Thursday, June 23, 2011

Climate Change Peer-Review Hypocrisy

Skeptical Denialism

The mantra of the global warming alarmist is 'peer-review'. The problem is, it is obvious that the peer-review process has been corrupted.

In 2009, Lindzen and Choi published a paper entitled On the Determination of Climate Feedbacks from ERBE Data in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. The paper provided evidence for a strong negative feedback and a low climate sensitivity, contradicting the greenhouse alarmist view. The paper received extensive criticism, and Lindzen and Choi wrote a followup paper entitled On the observational determination of climate sensitivity and its implications to address these criticisms. First, in February 2010, they submitted the followup paper to the Journal of Geophysical Research. Evidently it was rejected. In October 2010, they submitted it to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It was again rejected. Last month, the paper was accepted for publication in the Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences.

I don't know the story behind the JGR submission, but Lindzen recently wrote about the PNAS rejection. The PNAS response to the submission stated that the board was concerned with the author's choice of reviewers:

The two reviews provided by Lindzen and Choi do not qualify ... Both scientists are formally eligible for refereeing according to the PNAS rules, but one of them (WH) is certainly not an expert for the topic in question and the other one (MDC) has published extensively on the very subject together with Lindzen. So, in a sense, he is reviewing his own work.

They then recommended five additional reviewers, two of whom (Schmidt and Trenberth) are prominent AGW alarmists and ClimateGate conspirators:

The Editorial Board has recommended additional referees to evaluate the paper. Drs. Susan Solomon, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, James G. Anderson and Veerabhadran Ramanathan
After further correspondence, the authors received a letter of rejection with four peer-reviews attached:

The Board appreciates your cooperation in soliciting additional reviews on the paper you recently contributed to PNAS. We consulted the two experts you approved and two others selected by the Board. All four reviews (enclosed) were shared with two members of the Board before reaching a final decision... In light of these additional critiques, the Board concurs that the current paper must be declined for publication.

The authors have responded to these reviews. What is most interesting about this though is that the PNAS not only did not like the authors' choice of reviewers but also insisted top alarmists and ClimateGate conspirators with an obvious bias, who would undoubtedly consider the paper unacceptable no matter how scientifically rigorous it was, review the paper.
This is especially rich considering papers supporting the alarmist view are not subject to the same rules. This is exposed in the ClimateGate emails. In one email to Michael Mann in 1999, Phil Jones wrote:

You may think Keith or I have reviewed some of your papers but we haven't. I've reviewed Ray's and Malcolm's - constructively I hope where I thought something could have been done better. I also know you've reviewed my paper with Gabi very constructively.

So it seems the British ClimateGate conspirators reviewed papers by the American conspirators and vice-versa. Not exactly independent.

In 2003 when McIntyre and McKitrick were writing criticisms of the work by Mann and his colleagues, Ray Bradley suggested a counter strategy:
Tim, Phil, Keef:

I suggest a way out of this mess. Because of the complexity of the arguments involved, to an uniformed observer it all might be viewed as just scientific nit-picking by "for" and "against" global warming proponents. However, if an "independent group" such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an "audit", and if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue.
The fact that Bradley chose to put the words "independent group" in quote marks suggests even he knew considering the CRU team to be independent is laughable.
Another interesting email is this one. In response to a standard request by the Journal of Geophysical Research...

Please list the names of 5 experts who are knowledgeable in your area and could give an unbiased review of your work. Please do not list colleagues who are close associates, collaborators, or family members. (this requires name, email, and institution).
Phil Jones suggested a number of people who would fall under the category of "close associates and collaborators":

Agree with Kevin that Tom Karl has too much to do. Tom Wigley is semi retired and like Mike Wallace may not be responsive to requests from JGR. We have Ben Santer in common ! Dave Thompson is a good suggestion. I'd go for one of Tom Peterson or Dave Easterling. To get a spread, I'd go with 3 US, One Australian and one in Europe. So Neville Nicholls and David Parker. All of them know the sorts of things to say - about our comment and the awful original, without any prompting.

The last sentence is particularly interesting. To be "prompting" peer-reviewers would be a violation of ethics in itself. To select people who already know "the sorts of things to say", is just outright corruption. It's not so much peer-review with these people as it is pal-review!

In fact, some of those reviews of eachother's work are in the ClimateGate documents ...

Review of Wahl&Amman.doc

The ClimateGate conspirators even got to review and reject papers that were critical of their work, as evident in this email from Ed Cook to Keith Briffa:

I got a paper to review ... that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology ... is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. ... If published as is, this paper could really do some damage ... It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically ... 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.

And this email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann:

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.

Of course the skeptics had no say in the refereeing of papers by Mann & Jones etc. So it seems having your friends review your papers and keeping your opponents out is fine, as long as your paper supports AGW. But if it's a paper that contradicts it, the top journals won't let you do that. Instead, your paper must be reviewed by your staunchest opponents who of course will always respond with ideologically-driven rejections.

Note: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the PNAS objections to Lindzen and Choi's choice of reviewers, and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what the reviewers who rejected their paper said. The purpose of this post was to illustrate the hypocrisy. The strict criteria the PNAS invoked for what constitutes an appropriate peer-review is fine. The problem is, this criteria is selectively enforced.

See Also:

Climategate Documents Confirm Wegman’s Hypothesis

Lindzen’s PNAS Reviews

Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account
by Ross McKitrick

Reviewed or Not Reviewed?
by Christopher Monckton

Help Us Transmit This Story

  Add to Your Blogger Account
  Put it On Facebook
  Tweet this post
  Print it from your printer
  Email and a collection of other outlets
  Try even more services

1 comment:

  1. These are the same wankers who have gone out and destroyed the Loop Current, done their bloody chemtrail>HAARP radical weather crap, killed everything in the GOM and ruined a huge chunk of the food production capability in the U.S. for at least two years, and now they expect us to hand over our money and administer fetishes as we accept their 'superiority' over our poor backs as they drop trou and prepare to advance. Al Gore better back off quick. These betrayals and sneak attacks should not go unpunished and though I have never killed anybody (put a couple of people in the hospital who tried to beat me up, then stuck around to gloat about 3 seconds too long.)I must advocate neutralizing a number of traitorous politicians, after trial. America is under attack and those people who still think they are perfect and safe like mommy said had better wake up. Turn off your TV set and cut the cord. They ALL are lying to you. Join the party. Obama is a pervert and a traitor to the U.S. and he wants YOUR KIDS, as does Hillary and Napolitano and 'the breather Petole'.
    Anybody out there sick of Whitey? I'm Nordic.

    If you want to know why YOU should be as angry as I, see and search 'Dimona dozen v. Fukushima 50'. Review the radical weather prediction>event on schedule cases from last March to the end of May, then follow dutch as he uses downloaded satellite photo sequences of chemtrails and HAARP circles to successfully predict the time, place, and nature of the resultant radical weather event. I thought B.S., but not after I witnessed successful predictions three times in a row. The History Channel did a show called 'That's Impossible, Weather Warfare in 2007. DOWNLOAD IT. And it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE. The old mission statement (it's in their archives)for HAARP was "weather control" as advanced cloud-seeding and atmospheric ionization processes.
    The other reference is even more important. It tells why there was ZERO damage anywhere from the 6.76 at epicenter in Fukushima in Fukushima on quake day, until the wave hit. Look at all the videos, no cracked stucco anywhere. A 9.0 would have bashed thousands of homes and buildings. At least two underwater nukes were set off simultaneously with the quake. The USGS and Japanese monitoring stations picked uo 3 simultaneous epicenters. Impossible. Please review before you throw rocks at me. Life was not created to suit you or I or anyone else. We have real trouble here that has been allowed to grow out of human rights and live and let live. The perps are not particularly bright, just NASTY.

    We must be more successful at communicating this message or agree with the sickos. The people are dense and believing their priests who are in the process of sucker punching them to death. These are not acts of God. These are the misbehaviors of spoiled brats who have out stayed their welcome and freedom.
    God firmly established the earth and did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited . See [Isaiah 45:18]. When Jesus referred to the end, he referred to the end of the wicked. Love the world and the creatures, and let your fancy flow. Please help these references go viral so we can ALL get back to the party.

    Notes: Deaths at birth are up 35% in the Pacific Northwest U.S. and up 48% in Philadelphia since the Fukushima event. Hot particles are 10 counts per day (inhaled) average in Tokyo and 5 counts per day (inhaled)in Seattle. The EPA has turned off or removed the radiation monitoring stations around the U.S. so GE will not be sued. GE sited and built Fukushima while the U.S. government signed off on it. Think Prescott Bush and the eugenicists selling war bonds for the Nazis til caught in 1942 and carbon credits and Wall street to British protectoratres today with computerized phony trades. And no active SEC and a British agent heading the FTC.