date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 08:49:05 +0100 from: Phil Jones subject: Re: Climate Research and adequate peer review to: Mike Hulme Mike, See the other emails I've sent today. Came in to do some work ! Keep me informed of the results and I'll talk to Hans. Nice try to shut Tim Lenton up - he'll continue though ! Cheers Phil At 18:47 16/04/03 +0100, you wrote: >Dear Co-Review Editor, > >You may or may not have seen/read the article by Soon and Baliunas (from >the Harvard Smithsonian Astrophysics Lab) in the Jan 31 2003 issue of CR >(vol.23,2). A variant of this analysis has just been published in the >journal Energy and Environment. The authors/editor made a big media >campaign to publicise this work, claiming it showed clearly the Medieval >Warm Period was warmer than the 20th century and that the IPCC (and other) >analysis claiming the 20th century was the warmest in the last millennium >was plain wrong. In the UK, the Sunday Telegraph ran the story. > >I have followed some email discussion about this amongst concerned >paleoclimate experts here at UEA, in the USA and in Oz and NZ and their is >overwhelming consensus that the Soon and Baliunas work is just crap >science that should never be passed peer review (for a flavour see Mike >Mann, Phil Jones and Barrie Pittock below). These paleo-experts have >decided it is not worth a formal scientific response since the story has >not run that widely in the mass media (although is now used by sceptics of >course to undermine good science) and that the science is so poor it is >not worth a reply. > >The CR editor concerned is Chris de Freitas and I have followed over the >years papers in CR that he has been responsible for reviewing. [Wolfgang >Cramer resigned from CR a few years ago over a similar concern over the >way de Freitas managed the peer review process for a manuscript Wolfgang >reviewd]. > >Whilst we do not know who reviewed the Soon/Baliunas manuscript, there is >sufficient evidence in my view to justify a "loss of confidence" in the >peer review process operated by the journal and hence a mass resignation >of review editors may be warranted. This is by no means a one-off - I >could do the analysis of de Freitas's manuscripts if needbe. > >I am contacting the seven of you since I know you well and believe you may >also have similar concerns to me about the quality of climate change >science and how that science is communicated to the public. I would be >interested in your views on this course of action - which was suggested in >the first place my me, once I knew the strength of feeling amongst people >like Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, Tom Crowley, >etc. CSIRO and Tyndall communication managers would then think that a >mass resignation would draw attention to the way such poor science gets >into mainstream journals. > >Of course, we would need to be sure of our case and to argue on grounds of >poor conduct of peer review (I can forward a devastating critique of the >Soon/Baliunas method from Barrie Pittock if you wish) rather than on >disagreeable content of one manuscript. CR does of course publish some >good science, but the journal is not doing anyone a service by allowing >crap science also to be published. > >Thoughts please, > >Mike > >______________________________________ > > >FROM MIKE MANN > >Dear all, > >Phil relayed this message to me--this echos discussions that others of us >here have had as well, and at Phil's request, I'm forwarding some of these >(Phil seems to have deleted them). I am encouraged at the prospect of some >sort of action being taken. > >The "Energy and Environment" piece is an ad hominem attack against the >work of several of us, and could be legally actionable, though I don't >think its worth the effort. But more problematic, in my mind, is the >"Climate Research" piece which is a real challenge to the integrity of the >peer-review processes in our field. > >I believe that a boycott against publishing, reviewing for, or even citing >articles from "Climate Research" is certainly warranted, but perhaps the >minimum action that should be taken. A paper published there last year by >a University of Virginia "colleague" of mine who shall remain nameless >contained, to my amazement, an ad hominem attach against the climate >modeling community, and the offending statement never should have seen the >light of day (nor should have any of the several papers of his which have >been published there in recent years, based on quality and honesty >standards alone). > >A formal statement of "loss of confidence" in the journal seems like an >excellent idea. It may or may not be useful for me to be directly involved >in this, given that I am a primary object of attack by these folks. >However, I'm happy to help in any way that I can, and please keep me in >the loop. > >best regards, > >Mike Mann > > >FROM PHIL JONES > >Dear All, > >There have been a number of emails on these two papers. They are bad. I'll >be seeing >Hans von Storch next week and I'll be telling him in person what a >disservice he's doing >to the science and the status of Climate Research. > >I've already told Hans I want nothing more to do with the journal. Tom >Crowley may be >writing something - find out also next week, but at the EGS last week Ray >Bradley, Mike >Mann, Malcolm Hughes and others decided it would be best to do nothing. Papers >that respond to work like this never get cited - a point I'm trying to get >across to Hans. >We all have better papers to write than waste our time responding to >drivel like this. > >Cheers > >Phil Jones > > > >FROM BARRIE PITTOCK > >Dear Jim, >Thanks for your comments and suggestions. I hope the co-editors of 'Climate >Research' can agree on some joint action. I know that Peter Whetton is one >who is concerned. Any action must of course be effective and also not give >the sceptics an excuse for making de Freitas appear as a martyr - the charge >should surely be not following scientific standards of review, rather than >publishing contrarian views as such. If a paper is contested by referees >that should at least be stated in any publication, and minimal standards of >statistical treatment, honesty and clarity should be insisted on. Bringing >the journal and publisher into disrepute may be one reasonable charge. >'Energy and Environment' is another journal with low standards for sceptics, >but if my recollection is correct this is implicit in their stated policy of >stirring different points of view - the real test for both journals may be >whether they are prepared to publish refutations, especially simultaneously >with the sceptics' papers so that readers are not deceived. > >On that score you might consider whether it is possible to find who de >Freitas got to review various papers and how their comments were dealt with. >I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which >gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it >was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a >reviewer. > >Cheers, >Barrie Pittock. Prof. Phil Jones Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) 1603 592090 School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) 1603 507784 University of East Anglia Norwich Email p.jones@uea.ac.uk NR4 7TJ UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------