Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > rm_mazandbren > The Complaisant Husband |
A Clique of Peers.
|
A Clique of Peers. Another very long post Can you grow enough grapes in England to make a reasonable amount of wine? Can you grow wheat on Greenland? Not at the moment, but historical records and archaeological finds clearly show that at the height of the middle ages, you could, indeed, grow a grape crop in England and grow wheat on Greenland. I have a personal theory that the fabled Northwest Passage, which was thought to connect the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean via a route to the north of Canada, did in fact exist until global temperatures cooled and led to the spread of the Arctic Ice to its former and current boundaries. It is a general given amongst historians that average temperatures in Europe and North Africa were at least four to six degrees warmer than they are now; adding four to six degrees to the temperatures of England and Greenland provide viable growing temperatures for grapes and wheat crops, respectively, utilising medieval farming methods. This is an inconvenient fact for the supporters of anthropogenic global warming; under their worst estimates it is likely that the temperatures will rise by a mere two degrees. The argument could be made that if the middle ages were six degrees warmer, what does it matter if the earth warms an extra two degrees over the next century? The massive investment of funds in processes and technologies required to combat AGW is only valid if, in fact, the world is going through an unprecedented warming period. One might reasonably argue that what was good for Europe and, probably, North America, may not be good for the rest of the world but since the big polluters are predominantly in the northern hemisphere, it is the people living there who need convincing. Enter Michael Mann and his Hockey stick. Professor Mann, then at the University of Virginia but subsequently at Pennsylvania State University, examined various groups of evidence and formulated a statistical model that removed this temperature aberrations known as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age and demonstrated that there had been a steep rise in global temperatures concentrated in the latter half of the twentieth century. For the pro-AGW lobby it was a godsend and much use has been made of this Hockey stick in the various IPCC reports and Al Gore�s documentary to cement the idea of rampant global warming in the minds of the public. From a non-entity to instant fame; Pr Mann was elevated to Presidential Advisor and established on various scientific publications as a peer reviewer. While it is too much to say that he was the core of the AGW campaign, he has been a significant influence- while few people would know of any of the scientists supporting the pro-AGW lobby; Pr Mann would be one of the more recognisable names, certainly within the scientific community generally and in paleoclimatology circles in particular. The problem is that while his various papers have been peer reviewed, it turns out that the statistical methodology and data sets he used contain a number of flaws. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick are two statisticians who wanted to examine the evidence themselves; after repeatedly requesting the statistical model used by Pr Mann they attempted to reconstruct the data themselves- while a difficult and necessarily incomplete process, it quickly emerged that there were major flaws in Pr Mann�s models. The United States congress, pursuing a partisan agenda in the matter, eventually commissioned two enquiry teams; one consisting of members with known pro-AGW leanings and one consisting of three statisticians. Neither was particularly impressed with the data supplied by Professor Mann. The North Committee, despite its pro-AGW stance, found that the data provided by Pr Mann dealing with temperatures prior to 1600 was invalid and that the entire sequence relied on bristle pine proxies, which were not suitable for this sort of analysis. Further, it found that the methodology used was �unconventional� and �problematical.� It concluded; �that the uncertainties of the published reconstructions has been underestimated.� The Wegman Review was even plainer; The Hockey Stick �is simply incorrect mathematics.� It further identified seven authors and 43 associates with direct ties to Mann who had �compromised independent research� and �perverted the peer review process.� Despite the total discrediting of his Hockey Stick, not only does Pr Mann remain a significant figure in the AGW debate and a lead author of the IPCC reports, he still maintains several of his positions in peer review groups and his tenure at Penn State. When viewed in conjunction with the climate-gate emails, it is easy to see that there is a wide conspiracy to deny access not only to the �evidence� of AGW but to remove or censor evidence at odds with AGW. This is not a post about AGW, however. In complex models like that used by Pr Mann, there is the possibility that he simply overlooked some factors that he did not consider important or missed an error in the calculations. In other words, he may have made an honest mistake. Except that not only has Pr Mann persisted in his belief in the Hockey Stick, he has republished his findings using a new statistical model that includes a data set derived from bristle pine proxies- a data set that the pro-AGW committee set up to investigate the first model categorically stated should not be used. This shows a level of dishonesty; that a peer review process cleared the paper should be cause for concern- either it knowingly passed the paper with the faults included (which from the climate gate emails we know is a possibility since the essentially blind nature of the process is knowingly compromised) or they were not sufficiently professional enough to recognise the faults. Either way, it calls into question Pr Mann�s integrity since he has knowingly presented a paper based on a data set that is widely recognised as being unsuitable for the purpose. Which probably wouldn�t make much difference legally, save that his former position at the University of Virginia has given anti-AGW supporters in that state the opportunity to press for the release of his emails as part of a fraud investigation. Under state law, the Attorney General of Virginia, Cuccinelli, has subpoenaed the emails; the University of Virginia has filed suit against the AG on the grounds that Pr Mann�s work is protected by that amorphous concept; academic freedom. Though the Supreme Court, and the Australian High Court, amongst others, has yet to issue a definitive ruling on the extent of academic freedom, there are hints that it is viewed as a special class of freedom by the courts. Since the United States is the world�s leading nation in matters of academic study and research (US patents for new technologies are equivalent to the rest of the world combined), any ruling on this matter by the Supreme Court is likely to be (unofficially) adopted by most other nations. In Sweezy v New Hampshire (1957), the decision of the court included, �the essential freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident.� The 1967 decision in the matter of Keyshian v Board of Regents included, �the university is a traditional sphere of free expression� fundamental to the function of society.� In his concurring opinion in the same case, Justice William Brennan added, �Our nation is deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely the teachers concerned. That freedom is therefore a special concern of the First Amendment.� It is likely that the AG will counter this argument by pointing out that the University of Virginia is a state funded faculty, therefore making Pr Mann a government employee. However, J Harrie Wilkinson of the Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which encompasses the University and whose office is a few blocks from the campus, has this to say; � these particular employees are hired for the very purpose of inquiring into, reflecting upon and speaking out on matters of public concern. A faculty is employed professionally to test ideas and propose solutions, to deepen knowledge and refresh perspectives�In research and writing, university professors are not state mouth pieces- they speak mainly for themselves.� Even the good people at Slate.com have offered an opinion on the matter; �Government impinges most directly on (academic) free speech by threatening to prosecute faculty for academic work is wrong, shoddy or incomplete.� They go on to cite the case of that most enduring of academic victims, Galileo. But all of this ignores that most pertinent of points; we are not dealing with lax work standards, incompleteness or incompetence; we are dealing with dishonesty both in the work of Pr Mann and in the peer review process. The main counter to involving the judiciary in this case has been the idea that under the basic requirements of publishing academic findings, the peer review process is meant to review the work involved and then make a finding on the merits of that information. The British medical journal, Lancet, has recently faced its own version of this case in an area almost as politically charged; it was the Lancet that gave its imprimatur to the findings of Andrew Wakefield that vaccination programmes for was actually responsible for the increase in autism and autistic spectrum disorders (including Asperger�s Syndrome). This imprimatur had been of vital importance in the arguments of many to avoid having their vaccinated: having almost wiped out the incidence of fatal diseases like measles, mumps and whooping cough, the failure of the current generations of mothers to have their vaccinated based on the findings of this report has seen an explosion in the incidence of these and similar diseases. The problem is that the peer review process was so compromised that it failed to pick up the fact that much of the evidence supporting the paper had simply been fabricated (Dr Wakefield has since been found guilty of serious ethics breaches and banned from practicing medicine in the UK); further research (31 separate reports) has definitively demonstrated that no such linkage exists. This is especially problematic given that the initial findings excited such controversy in medical circles and, even with the report accepted by as prestigious a journal as the Lancet, it was never a widely accepted position. For five years the Lancet continued in its support, based solely on the peer review system; right up until 10 of the reviewing doctors withdrew their support for the paper. Though we are yet to find out, and it is highly unlikely that we ever will find out, what was wrong in this particular case, in the matter of Pr Mann and his work, we know that the supposedly independent peer review process is anything but independent. The peer review process relies on the author of the work being evaluated being unknown to the reviewer and that the reviewer is sufficiently independent of interest in the matter to retain objectivity. In the case of Pr Mann and his hockey stick we know this failed on both counts; prior to the hockey stick being published, the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age had been significant blocks to the acceptance of AGW. Furthermore, with the evidence of the climategate emails, we know that supposedly anonymous works were passed or rejected on the basis that the authors or the work did or did not meet the paradigm established. This goes further than knocking back the work of a few climate change sceptics; any evidence that called into question the hockey stick, even if it provided a more compelling argument in favour of AGW, faced the possibility of being rejected because of the threat it would pose to the reputation of the supporters of the Hockey stick. In this, Slate.com s reference to Galileo is particularly apt; pro-Galileans consistently argue that religious authorities objected to his conviction that the solar system was heliocentric. In fact, they objected to his data- for Galileo believed that, since God was perfect, He would have devised a system of planetary orbits that was perfectly circular. As Copernicus and others were to later demonstrate, the orbit of the planets around the sun is elliptical; thus explaining the discrepancies between Galileo�s theories, and his underlying theological observations (which is what the Church was actually upset about), and observable facts. The legend of Galileo and his defiance of the ignorant Church spread quickly and has endured because it occurred around the time of the Reformation and formed useful fodder for the Protestants in their combative portrayal of the Catholic Church. It had the further, unfortunate, consequence that many Catholics gained the impression that a study of heliocentric theories was a sure fire way to the stake; Copernicus� theories were published after his timely death and he was well beyond the physical discomforts attendant with a repeat visit to the Inquisitors. What makes this case particularly important is that we know that Pr Mann has been subject to a conspiracy that actively seeks not merely to hide evidence that calls into question AGW, but complicit in the destruction of that evidence; that he has further refused to openly reveal the model he uses, which is a necessary step of the peer review process. If his peers are willing, indeed eager, to accept his findings without this necessary check and balance, where is the protection of the general public? It is difficult to argue that the peer review process is sufficient protection if it is so hopelessly compromised in so many of the fundamental procedures necessary for its successful functioning. If Pr Mann is unwilling to produce the basis of his work, and can not be compelled nor induced to co-operate with a supposedly independent panel of his peers, then what recourse is there other than the law? Should not the researcher behind the fallacious data that led to the vaccination leads to autism theory not be required to answer for the deaths and injuries his deception caused? Pr Mann�s theories have proven instrumental to the success of the pro-AGW argument and his elevation to various positions where he not only impacts government policy, but the integrity and professional accomplishments, indeed the lives, of other, more ethical, researchers. If Pr Mann was a privately funded, independent researcher then he would have all the protections of the First Amendment. Yet as Judge Wilkinson noted, Pr Mann, as a publicly employed academic, �is employed professionally to test ideas and propose solutions.� How can he claim to be doing his job by the taxpayers if, through a knowingly incorrect model, he has failed to test ideas and is posing solutions based on that failure of integrity? Why should he, simply because of his status as an academic, enjoy immunities not available to other state employees; would there be a protection if a worker for the electricity company connected his house to the power supply, by passing the meter, and then supplied false information on his consumption? One might argue that speech, in this case in the form of academic freedom, enjoys a status in our society higher than electricity; but in itself this should argue for harsher penalties for those who abuse that position of respect for speech. Because we have ample contemporary evidence of what happens where that respect for freedom of speech does not exist. At almost the same time that this suit was filed, Fang Xuanchang of the Chinese science journal Caijing was attacked by two assailants for publishing information debunking some widely held �scientific facts�. These �facts� not only cover the superstitions of the average Chinese peasant but go to the heart of Chinese government policy; the ludicrous ongoing attempts to predict earthquakes by teaching parrots to screech warnings before they strike based on a single anecdote before the Sichuan earthquake has become the centrepiece of the government�s efforts in this direction. The most experienced seismologists will attest to the fact that earthquakes, by their nature, are inherently unpredictable. This attack bodes ill for a future world supposedly dominated by China; that even as respected a scientific commentator as Mr Fang can be attacked for debunking the pseudo-science of the various government agencies. Especially if the respect for the independent judgement of scientists that is currently widespread in the West is allowed to be eroded by its flagrant abuse. How will you know what to believe or who to believe if the integrity of the peer review process is allowed to be called into question by such flagrant breaches? While the heavy hand of government regulation or legislation would effectively destroy the entire concept of academic freedom, the abuses of scientists and researchers in this matter can not continue to go unchallenged. As noted, we are not talking about incompetence or inattention but the activities of a clique, involved in a conspiracy to undertake an intentional and flagrant breach of a process that is meant to be based on the integrity of those involved; an attempt to deceive the tax-payer, in this case, using their money. It speaks to something of the arrogance of the current breed of scientists that they feel entitled to exercise those prerogatives and deceits for which they constantly condemn religions and politicians. The persistent blindness to failings in their own ranks is likely to lead to a public reaction not at all dissimilar to that which afflicts used-car salesmen; just enough conmen to tar the entire breed in the eyes of the public. Those arguing the integrity of the process as it stands is sufficient public protection might wish to reflect that a short, sharp jolt to the likes of Professor Mann and Phil Jones now would be preferable to the alternatives if such practices are allowed to continue.  In truth is there no beauty? I am not in love; but i am open to persuasion. |
Become a member to create a blog
