Wednesday
Feb092011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Steig response coming
Feb 9, 2011 Climate: Surface Eric Steig has indicated that he will be posting a response to O'Donnell later today.
I can hardly wait.
Feb 9, 2011 Climate: Surface
Reader Comments (110)
J says (Feb 10, 2011 at 9:03 AM)
“…. it seems perfectly legitimate to ask authors of a paper criticized by a manuscript to be referees of that manuscript....However, the editor must keep the situation under tight control...”
It seems to me that, even if one accepts that it is legitimate in some cases – I don't, I think it puts the reviewer in an untenable position – in this case, given the history between McIntyre as co-author of the rebuttal, and Mann as co-author of the rebutted, it created a situation which was impossible to keep under tight control.
Lucy Skywalker
I've added Ryan's material to my Arctic page.
You might want to add an Antarctic page as well. There are reports that global warming are causing King Crabs to take over the place. King Crabs in Antarctica
Perhaps it will be a new food source for the Polar Bears that are also reported to be down there.
Isn't Climate Science FUN!!! You really need cover this stuff as well.
You'll not find me criticizing the editor. He gave Steig every opportunity to defend his paper fairly. He then handed over the large quantity of rope "Reviewer A" demanded, and Steig now dangles, turning in the wind. Was he a victim of just his own hubris? Or of over-eager Team meddlers forcing him to shoot too high?
The "Prevent Non-Team Publications From Seeing the Light of Day Sub-Committee" meet to review O’Donnell:
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2007/04/14/this-wisdom-must-die/
This is a comment from "Real Climate" and I guess the author does not appreciate the irony of what he has written ..........................................
"Science journalists have to rely instead on other factors, including the track records, training and reputations of the scientists involved, and with gut feelings about who’s making sense and who isn’t. Those of us who have been doing it for a long time tend to develop a sense of who’s reliable and who isn’t–but it’s not infallible. And it’s never going to be.
I
Comment by Mike Lemonick — 10 Feb 2011 @ 12:00 PM"
Well Mike - over a many months of digging and digging and digging - my analysis tells me that it is the track record and reputation of the "team" is in tatters.
j,
you said: "The issue of encouraging the authors to use one method, and then subsequently criticising that method proceeds in my view more from a general worldview whereby he thinks he is right and they are wrong than from outright duplicity. It is hard to remain consistent in life - he probably had forgotten that he'd recommended that."
nope. i took a look at the review pages. there's no way he'd forgotten. it's a big topic.
also, i read somewhere the 88 pages are the entire conversation this may be correct. there are only 60 pages of reviewer comments. /sarc.
Jonas,
Ryan, Jeff, et al have written that they became convinced, because of the differing writing styles, that Steig was getting feedback from other members of the team for his reviews. Given what we know from the Climategate e-mails, group collaboration on reviews seems to be a norm for them. They don't honor any expectations of anonymity. Strange that they should expect knowledgeable observers to be impressed by their whining that their own expectations were somehow violated.
It's ok that Steig was offered a chance to comment on the paper. It's not ok that it was as a reviewer, under an umbrella of secrecy.
It doesn't matter that the editor could control the situation as far as getting the paper published. What matters is that Steig's being a "secret" reviewer allowed him to influence the content of the paper, then criticize that content, without the public having knowledge of the history.
Truly, the very fact that this becomes this huge issue afterward when the truth is known is evidence that this is a BAD IDEA. How much more evidence does anyone need?
Of course, if Steig hadn't chosen to abuse the situation, to influence changes to the paper as anonymous person A and then criticize those changes as public person B, then it would have been fine. All that means is that if we could trust scientists to behave themselves better than, you know, anyone else, then a secret review might not be a bad idea.
But...as Steig shows, we can't trust scientists to behave themselves anymore than anyone else. Given that, honestly, I think secrecy in the Peer Review process is flawed, but inviting someone to write things anonymously that may influence a paper for which they have a prejudicial reason to wish ill will is just asking for trouble.
stan, I agree
If (and I strongly suspect this) Steig involved several others in his 'anonymous' review, he is in breach of the same (informal) confidentiality he now appeals to. I don't think this is really a big issue, they were after all a number of different authors with different ... ehrm ... (for lack of a better word) ...areas of 'expterise', But the 'eric' at RC is putting up an entierly different show than the bunch of 'reviewers A' did, and not doing too well either. Which is visible to an observant eye.
Most of us know for what purpose RC was set up, what impression it tries to give (Climate Science from climate scientists) and that its real purpose is to 'control the message' for laymen and supporters, with enough sciency sounding terms so that noone who doesn't already mistrusts them bothers to check. And for that to work long term, I think that the involved parties must believe in the message, the bigger picture. And I am sure they do.But if the also consider themselves to be competent 'climate scientist' of course it gets very personal when they do get a whipping. Possibly even more painful than for the average Dr Joe, who encounters such things quite normally when trying to publish.
I mean, these guys have been telling themselves, and everybody who cared to listen that they were the creme de la creme of climatescience, educating the ignorant masses, fending of doubt from incredulous skeptics and vicous attacks from pure evil deniers.
If they really started believing this narrative (they've been telling it for years) behaviour as displayed in ClimateGate is not unexpected, and now i unravels almost in realtime ... I think Eric is struggling to keep it together ... and not used to the situation (look where Mann went after ClimateGate broke)
http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/11/ryan-odonnell-responds/
with all these responses to responses of refereeing referees we need some interpreters. of interpreters.
Seems the hole just gets deeper and deeper for Steig. He really should have stuck to driving fast cars!
http://climateaudit.org/2011/02/13/steig-and-the-knuckleheaded-reviewers/
and here for some excellent commentary on this whole sorry sordid affair!
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/eric-to-john-nielsen-gammon-it-isnt-very-useful-support/#comment-69454
Regards
Mailman