| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Tech |
| Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming' |
| 2005-05-01 |
| I posted this late last night expecting it to be included in the midnight rollover and it was posted yesterday at a late hour that meant few would read it. Its an important topic and significant news so I beg the editor's indulgence with a repost. Reg required so posted in full. It contains the startling admission from Science (the journal) that they don't publish information widely disseminated on the internet. Scientific and public interest are apparently not relevant criteria. I could go further and suggest that this reeks of the scientific equivalent of the MSM's fear that it is losing control of the agenda. 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." Too true, my friend. |
| Posted by:phil_b |
| #11 if I recall correctly, no one has been able to extract more energy than they put in, which is kind of the whole point. There are many reports of more energy output than input. Here is one that reports 3 times the energy input. If you mean commercially then neither has hot fusion despite billions spent. Otherwise there are a number of explanations of how it works, although no widely accepted explanation. In science there are two kinds of evidence. Results predicted by theory and results not predicted by theory. The latter are more significant since they show where current theories are deficient and new theories required. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-05-01 7:48:41 PM |
| #10 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. Ah, the arrogance! What's really happening here is that the "points" Dr. Peiser made in his paper have been "widely dispersed on the Internet". It's not that Dr. Peiser's paper has been, but that the "points" have been. It's also a sly dig at the Internet, implying that nothing on the Internet can be trusted anyway. The people at Science need to do some glacial movement studies - in person, in the buff. Arrogant A$$wipes... This way they can effectively suppress the actual data without having to justify themselves for doing so. Such behavior is utterly unscientific, and the editors need to be dismissed with prejudice. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2005-05-01 6:35:51 PM |
| #9 Angie references the fact that most journals now have an "articles in press" section on their website... Yes, they do, but that wasn't what I was talking about. The arXiv I mentioned, hosted by LANL, is just a dumping ground for electronic versions of preprints. It's not associated with any journals. The copyright agreement for my current paper stated that I could not publish the paper anywhere else, EXCEPT I could offer preprints at that archive (mentioned by name) and on my own web page. That was why I mentioned it: Science and Nature do not make those exceptions. (I'm agreeing with your point about Science did, I'm just pedantically clarifying it.) ...cold fusion is controvertial only because it promises cheap unlimited energy. Cold fusion is controversial because a) no one can explain how it [allegedly] works, and b) if I recall correctly, no one has been able to extract more energy than they put in, which is kind of the whole point. That was certainly the case of the recent report. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2005-05-01 5:58:57 PM |
| #8 Thanks for the explanation/clarification on internet distribution. I will say the dead tree thinking behind the journal's business model is clearly unsustainable with commercial interests apparently impeding improves to the process (of science) technology now allows. Cold fusion, anyone? I should probably leave this alone but here goes. There was a widely reported and posted here report on desktop cold fusion that generated no controversy. The application was as a neutron generator. It hit me like a ton of bricks that cold fusion is controvertial only because it promises cheap unlimited energy. Were its applications restricted to obscure pieces of scientific equipment no one would care. The problem with cold fusion is the threat it represents to political interests and ideological positions (particularly the Left/Green theskyisfalling thinking). |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-05-01 5:29:00 PM |
| #7 In biomedical research (and Science publishes a few articles on that every issue), pre-publication is not permitted in any way except for abstracts presented at meetings. Now if the work had appeared somewhere other than in abstract form, that would be sufficient grounds for Science to decline it, and I'd agree. Virtually every biomedical journal I know of has the same rule. Angie references the fact that most journals now have an "articles in press" section on their website where you can download and read (usually in PDF format) manuscripts that have been accepted for publication but not yet published. This is done because the lag time between acceptance and publication is usually 4 to 8 months, and it's accepted nowadays that the science should get out to the people who want to see it. But that's not what the issue is here, since the manuscript is being distributed at the website of the journal. For Angie: the NIH is in the process of overturning this established way of doing business, by "suggesting" (as only a government agency can) that all NIH-funded research, when accepted for publication at a journal, be deposited at an NIH website where anyone can read it. Now, virtually all journals have a copyright transfer agreement in place (you want your manuscript published, you transfer the copyright to them), and most journals forbid reproduction elsewhere for anywhere from 6 to 24 months (it varies). This is how they enforce their subscription policy and get libraries, etc., to pay. The new NIH mechanism threatens to subvert all that by putting all the manuscripts into the public domain for free. Their rationale is that the NIH paid for the work, so they should have some role in disseminating the results. I suspect, as do many scientists, that their real goal is to replace the scientific, biomedical journals. Whether that's a good thing or not depends on your point of view, I suppose. With that background in mind, what Science did (if the author's claim of not distributing the work on the internet is true) is both disturbing is not unusual in the least. Biomedical journals do this all the time. I myself have been gob-smacked by this (and no, I'm not going to detail exactly how here, as there's one or two people out there who might still have a "Steve White kewpie doll" and a supply of really sharp pins). But when you challenge the established order sufficiently, you can expect stuff like this to happen. Overlay the politics and the PC view, toss in the usual progressive liberal movement idiocy, and you get this sort of behavior. Which makes me wonder whether the NIH might be on to something with a public manuscript repository. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2005-05-01 2:02:20 PM |
| #6 what good is a scientific journal that reports on one side of arguments? Grant-sucking academic parasites |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-05-01 1:32:51 PM |
| #5 Nothing startling there. One of the usual requirements for publishing a scientific paper in a major journal is that the paper not appear elsewhere. Yes, and no. In my field, it's common to put papers which have been accepted for publication on an archive where they can be downloaded and read before publication. All, as far as I know, of the major journals (again, in my field) allow this, but Science and Nature do not. I get an emailed newsletter of abstracts of recent papers in my little specialty which have been accepted for publication. The editor makes an exception for papers in Science and Nature, allowing post-publication abstracts to be included, because those two journals will apparently not allow even the abstracts to be disseminated prior to publication. I've often thought it would be cool to have a sort of work-in-progress science blog. For example, you do an experiment, do a little data analysis, and publish it in bits. You could say, "Gosh, I did this and got the strangest result. It seems to suggest that all the stars in the universe have disappeared. Anyone know what to make of it?" And then some more experienced researcher will comment, and note that you left the flippin' mirror cover closed, idiot, and so no light is getting to the telescope. And that, of course, is why such a thing is not done. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2005-05-01 1:32:19 PM |
| #4 We also can't allow the whole scientific process to be prostituted this way. I don't have a clue what the actual evidence suggests re: persisting global warming -- or the cause, if it exists. And that's because these studies aren't been debated openly. |
| Posted by: too true 2005-05-01 1:27:56 PM |
| #3 SteveS here is this so you cvan re-read it. His data was not on the internet. "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." The problem is that this whole man is causing climate change meme is being represented as fact, and taught as fact, when it is only a popular concept with the MSM and a small number of of climate researchers. All people with "no apperent agenda." (which means there is one. It's plain as the nose on you face if you look.) As far as a purge, I doubt it. Things will get worse before they get better. What can't be allowed is for this meme to continue. Or for the falsity of this meme to be allowed to impede cleaning up of the local enviroment. Living in a less poluted enviroment is a worth while thing. Lying and being chicken shit about it just builds resistance to progress. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom 2005-05-01 12:58:02 PM |
| #2 It contains the startling admission from Science (the journal) that they don’t publish information widely disseminated on the internet. Nothing startling there. One of the usual requirements for publishing a scientific paper in a major journal is that the paper not appear elsewhere. Science is a process for learning about the world. The process has a lot of inertia built into it. You can can think of this as a damping force that keeps it from running off at wild tangents - unlike the mainstream media's trend of the moment and love of hysteria. Cold fusion, anyone? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-05-01 12:32:59 PM |
| #1 I strongly suggest that this is the first salvo of what will turn into a purge among the publishers of scientific journals. If this becomes widely circulated in blogistan, I suspect we may start to see a "Ratherization" take place, where the grass roots belief in the credibility takes such a hit that soon scientists will stop submitting articles to the more political journals, for fear that their own credibility may suffer. If they lose credibility, they also lose money. Nobody wants to fund scientific fraud. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-05-01 11:42:35 AM |