Bishop Hill Parliamentary links day
Jun 24, 2014 Climate: Parliament Journals Walport The House of Commons is having a "links day" in which MPs will get together with scientists to discuss the issue of trust in science. Mark Walport and Paul Nurse will be speaking. I've been following the tweets on the #linksday2014 hashtag and they are a mixed bunch so far.
For example, we learn that Nicola Gulley, the editorial director of the Institute of Physics opined that:
...peer review key to maintaining trust in science. No crisis but a lack of understanding of this process.
You can see why someone working in the peer-reviewed journal sector might be keen on peer reviewed science, but for many readers at BH and many others uninvolved with the climate debate, peer review - its ineffectiveness, the superficial aura of "correctness" it gives, and the problem of gatekeeping - are the source of mistrust in science not a solution to it.
On the other hand Mark Walport has apparently been emphasising that science is only one input into the policy process, which is undoubtedly true and a rebuke to the scientivists and activists who constantly criticise politicians for "ignoring" scientists.
When you think about it, there's a link between these two themes. As we know, the peer reviewed evidence demonstrates conclusively that peer review is virtually useless at finding error and fraud (see discussion in The Hockey Stick Illusion). Clearly then, those advocating use of peer reviewed science in the policymaking process must be incorporating non-peer-reviewed elements into their thinking in order to overcome the peer-reviewed evidence that peer-reviewed evidence is no better than non-peer-reviewed evidence.
I'm not sure what conclusions we should draw from this though.
Bishop Hill
Paul Nurse is currently speaking at the event. Somewhat predictably he is still airing his GWPF conspiracy theories, as revealed in a tweet by James Wilsdon:
Paul Nurse warns against taking science advice from “shadowy organisations who refuse to declare their funders.”
Readers will recall the Met Office's scientific advice to Parliament: first telling them that recent changes in global mean surface temperature were statistically significant and then, when pressed for their calculations, prevaricating, then confessing that the changes were not statistically significant and then without apparently batting an eyelid claiming that they did not rely on such statistical analyses.
No doubt these are the kinds of people that Sir Paul feels should be giving scientific advice to politicians.
Bishop Hill
More from Sir Paul via the twitter hashtag:
Parliamentarians, journalists & scientists need to work better together; will increase public trust in science.
(If the press don't hold anyone to account, we can persuade the public of anything).
"Trust in science key to maintaining democracy" SirPaulNurse @royalsociety rounding off discussions on science & public trust.
(Huh?)
Uncertainty in scientific issues must be reflected in policy advice says Sir Paul Nurse.
(I'm looking forward to the Royal Society saying that the rise in surface temperatures is not statistically significant).
Reader Comments (8)
Isn't it a case of open (or extended) peer review rather than 'non-peer reviewed'?
No crisis but a lack of understanding of this process.
Actual if the public where more aware of the limitations of peer-review you may get the opposite effect . For to the public it is sold as a definitive method to short out the good form the bad and the right from the wrong. In practice people working in science know it does not such thing and plenty which is both bad and wrong gets through it. And that is before we talk about ‘pal-review’
Be careful what you wish for , as you may get it .
Here's a relevant and well put together video for our parliamentarians:
A Peer Reviewed Deception
Nobody appears to ask the broader questions. A particular subject area will be covered by hundreds of peer reviewed articles. These will vary in relevence, quality and slant on a particular issue. In economics there are specialist journals (e.g. The Journal of Economic Literature) that specialize in comparing and constrasting these different viewpoints. It is a function that should be performed in climate science by the UNIPCC, but unfortunately it is committed to a particular narrative.
The solution is always in the promotion of pluralism. Competition in ideas, scientific method, quality of peer review and research programmes help science progress. Holding a particular set of ideas as beyond questioning achieves the opposite.
All the usual suspects - Nurse, Walport, Fiona Fox, Wilsdon... yawn.
"Figureheads" like Nurse and Walport are chosen because they never challenge the establishment. The puppetmasters don't want them doing anything without the right string being pulled from above.
Nurse yeah he needs one badly!
"Parliamentarians, journalists & scientists need to work better together; will increase public trust in science."
Hmm sounds familiar? Like in USSR DDR and North Korea
They don't mitigate each other's mistrust levels. They multiply it.