cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au, Peter.Whetton@csiro.au, Roger.Francey@csiro.au, David.Etheridge@csiro.au, Ian.Smith@csiro.au, Simon.Torok@csiro.au, Willem.Bouma@csiro.au, j.salinger@niwa.com, pachauri@teri.res.in, Greg.Ayers@csiro.au, Rick.Bailey@csiro.au, Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au, mmaccrac@comcast.net, tcrowley@duke.edu, rbradley@geo.umass.edu date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 11:21:50 +1200 from: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz subject: Another course of Action - Recent climate sceptic research and the to: Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, m.hulme@uea.ac.uk, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au, mann@virginia.edu, Phil Jones , harvey@geog.utoronto.ca, wigley@ucar.edu, n.nicholls@bom.gov.au Dear All For information, De Freitas has finally put all his arguments together in a paper published in the Canadian Bulletin of Petroleum Geology, 2002 (on holiday at the moment, and the reference is at work!) I have had thoughts also on a further course of action. The present Vice Chancellor of the University of Auckland, Professor John Hood (comes from an engineering background) is very concerned that Auckland should be seen as New Zealand's premier research university, and one with an excellent reputation internationally. He is concerned to the extent that he is monitoring the performance of ALL his senior staff, from Associate Professor upwards, including interviews with them. My suggestion is that a band of you review editors write directly to Professor Hood with your concerns. In it you should point out that you are all globally recognized top climate scientist. It is best that such a letter come from outside NZ and is signed by more than one person. His address is: Professor John Hood Vice Chancellor University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland, New Zealand Let me know what you think! See suggested text below. Regards Jim Some suggested text below: *************** We write to you as the editorial board(review editors??) of the leading international journal Climate Research for climate scientists .... We are very concerned at the poor standards and personal biases shown by a member of your staff. ..... When we originally appointed ... to the editorial board we were under the impression that they would carry out their duties in an objective manner as is expected of scientists world wide. We were also given to understand that this person has been honoured with science communicator of the year award, several times by your ... organisation. Instead we have discovered that this person has been using his position to promote 'fringe' views of various groups with which they are associated around the world. It perhaps would have been less disturbing if the 'science' that was being passed through the system was sound. However, a recent incident has alerted us to the fact that poorly constructed and uncritical work has been allowed to enter the pages of the journal. A recent example has caused outrage amongst leading climate scientists around the world and has resulted in the journal dismissing (??).. from the editorial board. We bring this to your attention since we consider it brings the name of your university and New Zealand into some disrepute. We leave it to your discretion what use you make of this information. The journal itself cannot be considered completely blameless in this situation and we clearly need to tighten some of our editorial processes; however, up until now we have relied on the honour and professionalism of our editors. Sadly this incident has damaged our faith in some of our fellow scientists. Regrettably it will reflect on your institution as this person is a relatively senior staff member. ******************** > > > At 16:19 17/04/03 +1000, Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au wrote: > >Dear all, > > > >I just want to throw in some thoughts re appropriate responses to all > >this - probably obvious to some of you, but clearly different from > >some views expressed. This is not solely a reply to Phil Jones, as I > >have read lots of other emails today including all those interesting > >ones from Michael Mann. > > > >1. I completely understand the frustration by some at having to > >consider a reply to these nonsense papers, and I agree that such > >replies will not get cited much and may in fact draw attention to > >papers which deserve to be ignored. > > > >2. However, ignoring them can be interpreted as not having an answer, > >and whether we ignore them or not, there are people and lobby groups > >which will push these papers as 'refereed science' which WILL be > >persuasive to many small or large decision-makers who are NOT > >competent to make their own scientific judgements, and some of whom > >wish the enhanced GH effect would turn out to be a myth. In our > >Australian backwater for example, such papers WILL/ARE being copied > >to business executives and politicians to bolster anti-FCCC > >decisions, and these people do matter. There has to be a well-argued > >and authoritative response, at least for private circulation, and as > >a basis for advice to these decision-makers. > > > >3. I see several possible courses of action that would be useful. (a) > >Prepare a background briefing document for wide private circulation, > >which refutes the claims and lists competent authorities who might be > >consulted for advice on this issue. (b) Ensure that such misleading > >papers do not continue to appear in the offending journals by getting > >proper scientific standards applied to refereeing and editing. > >Whether that is done publicly or privately may not matter so much, as > >long as it happens. It could be through boycotting the journals, but > >that might leave them even freer to promulgate misinformation. To my > >mind that is not as good as getting the offending editors removed and > >proper processes in place. Pressure or ultimatums to the publishers > >might work, or concerted lobbying by other co-editors or leading > >authors. (c) A journalistic expose of the unscientific practices > >might work and embarass the sceptics/industry lobbies (if they are > >capable of being embarassed) e.g., through a reliable lead reporter > >for Science or Nature. Offending editors could be labelled as "rogue > >editors", in line with current international practice? Or is that > >defamatory? (d) Legal action might be useful for authors who consider > >themselves libelled, and there could be financial support for such > >actions (Jim Salinger might have contacts here). However, we would > >need to be very careful to be moderate and reasonable in our reponses > >to avoid counter legal actions. > > > >4. I thoroughly agree that just entering in to a public slanging > >match with the offending authors (or editors for that matter) on a > >one-to-one basis is not the way to go. We need some more concerted > >action. > > > >5. One other thought is that it may be worthwhile for some authors to > >do a serious further study to bring out some statistical tests for > >the likelihood of numerous proxy records showing unprecedented > >synchronous warming in the last 30+ years. This could be, somewhat > >along the lines of the tests used in the studies of observed changes > >in biological and physical systems in the TAR WGII report(SPM figure > >1 and related text in Chapter 19, and recent papers by Parmesan and > >Yohe (2003) and Root et al. (2003) in Nature 421, 37-42 and 57-60). > >Someone may already have this in hand. I am sure the evidence is even > >stronger than for the critters. That is of course what has already > >been done in fingerprinting the actual temperature record. > > > >Anyway, I am not one of the authors, and too busy (for a retired > >person), so I hope you can collectively get something going which I > >can support. > > > >Best regards to all, > > > >Barrie. > > > >Dr. A. Barrie Pittock > >Post-Retirement Fellow, Climate Impact Group > >CSIRO Atmospheric Research, PMB 1, Aspendale 3195, Australia > >Tel: +613 9239 4527, Fax: +61 3 9239 4688, email: > > WWW: > >http://www.dar.csiro.au/res/cm/impact.htm > > > >Please Note: Use above address. The old >barrie.pittock@dar.csiro.au> is no longer supported. > > > >Currently I am working on a couple of books and other writing re > >climate change and science issues. Please refer any matters re the > >Climate Impact Group to Dr. Peter Whetton, Group Leader, at > >, tel.: > >+61 3 9239 4535. Normally I am in the lab Tuesdays and Thursdays. > > > >"Far better and approximate answer to the right question which is > >often vague, than an exact answer to the wrong question which can > >always be made precise." J. W. Tukey > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Phil Jones [mailto:p.jones@uea.ac.uk] > >Sent: Wednesday, 16 April 2003 6:23 PM > >To: Mike Hulme; Barrie.Pittock@csiro.au > >Cc: n.nicholls@bom.gov.au; Peter.Whetton@csiro.au; > >Roger.Francey@csiro.au; David.Etheridge@csiro.au; Ian.Smith@csiro.au; > >Simon.Torok@csiro.au; Willem.Bouma@csiro.au; j.salinger@niwa.com; > >pachauri@teri.res.in; Greg.Ayers@csiro.au; Rick.Bailey@csiro.au; > >Graeme.Pearman@csiro.au Subject: Re: Recent climate sceptic research > >and the journal Climate Research > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > There have been a number of emails on these two papers. They > > are bad. > >I'll be seeing > > Hans von Storch next week and I'll be telling him in person what a > >disservice he's doing > > to the science and the status of Climate Research. > > I've already told Hans I want nothing more to do with the > > journal. Tom > >Crowley may be > > writing something - find out also next week, but at the EGS last > > week Ray > >Bradley, Mike > > Mann, Malcolm Hughes and others decided it would be best to do > > nothing. > >Papers > > that respond to work like this never get cited - a point I'm > > trying to > >get across to Hans. > > We all have better papers to write than waste our time responding > > to > >drivel like this. > > > > Cheers > > Phil > > Prof. Phil Jones > Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 > School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 > University of East Anglia > Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk > NR4 7TJ > UK > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------ > > ********************************************************* Dr Jim Salinger, CRSNZ NIWA P O Box 109 695 Newmarket, Auckland New Zealand Tel + 64 9 375 2053 Fax + 64 9 375 2051 e-mail: j.salinger@niwa.co.nz **********************************************************