Bishop Hill Exploring the fascist borderline
The Patterns in Physics affair has been exercising many in the climate blogosphere in recent days. I missed the initial furore as I was somewhat under the weather. My impression is that those involved in the journal left themselves open to criticism. It was inevitable that their every move would be scrutinised and a squeaky-clean approach should have been adopted. In some ways though, the affair just increases my general dissatisfaction with the peer review process as a whole. The papers that have appeared in the journal will stand or fall on their own merits rather than the identities or sympathies of the peer reviewers involved.
But I've voiced thoughts like this before.
Perhaps more interesting are the reactions to James Annan, who has identified himself as the person who initiated moves against the journal. Mutterings about eco-fascism have ensued. Similar thoughts have emerged in the wake of the decision of the Frozen River Film Festival in Minnesota to cancel a screening of Phelim Macaleer's Fracknation, apparently "after pressure from their partner film festival Mountain Film in Telluride and the Sundance Film Festival".
Does any of this amount to ecofascism? Private organisations can publish what they like of course, so is it wrong to make suggestions to a publisher about what they should and should not publish? And does it make a difference what those views are? So is it acceptable to suggest to a publisher that views you merely disagree with are disseminated? Is there an argument that trying to prevent publication of dissenting points of view on global warming or hydraulic fracking is simple ecofascism while trying to prevent dissemination of racist views is something different?
What do readers here think?
[I don't want the thread to head off into a discussion of particular extreme views. Could commenters please try to stick to environmental issues or refer to extreme or non-PC views, so we don't get diverted]
Reader Comments (81)
From the reports I have read, the knives were out for the journal before this was published.
The complaints appear to be largely about the peer-review process, not the published papers, one of which was a literature review. Annan's claim to priority of complaint does not carry much currency. How could he have known who the authors and reviewers were before publication?
He cites ThingsBreak as the source of his information, an unidentified source (individual?) I am unable verify directly. Over to you, James.
@Bill
"printer" is the legacy term for the entity that puts things in print, on the internet etc
the publisher owns the title, appoints the editor, and is ultimately liable for the contents
to the best of my knowledge, in this case the editor and publisher are one; Copernicus only facilitates distribution
Copernicus decision to distance itself is thus similar to a printer refusing to print pornography
Richard thank you. So rather than Copernicus, as reported, 'shutting it (the journal) down', it has simply declined to continue offering its services. A not insignificant difference. Your analogy of printer declining to produce pornography for a client is apt: I am sure many in warmist circles consider sceptical publications as intellectual smut, at least.
I wonder if the journal had a contract with Copernicus. If I were producing a journal which was hosted on a third party website (which is how this arrangement now appears) I would want to be sure that the host could not pull the plug on a whim... On the other hand, if all the services were being provided free, as a favour, the editors might not have been too keen on demanding a contractual arrangement....and why should favours not be withdrawn, they are in the gift of the giver?
@shub - noted, thanks.
@Richard T - so this curious situation arises from the 'Launch Your Own Journal' model? No idea what business model is, but can assume that essentially Copernicus are providing some infrastructure and a little bit of reflected kudos to prospective customers (like PRP)?
For a scientific journal the killer question is "Was the science in this paper properly done?"
It may be controversial, or disagree with a consensus or be written by an unpopular author. None of these matter. If the science was competently carried out it should be potentially publishable (though if it contributes nothing to the field or is too trivial it may not be worth publishing).
If a journal publishes too much work of marginal quality or which is subsequently falsified the resulting loss of reputation may also be a factor. Note that Nature, the journal with the highest reputation , also has the harshest review standard.
If you have good reason to believe that a forthcoming paper is fraudulent or otherwise substandard, then a letter to the editor or publisher may be appropriate, but the ultimate decision regarding publication is theirs, not yours.
Patterns in Physics was closed for two main reasons. Firstly it was proposed as a neutral journal, which the editor subsequently used as a mouthpiece for his own views. Secondly it had small pool of authors and reviewers who reviewed each other's papers. This cast doubt on the quality of the output.
Nic Lewis, Dr. Curry and others publish without problems in conventional journals. If the work is of good standard, scepticism does not disqualify. Could Patterns in Physics have been intended as vehicle to get substandard work into publication?
Richard Tol,
comparing what was being published at Copernicus to porn is rather shabby. Especially in light of how much true climate porn is published making wild untrue claims about how the world is already suffering from a climate catastrophe.
You typically do better. That is disappointing.
What’s the big deal? If the poetry editor of the TLS or the Poet Laureate said “this poetry review is crap”, it would close, since no (aspiring) poet would want to be associated with it. Scientific publishing is 90% vanity publishing, just like any of the other minor arts - we all know that. So if someone “within the field” wants it closed, so be it.
There’s a difference of course, in that no politician is saying “we must spend zillions of pounds on windmills because 97% of poets say we must”. Even if one of them wrote the Iliad tomorrow, we still wouldn’t do what they told us to, would we?
So the problem is with the politicians who obey the scientists, and with the journalists who don’t ask them why. And with James Annan, who apparently approves of Lewandowsky’s efforts to prove that the less we know about climate sensitivity, the more likely it is to be high, and bad. This merely shows that James Annan is, shall we say, (I don’t want to be snipped) a bit dim?
Nic Lewis, Dr. Curry and others publish without problems in conventional journals. If the work is of good standard, scepticism does not disqualify. Could Patterns in Physics have been intended as vehicle to get substandard work into publication? EM 7:01
"Nic Lewis, Dr. Curry and others publish without problems in conventional journals."
Er, so what? They publish mainstream stuff.
"If the work is of good standard, scepticism does not disqualify."
EM, either you are joking or the EM trademark naiveity/BS is convincing you that what EM wishes to believe is reality.
"Could Patterns in Physics have been intended as vehicle to get substandard work into publication?"
Out into the open with it - what's your opinion on that question EM?
Copernicus decision to distance itself is thus similar to a printer refusing to print pornography
Jan 22, 2014 at 3:36 PM Richard Tol
So views of climate sceptics are similar in scurrilousness to pornography?
["PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate sceptics" (Copernicus)]
EM
You actually touch on a relevant subject about Nature. Michael Mann's original paper MBH98 had a severe lack of characterisation data for trees and temperature. And yet he and authors just assumed (based on other paleo studies mind) that somehow it was okay to extrapolate into the past using tree ring data as a proxy for temperature without knowing about any actual relationship. Where was the experimentally obtained relationship? It's not hard to show it if you have the data. But the errors in assuming a linear relationship? well they could be ± 50% i.e. useless.
It is actually okay to perform a theoretical exercise (which MBH98 is) and just as the papers in PRP do. As long as the limitations and assumptions are present you can publish. You may find that it is mistaken but many scientific papers are like that.
I do agree though that if the work is substandard then this may be a way to get it published. However in any other field, it doesn't matter if it is published and peer reviewed. Repetition and analysis are what determines if it is good and valid. It's only in climate science that this meme of "peer reviewed = good" is portrayed. If you had the pleasure of doing a PhD you may know that.
There really are some terrible papers out there.
To clarify my comment above:
The accusation of eco-fascism is our WMD, only to be used in extreme circumstances. Getting a minor journal closed, even by bullying tactics, is not a world-shattering event. It won’t affect more than a few thousand readers on the fringes of a fringe interest scientific specialisation. Morner &co will continue to make their views known to the few who care (i.e. us) with or without the aid of this journal.
Here’s my personal list of recent warmist activity in Britain which seems to me to merit the title of “eco-fascist” (off the top of my head, and largely due to my current interests):
- The editor of the Observer and the curators of the Science Museum conspiring to publicise the bonkers ideas of a phony Cambridge professor who has been promoting the idea that the answer to climate change is to teach your children how to shoot people.
- The awarding by the Royal Society and the Wellcome Foundation of a prestigious medal and a hefty pile of sterling to a proven liar.
- The awarding by the Royal Society of a fellowship to a bonkers failed prophet who prophesised forty years ago that the British Isles would cease to exist in 2000.
- The gratuitous insulting in an official report published by the BBC Trust of two individuals (Andrew Montford and Tony Newbery) who gave true evidence to the author of the report on a matter which the BBC had tried to cover up.
- The mounting of a supposedly scientific exhibition by the Science Museum at a moment’s notice (outsourced to a PR agency) on the insistence of a government minister (Ed Miliband) for electoral reasons.
Looking back at that list, I suppose they would be better characterised as examples of advanced brown-nosing, rather than fascism, as that word is normally understood. But what is eco-fascism, after all, other than brown-nosing in the appropriate coloured shirt?
Green-nosing?
Geoff Chambers...you remarked about Annan that he is a bit dim...you are being very generous. He can do sums but has, as far as I can see, no ability to think unless he has been told what to think. I note that he likes to ride bicycles and run and fetishises exercise. I note also that Connolley likes to run and fetishises exercise. They are like the graeae of greek mythology, 3 old women sharing one eyeball amongst the 3 of them. Less exercising and more studying might help them except they are too old by now. The Annan model of climate will soon be discarded and forgotten. Connolley hopes to survive by the feed-in tariffs on his solar panels in Oxforshire of all places. These people just know nothing and are shameless.
Micky H Corbett
Preparing a reply to Radical Rodent I happened to hae Marcott et al Fig 1E and the cover of "The Hockey Stick Illusion" on screen at the same time. The similarity was striking. Using a much larger and more diverse dataset Marcott et al has validated Michael Mann's curve.
Now that Andrew Montford's falsification of the hockey stick has itself been falsified, perhaps Mr. Montford will withdraw his book.
Breaking news...it doesn't take a lot of nerve cells to write online comments
> Now that Andrew Montford's falsification of the hockey stick has itself been falsified, perhaps Mr. Montford will withdraw his book.
I wasn't aware that Andrew had falsified the hockey stick. I thought he simply shone a light on the machinations and misconduct of the team trying to keep the hockey stick alive.
Have you even bothered to read it?
Radical Rodent
"Are temperatures as warm as in the Mediaeval Warming Period? No.
Are temperatures as warm as in the Roman Warming Period? No.
Are temperatures as warm as in the Minoan Warming Period? No."
I decided to check. I used the NOAA December 2013 report for this year's global temperature.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/
Past global temperatures were derived from Marcott et al 2013, Fig 1B
http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf
For the Minoan Warm period circa 700BC the temperature anomaly was +0.07C +/- 0.2C
For the Roman Warm Period circa 325 AD the temperature anomaly was -0.05C +/- 0.2C
For the Mediaeval Warm Period circa 1100AD the temperature anomaly was -0.19C +/- 0.2C
The temperature anomaly for 2013 was 0.62C +/- 0.09C.
Are temperatures warmer than in the Mediaeval Warming Period? Yes.
Are temperatures warmer than in the Roman Warming Period? Yes.
Are temperatures warmer than in the Minoan Warming Period? Yes.
Perhaps your Guardian comment was rejected because it was factually incorrect.
@Doug McNeal
#rationalwiki.org/wiki/Galileo_gambit
Just gets the Copernican/Galilei heliocentrism controversy wrong.
Galilei was not sanctioned for his support of Copernicus' heliocentrism, but for promoting it as truth (or fact) rather than a theory.
The Ptolemaic geocentric system held sway for a thousand years and while from todays perspective we know Galilei to be right, in 1600's he failed to produce clear proof. It was nearly fifty years after Galilei died that a sufficiently robust proof was shown by Newton.
Cardinal Bellarmine wrote to Galileo's allie Foscarini, that he and Galilei should be content to show that their system explains all celestial phenomena, but should not categorically assert what seemed to contradict the bible.
The Cardinal went on,
"I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated that time is not now".
It seems to me the warmists have their consensus view and while a few erstwhile Galileo Galilei ’s publish theories to refute CAGW, at personal cost sometimes, we await a Isaac Newton.
Terry S
I am interested to read your statement that the hockey stick was not falsified Now that it has been independantly validatd, I see no need to read obsolete information.
Entropic Mann, are you aware that Marcott admitted his own work was 'not robust'? And now you're claiming that a paper falsified by its own author somehow validated a piece of fraud?
That's spectacularly warped even by your own Ingsoc standards.
Jo Nova's headline was necessary and sufficient.
"Science is not done by peer or pal review, but by evidence and reason".
Much material additional to that is chattering class pulp.
@Hunter, Martin
I did not say that I think skepticism is like pornography. I don't. I inferred that Copernicus think that.
@Warren
Indeed. We provide the facilities (for a fee), you provide the journal.
The problem is that Copernicus also acts as a proper publisher for other journals.
Never sell two distinct services under the same name.
@Tol
So both Annan and Copernicus are of the same intellectual caliber.
(Furthermore, I think the words "fascism", "nazism" and "communism" should be replaced by the more appropriate word "totalitarianism")
EM
It doesn't matter how big or diverse the data set is. It's how well the relationships are determined for your proxies that is relevant. Plus the time scales over which a relationship is used. Marcott bolt on high res data with very low res data which is interesting but shows nothing more than the metrology advances over the last century.
Proxies mean a substitute. A thermometer is a proxy. It's been well characterised. Yet the thermometer standard is still measured and characterised today. In the same way that the kilogram is weighed everyday. All to maintain the accuracy of the proxy. Tree rings and most other proxies have large errors which in some cases you could fit a bus through. It is then the duty of the author to explicitly point this out if such a proxy is used. But generally large errors mean that you haven't got a clue what's going on.
If straw was a proxy Marcott would be grasping. Also this isn't a hard concept. It's just a simple matter of integrity in the method. Just because you want something to be true doesn't forgive the use if inaccurate data and bad method.
Re: EM
> I am interested to read your statement that the hockey stick was not falsified
Please point to my statement whereby I say that the Hockey Stick has not been falsified.
Is this why you have so much faith in what you believe? Is it because you can not comprehend basic English? You assign meaning to other peoples words that you wish was there rather than what is there.
Micky H Corbett , TerryS - save your keystrokes.
EM is a naive man who has swallowed the CAGW story whole. He'll believe anything he comes across that seems to back it up no matter how discredited. If he can't find it what he wants, he'll make it up. From that point on, his own BS becomes his reality.
To be successful as a bullshitter, you say what you think will achieve the result you desire, without being bothered (or even knowing) whether what you are saying is true or not. But its success depends on your listeners not already being informed on the subject. If they are (as often is the case on BH) your BS is apparent as simply BS.
I did not say that I think skepticism is like pornography. I don't. I inferred that Copernicus think that.
@Warren
Jan 23, 2014 at 5:33 AM Richard Tol
Richard - thank you for that. When I read your sentence "Copernicus decision to distance itself is thus similar to a printer refusing to print pornography" I interpreted it differently.
Terry S
"I wasn't aware that Andrew had falsified the hockey stick. "
"I wasn't aware that Andrew had falsified the hockey stick. I thought he simply shone a light on the machinations and misconduct of the team trying to keep the hockey stick alive." TS
"I am interested to read your statement that the hockey stick was not falsified " EM
"Please point to my statement whereby I say that the Hockey Stick has not been falsified." TS
""I wasn't aware that Andrew had falsified the hockey stick. " EM
EM seems, as TS suggested, to have serious difficulties with comprehension of English. Or is simply pretending to be stupid.
Stop playing at semantics, both of you. Life's too short.
McIntyre effectively falsified the hockey stick.
Montford shone a light on the machinations and misconduct of the team trying to keep the hockey stick alive.
Now shake hands and get on with the game! :->
Re: EM
> "I wasn't aware that Andrew had falsified the hockey stick. "
So in your universe because Andrew hasn't personally falsified Flat Earth theory, Luminiferous Aether Theory or the Ptolemaic system nobody has.
Mike Jackson - don't overlook Entro's addiction to BS.
For him, despite Mann's self-invented version of PC analysis being crap, if someone else (eg Marcott) succeeded in producing a hockey stick (even though their work was also complete crap but in a different way), that somehow de-falsifies Mann's work so far as EM is concerned.
As I've pointed out before, what EM would like to be true becomes his reality, irrespective of whether or not it is actually true.
Very occasionally EM comes up with a thought-provoking point. But when is simply bullshitting or pretending to misunderstand the words of other posters he becomes a waste of screen area.