Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Pseudoscience
 Journals Accused of Censoring Anti-Global Warming
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2005 :  12:22:20  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
Skeptics. What do you think of this article? The long and the short of it is that some pretty prestigous journals are being accused of censoring papers against global warming. What do you think? Is this a new angle of attack or are these papers practicing bad science? Or is it something in between?

quote:
Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
By Robert Matthews
(Filed: 01/05/2005)

Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.

A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.

The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.

A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."

Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."

Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.

As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."

Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."

He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.

As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."

Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.

In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".

A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."

Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.

"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.

Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."


Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/portal

-Chaloobi

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2005 :  12:33:07   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
Nature and Science are two of the most reputable journals out there. I'd have to see some real evidence to believe that they have deliberately rejected valid papers (i.e. that meet the standards and can pass peer review) based on some conspiritorial agenda.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

sweetmiracle
Skeptic Friend

USA
74 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2005 :  13:26:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sweetmiracle a Private Message
I do know that Nature has taken flack for having reviewers that reject articles because of personal biases and dislikes...see, for instance, Joao Maguiejo's book Faster Than the Speed of Light.

Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.

-Carl Sagan
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2005 :  14:58:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
I'm still not entirely sure. An article written by McIntyre en McKitrick on the research of Mann et al (which produced the famous hockeystick so loved by the IPCC) also had trouble receiving some unbiased review. I must admit that I haven't been reading up as much on this as I should have, but their arguments seem sound from what I've read about it till now.

Furthermore, one should take note that because nature and science are such high-profile articles, publication bias might be more profound in these journals. Only a small amount of the articles send in will get accepted, and these aren't always the best articles, but can often be the more likable ones. Peer review is not a holy grail, and publication bias remains a very serious problem in the scientific process.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2005 :  15:25:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
Peer review is not a holy grail, and publication bias remains a very serious problem in the scientific process.


The criticism suggests that there is much more than "publication bias" going on. They are suggesting that there is a conspiracy, accross more than one journal (which would make it a conspiracy of 10's of scientists, at least), to supress an opposing point of view that is backed by legitimate science.

I find the notion far fetched, at best.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2005 :  16:27:28   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by Dude

quote:
Peer review is not a holy grail, and publication bias remains a very serious problem in the scientific process.


The criticism suggests that there is much more than "publication bias" going on. They are suggesting that there is a conspiracy, accross more than one journal (which would make it a conspiracy of 10's of scientists, at least), to supress an opposing point of view that is backed by legitimate science.

I find the notion far fetched, at best.




I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. However, there might be a strong bias within the field, coloring the publications. I'm still reading up on it, so I'm not sure yet. I'm especially interested at this point at McIntyre and McKitrick's criticism of the hockeystick and the implications of their criticisms. One of their criticisms is indeed that they had a hard time being published because of their results, not because of their research on itself. I want to try and understand whether their research holds up, but this forces me to get some insight in the models used, so it'll take some time.

Till recently with their research, I hadn't really seen much research going against the man-made global warming hypothesis except BS, but their article and the story surrounding it at the least rises above the general mishmesh. Not saying they (or the article) are right, but keeping in mind that there is a fair reason that they might not be entirely wrong either.

edited to add:this is the hockeystick controversy I'm talking about. I'm currently going through realclimate on this, since Mann is one of the original authors of the article giving this figure as well as one of the writers on realclimate.org. This makes realclimate at least a good source for his side of the story.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Edited by - tomk80 on 05/02/2005 16:38:16
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2005 :  17:34:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by tomk80

I'm still not entirely sure. An article written by McIntyre en McKitrick on the research of Mann et al (which produced the famous hockeystick so loved by the IPCC) <snip>
I read that the criticisms of Mann (specifically the hockey stick) have been more or less completely discredited. Virtually the entire editorial staff of the journal Climate Research, which published the criticisms, resigned in protest stating there were serious problems with the science of the critical papers. There was some talk about it in last month's Sciam and this link has some good discussion too:

Great Global Warming links from the American Institute of Physics:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

Which in the foot notes (seen note #47) of this article talk about Mann's critics with all kinds of source links:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/20ctrend.htm

Very good stuff.










-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 05/02/2005 17:36:31
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2005 :  17:43:21   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
It is entirely possible that there is a bit of censorship going on. Widely accepted scientific theories are typically difficult to challenge as much because of the scientific 'consensus' as because of the longstanding evidence supporting them. Competing theories take time and effort before they are considered, critiqued and eventually adopted. In this case, the common bogus assaults against global warming have likely made mainstream scientists a bit more skeptical of challenges to the consensus than perhaps they should be. This in no way indicates a conspiracy to promote global warming despite knowledge that it is false. It's merely a bit of human psychology getting in the way of perfect scientific practice. Does that seem reasonable?

-Chaloobi

Go to Top of Page

tomk80
SFN Regular

Netherlands
1278 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2005 :  18:29:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit tomk80's Homepage Send tomk80 a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by chaloobi

It is entirely possible that there is a bit of censorship going on. Widely accepted scientific theories are typically difficult to challenge as much because of the scientific 'consensus' as because of the longstanding evidence supporting them. Competing theories take time and effort before they are considered, critiqued and eventually adopted. In this case, the common bogus assaults against global warming have likely made mainstream scientists a bit more skeptical of challenges to the consensus than perhaps they should be. This in no way indicates a conspiracy to promote global warming despite knowledge that it is false. It's merely a bit of human psychology getting in the way of perfect scientific practice. Does that seem reasonable?


Exactly my point, and much better worded also. And thanks for the links (previous post), I'll try and read them this week. And now, I'm going to bed.

Tom

`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll-
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 05/02/2005 :  22:48:10   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
I wouldn't call it a conspiracy.


You wouldn't, but the article mentioned in the OP does.

There will be editorial bias in any organization that published anything. That is just a fact of life.

What is being suggested (by the article from the OP) is that (atleast) two prominent and highly respectable journals are refusing to publish work based just on conclusions.

An allegation that I will not accept at face value without supporting evidence.

And... people who have had papers rejected are not what you would call objective. The whole climate issue has also become very politicized. And it is common practice, as I'm sure you have all seen, for the right-wing to frequently claim discrimination and bias when they don't get their own way.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

sweetmiracle
Skeptic Friend

USA
74 Posts

Posted - 05/03/2005 :  07:23:51   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sweetmiracle a Private Message
But we can be equally sure that if someone was very convinced that global warming could be the end of humanity, that the individual might use his or her power to supress the opposition because of a belief in a 'higher good' than strictly-interpreted truth.

It is a possibility, and, given the human tendency to propagandize one's own viewpoint, it should always be considered....

Remarkable claims require remarkable proof.

-Carl Sagan
Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 05/03/2005 :  08:13:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message
quote:
Originally posted by sweetmiracle

But we can be equally sure that if someone was very convinced that global warming could be the end of humanity, that the individual might use his or her power to supress the opposition because of a belief in a 'higher good' than strictly-interpreted truth.

It is a possibility, and, given the human tendency to propagandize one's own viewpoint, it should always be considered....

But the entire editorial staffs of two scientific journals regarded as having the highest of integrities would have to all conspire together against anti-climate change science. And these are people that have been trained and immersed in the ideal of objectivity as the 'higher good' for their entire lives. I'm very skeptical of a conspiracy.

-Chaloobi

Edited by - chaloobi on 05/03/2005 08:14:24
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 05/03/2005 :  09:38:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message
quote:
But we can be equally sure that if someone was very convinced that global warming could be the end of humanity, that the individual might use his or her power to supress the opposition because of a belief in a 'higher good' than strictly-interpreted truth.

It is a possibility, and, given the human tendency to propagandize one's own viewpoint, it should always be considered....


If we were talking about one person, or even just two or three, then yes.

But, as Chaloobi pointed out, we are talking about the editorial staff of atleast two prominent journals. People who are trained in objective critical thinking. People whom, I think, are not so likely to buy into the typical doomsday nonsense spouted by the extreme environmental nutcakes. If there were legitimate science that contradicted the idea that global warming is primarily caused by human actions, I do not think that it would be rejected out of hand due to the conclusions.

Another flaw in the logic, sweetmiracle, is that a person who was convinced that global warming was possibly going to be the death of humanity would supress info that contradicted humans as the primary cause.

Because, if humans aren't the primary cause, and global warming is really happening (I have not heard any opinion that says the planet is NOT warming up), then the person who feared our extinction because of the warming would be looking for the actual cause and ways to mitigate the warming trend.

A person who feared for the future of the race, and supressed valid science that didn't agree with their current opinion, would be acting in a completely irrational way. And, if the entire staff of atleast two of our biggest journals are all irrational, then sciene is about to take a beating it won't soon recover from.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Topic Locked
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.11 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000