cc: "Michael E. Mann" , Tom Wigley , Phil Jones , Mike Hulme , Keith Briffa , James Hansen , Danny Harvey , Ben Santer , Kevin Trenberth , Robert wilby , Tom Karl , Tom Crowley , jto , "simon.shackley" , "tim.carter" , "p.martens" , "peter.whetton" , "c.goodess" , "a.minns" , Wolfgang Cramer , "j.salinger" , "simon.torok" , Scott Rutherford , Neville Nicholls , Ray Bradley , Mike MacCracken , Barrie Pittock , Ellen Mosley-Thompson , "pachauri@teri.res.in" , "Greg.Ayers" date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 22:03:53 -0700 (PDT) from: Stephen H Schneider subject: Re: My turn to: Mark Eakin Hello all. If some want to write an editorial in CLimatic Change about the peer review system in general and use some of these articles as examples, I would be happy to entertain such a draft. I would put it~--after the usual editorial review--on as fast a track as I could. If it were strictly a commentary on Baliunas/Soon polemics, then it would have to be a COmmentary and they would get a reply--but you might get a counter reply. Better to make it peripheral to that paper and a think piece motivated by it so it can stand alone. At least think about it. In case anyone is interested, Social Historian Paul EDWARDS NOW AT u/mICHIGAN AND i DID APIECE ON PEER REVIEW USING THE sIETZ /siNGER PHONEY PEER REVIEW EXCUSE FOR CHARACTER ATTACKS ON ipcc AND Ben Santer. It might be useful for a backgrounder. I attach it for convenience in case a few of you are interested in peer review/social construction issues. Cheers, Steve PS Don't expect much from the Administration, their ignorance and gullibility are studied. On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Mark Eakin wrote: > At this point the question is what to do about the Soon and Baliunas > paper. Would Bradley, Mann, Hughes et al. be willing to develop and > appropriate rebuttal? If so, the question at hand is where it would be > best to direct such a response. Some options are: > > 1) A rebuttal in Climate Research > 2) A rebuttal article in a journal of higher reputation > 3) A letter to OSTP > > The first is a good approach, as it keeps the argument to the level of > the current publication. The second would be appropriate if the Soon > and Baliunas paper were gaining attention at a more general level, but > it is not. Therefore, a rebuttal someplace like Science or Nature would > probably do the opposite of what is desired here by raising the > attention to the paper. The best way to take care of getting better > science out in a widely read journal is the piece that Bradley et al. > are preparing for Nature. This leaves the idea of a rebuttal in Climate > Research as the best published approach. > > A letter to OSTP is probably in order here. Since the White House has > shown interest in this paper, OSTP really does need to receive a > measured, critical discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas' methods. I > agree with Tom that a noted group from the detection and attribution > effort such as Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, Jones and Hughes should > spearhead such a letter. Many others of us could sign on in support. > This would provide Dave Halpern with the ammunition he needs to provide > the White House with the needed documentation that hopefully will > dismiss this paper for the slipshod work that it is. Such a letter > could be developed in parallel with a rebuttal article. > > I have not received all of the earlier e-mails, so my apologies if I am > rehashing parts of the discussion that might have taken place elsewhere. > > Cheers, > Mark > > > > Michael E. Mann wrote: > > > Dear Tom et al, > > > > Thanks for comments--I see we've built up an impressive distribution > > list here! > > > > This seemed like an appropriate point for me to chime in here. By in > > large, I agree w/ Tom's comments (and those of Barrie's as well). A > > number of us have written reviews and overviews of this topic during > > the past couple years. There has been a lot of significant scientific > > process in this area (both with regard to empirical "climate > > reconstruction" and in the area of model/data comparison), including, > > in fact, detection studies along the lines of what Barrie Pittock > > asked about in a previous email (see. e.g. Tom Crowley's Science > > article from 2000). Phil Jones and I are in the process of writing a > > review article for /Reviews of Geophysics/ which will, among other > > things, dispel the most severe of the myths that some of these folks > > are perpetuating regarding past climate change in past centuries. My > > understanding is that Ray Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, and Henry Diaz are > > working, independently, on a solicited piece for /Science/ on the > > "Medieval Warm Period". > > > > Many have simply dismissed the Baliunas et al pieces because, from a > > scientific point of view, they are awful--that is certainly true. For > > example, Neville has pointed out in a previous email, that the > > standard they applied for finding "a Medieval Warm Period" was that a > > particular proxy record exhibit a 50 year interval during the period > > AD 800-1300 that was anomalously *warm*, *wet*, or *dry* relative to > > the "20th century" (many of the proxy records don't really even > > resolve the late 20th century!) could be used to define an "MWP" > > anywhere one might like to find one. This was the basis for their > > press release arguing for a "MWP" that was "warmer than the 20th > > century" (a non-sequitur even from their awful paper!) and for their > > bashing of IPCC and scientists who contributed to IPCC (which, I > > understand, has been particularly viscious and ad hominem inside > > closed rooms in Washington DC where their words don't make it into the > > public record). This might all seem laughable, it weren't the case > > that they've gotten the (Bush) White House Office of Science & > > Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave Halpern is > > in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this > > appropriately, but without some external pressure). > > > > So while our careful efforts to debunk the myths perpetuated by these > > folks may be useful in the FAR, they will be of limited use in > > fighting the disinformation campaign that is already underway in > > Washington DC. Here, I tend to concur at least in sprit w/ Jim > > Salinger, that other approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize > > that there are indeed, as Tom notes, some unique aspects of this > > latest assault by the skeptics which are cause for special concern. > > This latest assault uses a compromised peer-review process as a > > vehicle for launching a scientific disinformation campaign (often > > viscious and ad hominem) under the guise of apparently legitimately > > reviewed science, allowing them to make use of the "Harvard" moniker > > in the process. Fortunately, the mainstream media never touched the > > story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by Murdoch and his > > crowd, and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a server which > > has been compromised as a launching point for computer viruses, I fear > > that "Climate Research" has become a hopelessly compromised vehicle in > > the skeptics' (can we find a better word?) disinformation campaign, > > and some of the discussion that I've seen (e.g. a potential threat of > > mass resignation among the legitimate members of the CR editorial > > board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit. > > > > This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of > > science we may not like of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as > > provided by Tom and Danny Harvey and I'm sure there is much more) that > > a legitimate peer-review process has not been followed by at least one > > particular editor. Incidentally, the problems alluded to at GRL are of > > a different nature--there are simply too many papers, and too few > > editors w/ appropriate disciplinary expertise, to get many of the > > papers submitted there properly reviewed. Its simply hit or miss with > > respect to whom the chosen editor is. While it was easy to make sure > > that the worst papers, perhaps including certain ones Tom refers to, > > didn't see the light of the day at /J. Climate/, it was inevitable > > that such papers might slip through the cracks at e.g. GRL--there is > > probably little that can be done here, other than making sure that > > some qualified and responsible climate scientists step up to the plate > > and take on editorial positions at GRL. > > > > best regards, > > > > Mike > > > > At 11:53 PM 4/23/2003 -0600, Tom Wigley wrote: > > > >> Dear friends, > >> > >> [Apologies to those I have missed who have been part of this email > >> exchange -- although they may be glad to have been missed] > >> > >> I think Barrie Pittock has the right idea -- although there are some > >> unique things about this situation. Barrie says .... > >> > >> (1) There are lots of bad papers out there > >> (2) The best response is probably to write a 'rebuttal' > >> > >> to which I add .... > >> > >> (3) A published rebuttal will help IPCC authors in the 4AR. > >> > >> ____________________ > >> > >> Let me give you an example. There was a paper a few years ago by Legates > >> and Davis in GRL (vol. 24, pp. 2319-1222, 1997) that was nothing more > >> than a direct > >> and pointed criticism of some work by Santer and me -- yet neither of us > >> was asked to review the paper. We complained, and GRL admitted it was > >> poor judgment on the part of the editor. Eventually (> 2 years later) > >> we wrote a response (GRL 27, 2973-2976, 2000). However, our response was > >> more that just a rebuttal, it was an attempt to clarify some issues on > >> detection. In doing things this way we tried to make it clear that the > >> original Legates/Davis paper was an example of bad science (more > >> bluntly, either sophomoric ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation). > >> > >> Any rebuttal must point out very clearly the flaws in the original > >> paper. If some new science (or explanations) can be added -- as we did > >> in the above example -- then this is an advantage. > >> > >> _____________________________ > >> > >> There is some personal judgment involved in deciding whether to rebut. > >> Correcting bad science is the first concern. Responding to unfair > >> personal criticisms is next. Third is the possible misrepresentation of > >> the results by persons with ideological or political agendas. On the > >> basis of these I think the Baliunas paper should be rebutted by persons > >> with appropriate expertise. Names like Mann, Crowley, Briffa, Bradley, > >> Jones, Hughes come to mind. Are these people willing to spend time on > >> this? > >> > >> _______________________________ > >> > >> There are two other examples that I know of where I will probably be > >> involved in writing a response. > >> > >> The first is a paper by Douglass and Clader in GRL (vol. 29, no. 16, > >> 10.1029/2002GL015345, 2002). I refereed a virtually identical paper for > >> J. Climate, recommending rejection. All the other referees recommended > >> rejection too. The paper is truly appalling -- but somehow it must have > >> been poorly reviewed by GRL and slipped through the net. I have no > >> reason to believe that this was anything more than chance. Nevertheless, > >> my judgment is that the science is so bad that a response is necessary. > >> > >> The second is the paper by Michaels et al. that was in Climate Research > >> (vol. 23, pp. 1­9, 2002). Danny Harvey and I refereed this and said it > >> should be rejected. We questioned the editor (deFreitas again!) and he > >> responded saying ..... > >> > >> The MS was reviewed initially by five referees. ... The other three > >> referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be > >> published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person > >> to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other > >> referees and sent the MS back for revision. It was later accepted for > >> publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual. > >> > >> On the surface this looks to be above board -- although, as referees who > >> advised rejection it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in > >> the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to. > >> > >> It is possible that Danny and I might write a response to this paper -- > >> deFreitas has offered us this possibility. > >> > >> ______________________________ > >> > >> This second case gets to the crux of the matter. I suspect that > >> deFreitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the > >> skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. > >> 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). > >> > >> The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be > >> difficult. > >> > >> The best response is, I strongly believe, to rebut the bad science that > >> does get through. > >> > >> _______________________________ > >> > >> 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. > >> > >> In this case, deFreitas is such a poor scientist that he may simply > >> disappear. I saw some work from his PhD, and it was awful (Pat Michaels' > >> PhD is at the same level). > >> > >> ______________________________ > >> > >> Best wishes to all, > >> Tom. > > > > ______________________________________________________________ > > Professor Michael E. Mann > > Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall > > University of Virginia > > Charlottesville, VA 22903 > > _______________________________________________________________________ > > e-mail: mann@virginia.edu Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) 982-2137 > > http://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml > > > > > -- > C. Mark Eakin, Ph.D. > Chief of NOAA Paleoclimatology Program and > Director of the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology > > NOAA/National Climatic Data Center > 325 Broadway E/CC23 > Boulder, CO 80305-3328 > Voice: 303-497-6172 Fax: 303-497-6513 > Internet: mark.eakin@noaa.gov > http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html > > ------ Stephen H. Schneider, Professor Dept. of Biological Sciences Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305-5020 U.S.A. Tel: (650)725-9978 Fax: (650)725-4387 shs@stanford.edu Attachment Converted: "c:\eudora\attach\Ed-SHSIPCCpeer.pdf"