to slay an elegant theory”
Essentially Peer review has failed in climate science.
(1) SCIENCE? POLITICAL STRATEGIES AND METHODS ARE SPREADING
Svenska Dagbladet (Swedish editorial), 5 May 2005
Per Ericson
At first I was sceptical. I have to admit that was the case. Climate researchers emphasized that it was just in that way. All scientific articles within the climate change domain are expected to contain some statement reinforcing that human CO2 emissions are causing the main impact on climate variability. Even when presenting results that seemingly are contradicting this hypothesis you ought to hook on some sentences to insure that severe criticism against the main stream opinion is not at hand. If not, you will almost never get published in the major science magazines. Specialized low status ones with low coverage are then the alternative.
During the last decade I have communicated with quite a number of climate researchers. Unfortunately the criticism of the major magazines seems to have substance. An example is found in the recent consensus debate.
Science published, late last year, an article in which it was claimed that researchers were united in their opinions. Human emissions were the dominant cause of global warming. The study was based on an analysis of 928 scientific articles. When a certain Dr. Benny Peiser at John Moores University, Liverpool tried to replicate the study, quite another result emerged. According to Mr Peiser about one third of the articles indicated support of the consensus opinion. And just 1% explicitly supported this opinion.
If Peiser´s interpretation is correct it does show that diverging opinions can be and is expressed. It might not be so in Science. That magazine simply refused his contribution arguing that Peiser´s result was not showing anything new. That is a peculiar argument since Peiser is falsifying results in a newly published article. Science has also refused publishing another article in which it is claimed that only one of ten climate researchers support the opinion that human emissions is the prime cause of climate change.
It might seem odd that the consensus debate has an important place in the climate change debate. The number of climate researchers applauding an unproven hypothesis is of less importance. What matters is if the hypothesis will survive scientific tests. But truth might be that the climate change issue is beyond science. The Science magazine has, maybe unconsciously, contributed to an illustration of what happens when political agendas and political methods are intervening in the field of strict science.
[translated by Hans Jelbring]
Copyright 2005, Svenska Dagbladet
To say that Einstein was politically motivated is a traversity. The beauty of Relativity and the way it explains a totally new vista of Nature cannot be understated. To think that this could be related to politics only reflects on the person saying it.
I cannot comment on Carey’s work however it is an indication that that peer review is doing exactly what it was designed to do – weed out unsound science and ensure that scientists make sure their work will stand up to scrutiny.
The work in the field of Quantum Physics, that Einstein help found, has ideas that are far beyond the wackiest ideas of psuedo scientists. Notions such as spooky action at a distance, photon entanglement, teleportation and string theory with its 11 dimensions. This work is regularly discussed in peer reviewed papers as the authors of such papers have proved beyond current doubt that the ideas that they are presenting are true to Nature and that it can be shown to be true by having the work checked by other physists, some of whom disagree with the conclusions however will check the maths and make sure the logic is sound.
Many many times in the past a group of scientists have had wrong ideas. It is very rare that the proof of the wrong idea has come from anything other than people working within the scientific community and who have done sound experiments that show logically and mathematically the current ‘truth’ is wrong or at least flawed. Einstein did not replace Newton he simply extended physics to work even at speeds close to the speed of light.
If these plasma physisists want to get papers published then they have to make sure their ideas are consistant. Simply blaming the peer review process is shifting the blame from themselves.
Plasma physicists can’t get there stuff published. Yeah right.
http://pop.aip.org/
Although the principle of peer review is excellent the practice leaves much to be desired. In most cases peer review is based on a small number of reviewers selected by journal editors. Worse yet, reviews are often treated as confidential and there is no opportunity for an author to respond to criticism.
Genuine peer review should be open and transparent. In the past this would have been difficult to implement but today the Internet makes it eminently feasable.
As it is now, peer review too often amounts to not much more than a fraternal blackball system. If we are really honest about its value we should be giving serious thought to creating an open public process wherein any may comment, authors can respond and editors set forth the reasons for their decisions.
For the correct story in the Peiser paper please go to Tim Lamberts excellent Deltoid and look at this post
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/peiser.html
Decide for yourself by reading the disputed abstracts whether of not Science magazine was correct in rejecting the paper.
I had to check my dictionary defintion of ‘correct’ after Ender’s last post. For the record it is:
adjective
1. true, accurate,
2. proper, in accordance with taste, standards, etc.
verb
set right, mark errors in
An email that Ian Mott sent me in March 2004 which he is happy for me to reproduce here:
Subject: Re: peer review
This is a fine example of how the architecture of scientific and public policy ethics are seriously lagging behind those expected of the rest of the community. It confirms my view that the two primary tools for remedying the situation should be the use of;
1 certified science vs uncertified science. By this I mean a scientific report that the author has certified as representing a ‘true and fair’ or ‘full and fair’ representation of the matters under consideration. The proper legal test is whether reasonable men and women, in full possession of the relevant facts, would draw the same conclusions.
This is what is currently expected from a financial report for a publicly listed company. And in common law this applies to any statement made with the intention that it be acted upon. Any report that does not contain such certification by the responsible officer is not regarded as a valid report. The author(s) of any statement that forms part of a certified statement then become criminally liable if any part is found to have been false or misleading. And it would seem to me that a piece of scientific reporting that has been made to the public on a policy matter is clearly a statement made with the intention that it be acted upon by the policy process.
The reporting obligations of public companies include a duty to disclose all matters that have, or could have, a material impact on the performance of the company. And there is an equal obligation on the policy process (under judicial review) to consider all relevant matters in relation to the policy. So this becomes a powerful argument in favour of ensuring that only certified science is considered in any policy process.
It would place a particular burden on the authors of certified science but, rest assured, the very fastest way to sort out a shonk is to invite them to formally assume a liability in respect of their bullshit.
2 The second tool for managing the integrity of science should be a “Scientific Practices Commission” to oversee activities in science and policy in the way the Trade Practices Commission oversees activities in trade or commerce.
The community has recognised the importance of consumer protection in respect of trade and commerce but has not yet applied the same consumer protection regime to a field that has equal, indeed, greater scope for detriment.
The guts of the Trade Practices Act is the part dealing with misrepresentation of fact, fraud and obtaining a benefit by deception. And the same would also apply to a “Scientific Practices Act”. The use of such familiar terminology would ensure that the message is more readily understood by the voters.
The Trade Practices Act has other sections that deal with specific types of trade malpractice and a Scientific Practices Act could deal with specific issues like false statements made in funding applications, quoting out of context etc.
The important thing to note is that the architecture has already been put in place to convert the vast amount of case law on trade malpractice into a contemporary tool and this architecture could also convert the case law on misrepresentation into a contemporary scientific tool.
At no stage does the community assign any validity to a financial statement solely on the basis that the Directors found six other Bizoids to peer review the document. And the burden of proof must rest on the proponents of continuing with peer review to establish why science, in the 21st century, is any different. Peer review may be appropriate for the publication of uncertified science that is not made with any intention that it be acted upon, or is unlikely to be acted upon. But it will no longer do for formal representations to the policy process.
When notified of prima facie evidence that an offence may have taken place, the Trade Practices Commission has the power to demand supporting documents and conduct full investigations at the public’s expense. The maximum penalty for a breach is $40,000 for each individual involved and $200,000 for corporate offenders.
I would appreciate some feedback on this issue.
Regards
Ian Mott
Walter, it is quite easy to respond to criticism for reviewers. You simply write to the editor explaining why they were wrong.
I’ve seen it done successfully a number of times.
I suspect that Ian Mott’s proposed changes would simply add to the bureaucracy surrounding and impeding science with little practical benefit.
I strongly disagree with this statement “The proper legal test is whether reasonable men and women, in full possession of the relevant facts, would draw the same conclusions.”
Rather, a scientist should be able to put forth a novel and partially undeveloped hypothesis even when other experts disagree with the conclusions.
As I stated earlier, the peer review system (despite the odd error) works well. If creationists/global warming skeptics/breatherians can’t get their stuff published, then it says more about the quality of their work than the peer reviewed system.
Ken,
I suggest that Ian is referring not to the problem of getting published, but the problem when the peer review system lets rubbish be published. Your thoughts?
Also, I actually thought there was some merit in Walter’s concept.
Ken,
Which is precisely what happened to Halton Arp, a novel idea sent to coventry.
As you mentioned in another post that I don’t believe in evolution or plate tectonics, well I don’t, because science is not about belief in one or other dogma.
You only believe when you don’t know, which I suspect is why you believe in anthropogenic global warming.
Re: Ian Mott’s opinion:
Certified science is an extremely problematical concept – it is a means of excluding innovative thinking from the very discipline where innovation is paramount.
Certification is well developed in the medical profession where, in order to gain entry, one needs to be “credentialled” and certified.
In other words no different than having a union ticket and thus subtle monopolism.
In the mining business we deem geoscientists as “competent” when they have reached certain academic standards experience. We will not allow a young graduate to sign off a mineral ore-resere, for example.
As one who is permitted to sign off scientific reports to the ASX, in my area of expertise, I must fulfil certain requirements – supply all the necessary data so that anyone, citing Ken Miles “The proper legal test is whether reasonable men and women, in full possession of the relevant facts, would draw the same conclusions.” can be made.
Ken Miles disagrees with that – but then what Ian Mott has proposed is that if person A asserts by placing two apples on a table, and then adding another two apples on the same table, that in total he has four apples.
Ken Miles supports the contrary position that a separate, unreasonable individual, (a scientist no doubt) would propose that A placed not four apples on the table but five, the fifth being not seen by the reasonable people because they cannot see it as a result of their blinkered view of the issue.
It is ironic Steve McIntyre, a mining industry type, spotted the “entrepreneurial baloney” in the now infamous IPCC sanctioned, Mann et al, Hockey Stick graph.
Louis
I don’t see what you are talking about. If are trying to say GW advocates would think 2 + 2 = 5 just because a scientist tells you then this is just rubbish. It is more indicative of the skeptic position of cherry picking certain facts, casting doubt on them with junk science and then claiming Global Warming is a myth.
The now infamous Hockey Stick has only been discredited in your and the rest of your Laviouser group’s minds.
Why don’t you and the rest of the skeptics go and do some real science, you know research, experiments and forming hypothesis and present your data to the scientific community to be judged. If you think science is just bringing down other scientists work then you are sadly mistaken.
Ender,
Plasma scientists have no difficulty getting their papers published in IEEE for example, but try Icarus or other mainstream astronomical journals.
In academia there is as much politics as there is in secular life.
The only area where we have managed to reduce politics is in the mining industry where a competenly computed ore-reserve, to JORC standards, is a-political.
I think it is about time that the exacting standards I have to live with are applied to social policy areas that have an even greater cost, not only social by economic.
I agree with Walter, or what I think Walter is actually saying. The debate about peer review seems to be confused. Peer review is not about the science of a matter but about publishing risk.
If I am a prestigious scientific journal I do not want to publish garbage which will reduce my prestige and hence my economic value. I do not have the resources to fully and rigorously test the propositions in an article sent to me, so I outsource that to peers of the writer. However, those peers don’t generally have the resources either, so they assess whether the argument ought to be put in the public realm or not, not whether it is absolutely correct.
They will pick up obvious errors, but they won’t spend months analysing my source data for mistakes.
This is not an intrinsic part of science, but an aid to publishers and readers. If an article does not pass peer review, then there is a dramatically higher risk that it is not worth reading, but the issue is one of risk, not one of truth. Peer reviewers are setting the odds, not determining the winner.
I am concerned that the issue of peer review is used as a rebuttal of an argument. It is not a rebuttal, and any who use it as such reveal either their ignorance of what it actually is, or bad faith.
I’d like to explore Walter’s suggestion of a transparent peer review process using On Line Opinion and the National Forum site. In a sense we already run one in that we publish more widely than a peer-reviewed journal would, and I frequently publish articles that I think are seriously misguided. I do that on the basis that mature adults can sort the facts out for themselves, as long as they have a variety of points of view to choose from. It’s a publisher’s version of the experimental method.
However, there are limitations to this method of seiving and allocating risk, because it depends on me, and my editorial board, determining what is arguable, and there is nothing to stop us being as restrictive as other journals.
Conscious of that problem, I’d be interested in exploring some more transparent methods of determining publishability.
Ender,
I suspect you need to re-read Ken Mile’s post to understand the apple example.
As for the Hockey Stick Graph, no not only the Lavoisier Group, but many, many other scientists too have examined the Hockey Stick and found its flaws.
A simple “Google” will confirm this, available to both you and I.
Equally.
We don’t need to do experiments to disprove a previous experiment when we can cite existing fact and previous experiments to contradict it.
Roy Spencer’s work with the MSU data is state of the art, and, given the fact that any trend can be fitted to truncated data by definition, basic visual inspection of that data indicates that the earth’s temperature is constant (within experimental resolution).
Constant for how long? We have no data, and thus no opinion. Scientifically anyway. Others might disagree, but certainly not on a scientific basis, since the lack of data precludes that.
No Louis I agree with Ken. Scientists can and do put forward part hypothesis (just what is the plural of hypothesis anyway?) in the hope that other scientist will have an idea sparked or add to the work. There are more papers published that appear in magazines. These are read and discussed and forgotton and talked about sometimes for years before anything is discovered. However what they ususally do not do is insult the professional reputations of other scientists in the field. They may disagree however usually they do not resort to the sort of tactics that the skeptic ‘scientists’ use to try and muddy the waters on Global Warming. A famous example if this is the famous debate between Einstien and Bohr leading to the statement “God does not play dice with the universe”
What experiments do you have to prove your ice CO2 hypothesis?
If you would care to examine this site http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html it contains a more comprehensive evaluation of the MSU data. It references Spencer and Christy’s work but disagrees. Also Spencer’s original conclusion is soley that the middle troposphere, according to the MSU dataset, is cooling thereby contradicting the warming hypothesis. He never said the earths temperature was constant.
You may also want to look at this site
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml
This is the first 2 paragraphs
“BOULDER—Caspar Ammann, a paleoclimatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is available to comment on the so-called hockey stick controversy discussed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The hockey stick refers to the shape of a frequently cited graph of global mean temperature that shows a rapid rise between 1900 and 2000 after 900 years of relative stability. The graph first appeared in a research paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published in the journal Nature in 1998.
Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the code for their own evaluation of the method. ”
“Plasma scientists have no difficulty getting their papers published in IEEE for example, but try Icarus or other mainstream astronomical journals.”
Plasma scientists can’t get published in Icarus.
Yeah right.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=QuickSearchListURL&_method=list&_aset=V-WA-A-W-AYC-MsSAYWA-UUA-U-AAAYVCVWAW-AAAZUBCUAW-AUDCAUZCZ-AYC-U&_sort=d&view=c&_st=13&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_userid=10&md5=98790fe907712a2da26729c97b8c388c
Also, as an aside, for those interested in the whole “hockey stick” non-issue…
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml
Ender,
Co2 in ice ? I suppose you are aware of Jaworowki’s paper on this submitted to the US Senate on this very issue?
link here http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
Not my theory at all Ender.
Ah so Icarus does publish some papers with plasma in the title, but written by plasma physicists or plasma cosmologists?
Louis – are you also aware of the many people that do not accept Jaworowki’s work.
So where are the experiments that Jaworowki’ has conducted (real science) that show his hypothesis to be true?
As Davidf Henderson spoke at an address to eocomists recently about the IPCC
“I believe that in relation to economic aspects, there is good reason to question the claims to authority and representative status that the IPCC thus makes. Those of us who are sceptics do not question the numbers of those involved, their diligence, or the existence and observance of formal review processes. But we think that when it comes to the treatment of leading economic issues, the IPCC milieu is neither fully competent nor adequately representative. We also hold – and this does not apply only to economic aspects – that building in peer review is no safeguard against dubious assumptions, arguments and conclusions if the peers are all drawn from the same restricted professional milieu.”
And that is precisely the problem in climate science and the global warming foo foo.
Ender,
you had better come up references to peer reviewed papers backing your assertion about Jaworowski’s work.
If they existed you would have been stumbling over your own feet to post those references here.
Ender,
I copy the references which Jaworowski cites in support of his thesis below:
Now you come up with contradictory data please.
1. Jaworowski, Z., Stable lead in fossil ice and bones. Nature, 1968. 217: p. 152-153.
2. Mulvaney, R., E.W. Wolff, and K. Oates, Sulpfuric acid at grain goundaries in Antarctic ice. Nature, 1988. 331(247-249).
3. Jaworowski, Z., T.V. Segalstad, and N. Ono, Do glaciers tell a true atmospheric CO2 story? The Science of the Total Environment, 1992. 114: p. 227-284.
4. Shoji, H. and C.C. Langway Jr., Volume relaxation of air inclusions in a fresh ice core. Journal of Physical Chemistry, 1983. 87: p. 4111-4114.
5. Neftel, A., et al., Evidence from polar ice cores for the increase in atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries. Nature, 1985. 315: p. 45-47.
6. Friedli, H., et al., Ice core record of the 13C/12C ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the past two centuries. Nature, 1986. 324: p. 237-238.
7. IPCC, Climate Change – The IPCC Scientific Assessment. ed. J.T. Houghton et al. 1990, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp. 364.
8. Boden, T.A., P. Kanciruk, and M.P. Farrel, TRENDS ’90 – A Compendium of Data on Global Change. 1990, Oak Ridge National Laboratory: Oak Ridge, Tennssee, pp. 257.
9. Jaworowski, Z., Ancient atmosphere – validity of ice records. Environ. Sci. & Pollut. Res., 1994. 1(3): p. 161-171.
10. Schwander, J., et al., The age of the air in the firn and the ice at Summit, Greenland. J. Geophys. Res., 1993. 98(D2): p. 2831-2838.
11. Slocum, G., Has the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere changed significantly since the beginning of the twentieth century? Month. Weather Rev., 1955(October): p. 225-231.
12. Callendar, G.S., On the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Tellus, 1958. 10: p. 243-248.
13. Wagner, F., et al., Century-scale shifts in Early Holocene atmospheric CO2 concentration. Science, 1999. 284: p. 1971-1973.
14. IPCC, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis., ed. J.T. Houton et al. 2001, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 892.
15. Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes, Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries. Nature, 1998. 392: p. 779-787.
16. Soon, W., et al., Reconstructing Climatic and Environmental Changes of the past 1000 years: A Reappraisal. Energy & Environment, 2003. 14: p. 233-296.
17. McIntyre, S. and R. McKitrick, Corrections to the Mann et al. (1998) proxy data base and Northern hemispheric average temperature series. Energy & Environment, 2003. 14(6): p. 751-771.
18. Editorial, A., IPCC’s ritual on global warming. Nature, 1994. 371: p. 269.
19. Maddox, J., Making global warming public property. Nature, 1991. 349: p. 189.
So what sort of system would you set up Loius? Should Exxon have a say in what gets published to make sure that the science does not interfere with its profits?
And who are you or this David Henderson to call the IPCC competant.
Just in case you did not read my post this is what a respected climatologist said about the IPCC. I think this says it all really.
“The IPCC is not, as Bill implies and many appear to have been lead to believe, some ideologically committed group of scientists with a particular position or perspective on the science which they seek to promote. Rather it is a highly transparent process, supervised by governments, which enables the contemporary state of knowledge of climate change as it emerges from the peer-reviewed published literature to be summarised and assessed by a representative group of the internationally acknowledged experts in the field with their summary assessment subject to one of the most exhaustive processes of peer review and revision that I believe has ever occurred in the international scientific community. The IPCC doesn’t have a construct, a model, an ideology or a pre-determined position. It is simply an inter-governmentally coordinated scientific assessment mechanism for producing in summary form, for use by policymakers, a synthesis of the state of the science as it appears in the literature with particular attention to the identification of points on which there is a high level of scientific agreement in the literature and those on which there is little agreement or little confidence in what is agreed. ”
Ender,
Where did you copy your last quote from?
Game, set and match I suppose
Ender,
I thought it was “incompetent” that the IPCC was thought to be.
Or should we reassign that to both yourself and Ken Miles?
I am not sure at all, come to think of it.
I copied if from a speech on your website no less http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/johnzillmanlaunch.html
It was given By John W Zillman at the book launch of Mr Kinninmonths book “Climate Change – a Natural Hazard”.
Ender,
As Jennifer has no easy reference system to previous comments, I need to copy your post:
“BOULDER—Caspar Ammann, a paleoclimatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), is available to comment on the so-called hockey stick controversy discussed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick today at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The hockey stick refers to the shape of a frequently cited graph of global mean temperature that shows a rapid rise between 1900 and 2000 after 900 years of relative stability. The graph first appeared in a research paper by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes published in the journal Nature in 1998.
Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. Their results appear in two new research papers submitted for review to the journals Geophysical Research Letters and Climatic Change. The authors invite researchers and others to use the code for their own evaluation of the method. ”
Ender, this summary is correct because your source used the same Bristle-cone data which McINtyre etc have demonstrated to be spurious.
This does not support your argument.
Ender:
quoting you:
Just in case you did not read my post this is what a respected climatologist said about the IPCC. I think this says it all really.
“The IPCC is not, as Bill implies and many appear to have been lead to believe, some ideologically committed group of scientists with a particular position or perspective on the science which they seek to promote. Rather it is a highly transparent process, supervised by governments, which enables the contemporary state of knowledge of climate change as it emerges from the peer-reviewed published literature to be summarised and assessed by a representative group of the internationally acknowledged experts in the field with their summary assessment subject to one of the most exhaustive processes of peer review and revision that I believe has ever occurred in the international scientific community. The IPCC doesn’t have a construct, a model, an ideology or a pre-determined position. It is simply an inter-governmentally coordinated scientific assessment mechanism for producing in summary form, for use by policymakers, a synthesis of the state of the science as it appears in the literature with particular attention to the identification of points on which there is a high level of scientific agreement in the literature and those on which there is little agreement or little confidence in what is agreed. ”
As you give no url and you subsequently state: I copied if from a speech on your website no less http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/johnzillmanlaunch.html
It was given By John W Zillman at the book launch of Mr Kinninmonths book “Climate Change – a Natural Hazard”.
You have, like all lefties, quoted out of context.
I copied if from a speech on your website no less http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/johnzillmanlaunch.html
It was given By John W Zillman at the book launch of Mr Kinninmonths book “Climate Change – a Natural Hazard”.
Oh ??
Gosh must go and read that.
Louis! Way to slay an adversary with your mastery of the English language! Unfortunately…
Louis Hissink at May 11, 2005 10:51 AM: ‘…it also points to another possbility…’; ‘…somewhat comprehensively…’ (either it’s comprehensive or it’s not, sunshine); ‘…and the the theory developed…’; ‘There is a thrid geological camp…’; ‘…the earth has beenn continually shrinking…’;
Louis Hissink at May 11, 2005 07:59 PM: ‘…science is not about belief in one or other dogma…’
Louis Hissink at May 11, 2005 08:29 PM: ‘Certified science is an extremely problematical concept…’ (or perhaps merely a ‘problematic concept’?); ‘…when they have reached certain academic standards experience…’; ‘…to sign off a mineral ore-resere, for example…’.
Louis Hissink at May 11, 2005 09:38 PM: ‘In academia there is as much politics as there is in secular life’ (you may wish to look up the meaning of ‘secular’ in a handy dictionary – ‘secular’ and ‘academia’ go hand in hand, young fella); ‘…where a competenly (competently?) computed ore-reserve, to JORC standards, is a-political (apolitical?)…’; ‘…not only social by (but?) economic.’
Louis Hissink at May 13, 2005 03:00 PM: ‘As Davidf Henderson spoke at an address to eocomists…’
Louis Hissink at May 13, 2005 08:57 PM: ‘…you had better come up references to peer reviewed papers…’
I ever so nicely excluded your mistakes in grammar and punctuation, not to mention clarity of expression, which leaves more than a little to be desired. People who profess to be experts in the field should be playing the ball, not the man.
The certification of science in relation to mining and geology highlight the point that in that sphere science is inseparable from business. The point of the science is for the purpose of either capital raising or advice to investors, both of which are “statements made with the intention that they be acted upon”.
This rigour is imposed on the science by the corporations law and it operates as a primary filter of bumf. It places the burden, rightly so, on the person making the scientific statement to accept responsibility for the consequences of other peoples reliance on the statement.
It does not preclude speculative propositions or or untested theories but merely requires that additional advice be provided that enables the market to make an informed decision. It is the distinction between a “blue chip” stock and a “penny dreadful”.
Above all, it demands that inconclusive research is clearly identified as “work in progress” rather than conclusive evidence.
These sort of distinctions are absent from much of the policy process even though the relationship between science and policy is essentially the same as the relationship between science and business.
Aw, Jennifer, the end of my last post wasn’t included! Why not?
I only edit really personal attacks which could be considered liablous and don’t add to the argument.
Louis – the only people that think McIntyre ad McKitrick’s disproved the bristlecone data are GW skeptics. There are a number of basic errors in MMs ‘analysis’ of Manns data detailed here at Deltoid. http://elgar.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/McKitrick/
“You have, like all lefties, quoted out of context.”
How do you know I am a lefty. You are making basic assumptions about a person you have never met.
Also I did not quote it out of context as the whole speech is a demolition of the science in the book. This was just the end.
Ian – “The certification of science in relation to mining and geology highlight the point that in that sphere science is inseparable from business. The point of the science is for the purpose of either capital raising or advice to investors, both of which are “statements made with the intention that they be acted upon”.”
This is the only area where stock markets are linked to science and should be specified as such. Linking all science to stock markets, if that what you are saying, would be totally wrong.
Much of science is speculative. Quantum Theory is just that, a theory, yet being able to type at a computer is proof that a theory can produce results. If you read a CD-ROM that is quantum theory at work.
Who judges what work is inconclusive? Economists? What are the parameters – that the theory does not produce money so it is not valid???
Walter’s proposal of an open review process, while might be nice in theory, in practice, I doubt that it would be very useful.
The big problem is that in the majority of fields there would be no response from the general public. Nobody would have the skills nor the motivation to try to evaluate a scientific work. The exception to this is specialists who will carry on peer reviewing and commenting on scientific papers as they done in the past.
In areas where science has been politicised, the problem is the cacophony of idiots who will promptly drown out any rational debate.
For an example of this in action, see either this thread or usenet.
I see productionline12 is expert at playing the man, not the ball and issomewhat patronising too boot.
As Bernard Woolley of the Yes Minister Series would have said – “GOSH”
What most of your seem not to have grasped is that Ian has pointed to the fact as we in business and science are faced with corporations law etc, any public announcements we make concerning scientific matters, (and a mining ore reserve is an extremely scientific activity), then we had better have it right, because if we don’t we can expect the lawyers from hell.
It distinguishes us from the penny-dreadfuls.
However, we have no such protection from academia when they announce that, from their unreliable computer simulations, the earth is going to warm at an alarming rate. If it turns out that prediction was wrong, will our erroneous academicians be subject to the lawyers from hell for false and misleading advertising? For that is what it essentially is.
No, and this is the rank hypocrisy that exists in the climate debate.
(I made shore mi spilling and gwammer wur ok on thes 4 de edumication of some old fella).
Ender,
how do I know you are a lefty? Only lefties call us global warming sceptics.
Louis Hissink at May 11, 2005 10:51 AM: ‘…it also points to another possbility…’; ‘…somewhat comprehensively…’ (either it’s comprehensive or it’s not, sunshine); ‘…and the the theory developed…’; ‘There is a thrid geological camp…’; ‘…the earth has beenn continually shrinking…’;
Gosh, my spillin is atroycious and Oy must repeat one hundred times, I must spill rite, I must spill rite.
6 of the best for being careless.
(Amazing ins’t it, our education system emphasises personal expression and I get hung drawn and almost quartered for being faithful to the post-modernist clap-trap spruiked by the various nom-des-plumes posting here. The do so because they are cowards – at Ken Miles is honest, the rest……..slander and libel are developed in Oz to great heights).
Nothing wrong with being a coward, mate – it’s a great Australian tradition.
Anyway, tempting though your bait is, I’m not interested in getting into a slanging match with you. I merely wanted to point out that in terms of Jennifer’s beloved ‘additions to the argument’, you were being soundly thrashed by Ender and Ken, and hence resorted to implying they were incompetent on the basis of a single spelling mistake by Ender, when you had committed countless such mistakes of your own.
Try not to get peevish about it, son.
Jennifer,
I don’t see how my edited post could have been construed as ‘libellous’, but perhaps we have different understandings of the word.
Not to mention how it is spelled.
(Jokin! Now that I’ve had the last word, let’s leave this pedantry behind us.)
Louis – you comments regarding the mining industry are valid however this is because there is less pure science here and more applied science. A geologist with a new theory of metamorphic rock formation would not expect to have his/her theory debated in the stock market unless it had specific relationship to a company looking for valuable ore in a novel place based on the theory. Indeed if a company was doing such exploration then this would be applied science/engineering not pure science.
Climate scientists doing pure research into the Earths atmosphere have a duty to speculate and dicuss the theories. If they are sufficiently assured that some of their conclusions are correct then it is also their duty to try and recommend that changes are made to mitigate what they see as a problem.
Now if you bring in this regime you are suggesting then it works both ways. You are a scientist giving his professional opinion that Global Warming will not happen and/or will not produce any Climate Change effects. You would therfore be held legally liable for this opinion.
If in the future the climate did in fact change and I lost property or business then I and others in a class action, having copied this converstation and other evidence, could sue you and all people publically preventing action on climate change. This could be billions of dollars. If there is loss of life from this opionion then you and others could be up on criminal negligence causing death charges.
So have a think about whether you really want climate scientists held totally accountable for every opinion. In the words if Salvor Hardin “The atom blaster points both ways”