Bishop Hill More from Markram
Apr 15, 2014 Climate: Sceptics Journals Following on from Frontiers' recent statement about the retraction of the Lewandowsky paper, the journal's editor Henry Markram has left a comment giving his personal views of the affair (H/T Paul Matthews):
My own personal opinion: The authors of the retracted paper and their followers are doing the climate change crisis a tragic disservice by attacking people personally and saying that it is ethically ok to identify them in a scientific study. They made a monumental mistake, refused to fix it and that rightfully disqualified the study. The planet is headed for a cliff and the scientific evidence for climate change is way past a debate, in my opinion. Why even debate this with contrarians? If scientists think there is a debate, then why not debate this scientifically? Why help the ostriches of society (always are) keep their heads in the sand? Why not focus even more on the science of climate change? Why not develop potential scenarios so that society can get prepared? Is that not what scientists do? Does anyone really believe that a public lynching will help advance anything? Who comes off as the biggest nutter? Activism that abuses science as a weapon is just not helpful at a time of crisis.
There is at least some common ground.
Reader Comments (90)
Big Oil:
A really important point. One is tempted to reach for the old analogies, but Lysenkoism wasn't global, being limited to the dark empire of Stalin, and eugenics wasn't physical science. I fully agree with the empathy for Markram and others implied. Our job is not to berate such people but to serve them - which is of course the spirit in which John Shade made his comment.
Ross: Ha! That too.
What is settled is that the Government's senior scientific advisor says "The science is settled". (Mark Walport, Parliamentary Science and Technical Committee lunch, 5 November 2013)
>The planet is headed for a cliff
Not sure there's much can be done for those of the New faith.
Greg Laden, no shrinking violet he, responds to Markham, calling him "a bit of a climate change science denialist himself." Laden wrote a whole blog post about it. Normally I'd put in the link, but I really can't recommend reading it. There's a link in his comment at the Frontiers site.
HaroldW: Oh yes, Markham's a denialist now. Hold to one of the most basic and ancient ethical principles in the caring professions and any related research and you're a climate science denier! I'm sorry to sound ecstatic but that takes the biscuit. Machine-gunners of your very own feet, unite.
too funny - Greg Laden calls Henry Markram (frontiers, Editor In Cheif) a climate change science denialist!
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/Rights_of_Human_Subjects_in_Scientific_Papers/830
"Greg Laden: I started to write a comment on Henry's comment above, in which he seems to admit to being a bit of a climate change science denialist himself, but it got too log and became a blog post: http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/04/15/fisking-henry-markrams-comment-about-recursive-fury-and-the-frontiers-retraction/
The lack of self awareness is amazing.. how to alienate somebody, who even thinks that climate is falling of a cliff and that the scientifc evidence is way past any debate.
what does Greg do?
call them a ‘denialist’ ! from Greg’s long blog post:
Why not develop potential scenarios so that society can get prepared? – Henry Markram
“Get prepared? Oh, I see. You actually ARE a denialist! There are many kinds of denailists, including those who think there is nothing we can do about climate change. This statement seems to suggest that this is your position. That is very interesting. This may be the most important statement I’ve seen coming out of Frontiers. This could explain the whole retraction thing. Huh.” – Greg Laden
because Henery Markram (editor in chief, Frontiers ) said
Henry Markram: My own personal opinion: The authors of the retracted paper and their followers are doing the climate change crisis a tragic disservice by attacking people personally and saying that it is ethically ok to identify them in a scientific study. They made a monumental mistake, refused to fix it and that rightfully disqualified the study. The planet is headed for a cliff and the scientific evidence for climate change is way past a debate, in my opinion. Why even debate this with contrarians? If scientists think there is a debate, then why not debate this scientifically? Why help the ostriches of society (always are) keep their heads in the sand? Why not focus even more on the science of climate change? Why not develop potential scenarios so that society can get prepared? Is that not what scientists do? Does anyone really believe that a public lynching will help advance anything? Who comes off as the biggest nutter? Activism that abuses science as a weapon is just not helpful at a time of crisis.
I think, Greg just came off as a bigger ‘nutter’, than Cook or Lewandowsky
Prof Lewandowsky has said he remains involved with Frontiers, editing a journal, etc..
how can he continue to do that, given the Editor In Chiefs opinion!!!
Barry: Against such stiff competition, Laden surges ahead. Thanks for the quotes.
Ross McKitrick (3:02 PM)-
That first statement ("This investigation did not identify any issues with the academic and ethical aspects of the study.") was the retraction statement, worked out in conjunction with the authors and apparently lawyers as well (and perhaps others, such as the paper's editor). As with many compromises, it did not satisfactorily express the opinions of any party. So I'm not sure that it's fair to attribute that statement to Mr Markram; he seems forthright in his comment at the blog. The retraction statement was not composed by him. [Although he likely signed off on it.]
Barry is made of sterner stuff than I. ;-)
Indeed, why is there such a strong and widespread debate in the broader body of the climate science interested community outside of a very small clique of scientists? Henry Markram' comment (in the lead post) precipitates that question.
Why, for example, is the small clique of CG (in Nov 2009) scientists and their associates / supporters involved in, using Markram's words, "Activism that abuses science as a weapon [. . .]"?
I think the answer is that small clique of scientists is committed to a radical crusade based on a non-scientific 'a priori' false premise. That premise being there can never exist a situation where there is a net positive benefit, on all scales and to significant numbers of life forms, from burning fossil fuels.
Such radical crusaders, like Mann, Lewandowsky and Oreskes, simple do not have the intellectual capacity to challenge their 'a priori' false premise. Therefore, they cannot rationally engage their critics and are reduced to viewing their critics as morally evil.
John
Poor old Henry. Neither side is very happy with him...
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/04/15/fisking-henry-markrams-comment-about-recursive-fury-and-the-frontiers-retraction/
Well, we knew 'did not identify' was not the truth. Now that the truth about the ethics of the paper has slipped out, would Markram care to identify what was truly found out about the science. And then, does he care to make the jump from the scientific flaws in Lewandowsky's psychology to the scientific flaws in the IPCC's climatology, per the SPM?
============================
HaroldW (3:39 PM) I agree that the statement was likely a group effort. But as Editor he would have had to approve it and sign off on it. I guess we should be grateful that he came round in the end, but it's awfully rich for him now to heap such abuse on "ostriches" when he was the one with his head in the sand regarding the paper's glaring deficiencies, and it was the "contrarians" with whom one ought not even debate who had to convince him to see the obvious ethical violations.
What he should be doing, in order to put this matter to rest, is acknowledge that they erred in judgment by accepting the paper and later dismissing the ethical complaints, and apologize to the people harmed by their handling of the matter. This pox-on-you-all combative stance, trying to be everybody's enemy's enemy, just keeps inflaming matters.
Markram has raised hedging one's bets to an art form.
Green Sand @ 12:37 PM makes the point sparingly, and Ross re-iterates and expands it. It's time for Markram, and other true believers in catastrophes and cliffs, to do a little self-examination. It's all gnothi seauton to me.
==================
Dana is a loose cannon, isn't he. I've added this at Frontiers:
http://www.frontiersin.org/blog/rights_of_human_subjects_in_scientific_papers/830
Dana Nuccitelli (Sceptical Science contributor/author/admin) seem to be fighting Prof Lewandowsky's and John Cook (founder of Skeptical Science) battles (by proxy) in the Guardian, which I do not think is very wise.
Dana flat out says that Henry is lying or clueless?!!
"And I'm less than impressed with the editor. He's either clueless or outright lying in these comments." - Dana Nuccitelli
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/34395320
Maybe Frontiers should consult their lawyers..
I'm not sure how Prof Lewandowsky can remain involved with Frontiers, in respect of the Chief Editor seemingly thinking he 'made a monumental mistake' that they refused to correct' as this indicates that the Editor in Chief does not trust prof lewandwsky's judgement..
ref:
previously Lewandowsky:
“I have continued to serve as a co-editor of a forthcoming special issue of Frontiers, I accepted a reviewing assignment for that journal, and I currently have another paper in press with Frontiers. After the retraction, I was approached by several Frontiers editors and authors who were dismayed at the journal’s decision. In all instances I pointed out that I continued to serve as author, reviewer, and co-editor for Frontiers.
http://shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rf3.html
Dana
http://www.skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1683
John
http://www.skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=1
Stephan
http://www.skepticalscience.com/posts.php?u=2541
AND:
Seriously (for Frontiers) Dana wrote an article that briefly appeared at Skeptical Science (reported here)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/20/lewandowsky-paper-flushed-then-floated-again/
(long enough for Google to cache it) before it was deleted from Skeptical Science and it appeared in the Guardian,
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/mar/21/contrarians-bully-climate-change-journal-retraction
which was prior to Frontiers Retraction Notice. From that article it looks like he was well briefed by the 'Fury' authors (Lewandowsky, Cook, or Marriott, all involved, like Dana with Skeptical Science). and that the authors had a PR campaign ready to go (plus The Conversation articles by Elaine, and a video by Prof Lewandowsky, and interviews)
Now he says this, is it just Dana speaking, or Lewandowsky, Cook, Marriott by proxy?
DanaNuccitelli
http://discussion.theguardian.com/comment-permalink/34395796
15 April 2014 3:51pm
"Markham is either clueless or lying in these comments. Just as one example among many, 'refused to fix it' is an outright lie. He knows the authors submitted a revised version that de-identified the subjects, as Frontiers requested. This is really appalling behavior on his part." - Dana Nuccitelli
John Cook is the founder of Skeptical Science.
Professor Lewandowsky and John Cook are co-authors of this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Debunking-Handbook-now-freely-available-download.html
Ross:
It seems to me that different kinds of pox are being dealt out. I admit it's hard to figure out why I'm so un-bothered by the ostrich bit but it seems almost innocent in its assignment of bad motives compared to the normal denialist/fossil-fuel-tool spew-fest. Compare to this:
Who last said that kind of thing to Lewandowsky and friends and how deserved is that allusion to the darkest moments of the Deep South? Of course the once-applauded editor is called a denialist within moments by the climate chorus for that. I'm erring on the side of massive respect. He's seen the really ugly stuff for what it is and is calling it out. Other things can come later.
GreenSand: " 'Who comes off as the biggest nutter?' Good question, especially as it took 'the ostriches of society' to point out 'a monumental mistake' "
+3
Who _IS_ the nutter in various controversies that break through to the mainstream media?
Peter Glieck or Harrison Schmidt?
Rand Simberg or Michael Mann?
Bjorn Lomberg or Howard Friel?
Markham's going to learn a hard lessons , slip one little bit from the dogma of 'the cause ' and be cast forever has a heretic and there is nothing the faithful hate more than a heretic. But remind once again what any of that has to do with 'science'
'... heading for a Cliff...' Maybe he means Cliff is going to do the UK entry for the next Eurovision 'song' contest. Then, Yup! time to panic.
I take the position that many involved, even tangentially, with the-blog-that-cannot-be-named, are more interested in keeping-up traffic to websites than they are in the substantive issues.
Of course I may be wrong, but editors under severe job threatening economic pressure will press any and every button that produces a big response. It's something to show the advertisers isn't it, Mr Alan "We've all got something to hide" Rusbridger? I am still prepared to buy the Guardian again when they allow science back in.
There is at least some common ground
Where ?
I picture a cliff with some big nuts falling off the edge and laughing ostriches.
Common ground:
"Activism that abuses science as a weapon is just not helpful"
Shub:
I picture a load of warmist lemmings jumping off a cliff and landing on a nice warm planet that's fallen off before them.And how do we ostriches laugh with their heads in the sand? Anyway, we only put their heads there in order to anonymize ourselves (though maybe we'd have done better to use HideYourAss).
Henry Markram's cliff analogy is a classic example of how misinformed those on the orthodox climate consensus are. A little climate context clearly suggests that the real cliff we are heading for is long overdue, and has very serious implications for most of the human population in the northern hemisphere at least.
Apr 15, 2014 at 11:13 AM | Dodgy Geezer
Isn't it more than 'the debate' being political that there is a colossal amount of money to be made in all things 'climate'. Even the lesser amounts that most of the climate scientists make is a lifetime of work to them. 20 years if completely wrong work might be a disappointing conclusion for some people.
I am a little surprised that so many obviously intelligent and well-educated commenters on this thread are actually bothering to be bothered by the arrant nonsense from both the Lew camp and the Frontiers journal editor, Mr Markram.
The people I speak with who have no axe to grind but see the IPCC's alarmist prognostications as being more than a little shonky are inclined to mutter 'F***wits all! and leave it at that.
Ross McKitrick (4:20 PM): "What he should be doing, in order to put this matter to rest, is acknowledge that they erred in judgment by accepting the paper and later dismissing the ethical complaints, and apologize to the people harmed by their handling of the matter."
I agree. I think the clear statement that it is not ethically OK to identify individuals (without consent) comes close to that acknowledgment. At the Frontiers blog, I asked if there would be any changes to prevent a recurrence. If Markram responds, that might indicate whether he considers that any mistakes were made by the journal.
Barry Woods,
Looks like Dana's just practicing a little "discursive fury".
Markram is trying to survive the attacks of his CAGW allies. That's all.
Bet this stuff is too hot for any cartoonist: ;)
@dana1981 @LackMartin @BarryJWoods #LewandowskyTriedToJumpTheSharkButItBitHisTesticlesOff
by Foxgoose
It is amusing, warmists who are compelled to criticise the excesses of their lunatic fringe always think that if they make a point of emphasising their commitment to the CAGW mantra, that this will save them from attacks from their own side.
They are invariably proved wrong. It's a religion, not a science, and heresy is not tolerated in any form.
Markram should consider that the people hiding their heads from reality are not the skeptics. As in any movement, it is the climate change fundies and extreme believers who are hiding from reality. But while the cliamte kooks, obsessed and extremists are indeed hiding their heads, their posture shows their heads are not stuck in the sand but actually up their....
Frontiers asked me to organize and edit a special issue of one of their journals today.
How about something on ethics?
Dana and Eli have joined in on the Frontiers thread, and Watts is on to them at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/15/quote-of-the-week-beyond-noble-cause-corruption/
and Lew is back at Shapingtomorrowsworld
at http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/xp.html
Dana Nuccitelli, having accused editor in chief Markram of lying, is now accusing the Frontiers editors of ioncompetence and malice. Frontiers belongs to Nature, apparently. You'd almost think Nuccitelli was inviting a libel action.
Are we heading for a Jonestown ending to the Lewandowsky saga?
geoffchambers it will be an oddity if ones good thing that comes out of all of this is that Lew and his little gang become poison to journals who may regard them as 'trouble waiting to happen' For Lew has as all the marks of a serial abuser when it comes to poor pratice and its hard to see future papers or even his past papers not getting 'interest' to so what the quality really is.
HaroldW
I would be very surprised if there hasn't been a 'behind closed doors' review by Frontiers of the review process.
'Recursive Fury' certainly made unusual progress through the editorial levels, and I suspect that Dr Swamy has had something of a talking to regarding his initial choice of reviewers and subsequent decision to (apparently) disregard the negative review from Dr Wood while accepting the review from the obviously unqualified (in terms of understanding ethics in the field of psychology if nothing else) Ms McLeod. His subsequent decision to act as both a peer reviewer and editor (which I understand is unusual but not unique, but does lead to a potential conflict if the paper obtains a negative review) does raise a question about his judgement and impartiality on this subject.
On the Nutticcelli piece in the Guardian , I wrote to him that he appeared to be in denial about the facts of the matter , a strange place for him to be given his stance on "Deniers".
Unfortunately my first persona RE 451 has been banned from the site and they twigged RaggedyArse fairly quickly too and banned that as well ,removing all of my comments and the replies.
Very strange behavior for a newspaper which prides itself on its Liberal viewpoint.