There is not anyway to force the issue except through the political process. The academic institutions, peer journals, UCAR, and alumni contributers really don’t care.

If the Roger Pielke’s can’t get it done, I find it disturbing that he chastise those who cozy up to politicians. There is no choice BUT to make it a public issue, at least for anyone using public monies.

When is enough, enough?

The whole point of the scientific process is replicating the results of others. “Handled his dealings” better is an incredibly softball wording for refusing to provide the data and methodology for MBH98. This wasn’t a social faux pas. To be able to reproduce another’s methodogy is basic science. Mann actively prevented McIntyre from obtaining the data and methodology to reproduce MBH98 and then publicly derided him for not being able to do so. Equally telling, you say Mann made a mistake in his dealings — has Mann ever admitted that? Even today, eight years after the study, the Wegman report concluded that MBH98 can not be replicated. Eight years later Mann has still not provided sufficient data and method to replicate his graphs. Has Mann learned anything from this? I have seen no indication that he has. One of the reasons Mann has not changed is because the community continues to make his excuses.

Mann’s failure is human, it happens. That the failure was undetected by the community for eight years is a failure of community and its processes (including editorial). Consider that it took outside agents and a congressional committee to expose the failure. Of course this incident reflects on all climate scientists. They either saw the problems and did not speak up or they did not see the problems — pick your poison. Worse yet, best I can tell nothing has changed. With comments like “circling of the wagons… was basically understandable” nothing will change. Based upon the lack of media coverage, circling of the wagons is still happening. Stifling the truth is a damning indictment of any community. The climate community has to fix itself or it will happen again and its credibility will suffer yet again. Don’t think it can’t happen again. If you are worried about AGW you should be worried that its being supported by a broken process.

The issue of data access was discussed in the dendro conference in Beijing – some people suggesting that withholding data was giving the trade a black eye. Industry leaders, such as presumably Briffa, said that they were going to continue stonewalling.

For example, can anyone tell me what sites are used in the MXD network of Briffa et al 2001 (used in the IPCC TAR spghetti graph and many others); also reported in at least 5 other articles in different journals and most recently used in Rutherford et al 2005 (coauthored by Mann)? Didn’t think so. How can authors publish so often and never provide a SI saying what sites were used? I’ve been trying for a couple of years to get these sites identified and am no further ahead today than when I started.

While people say that others in the “community” are not to blame for actions of the few, no one stood up when Mann was quoted on the front page of the Wall Street Journal as saying that he would not be “intimidated” into disclosing his algorithm Did the National Academy of Sciences write to Mann saying that this was reckless course of behavior and he should change his tune? Did AAAS?

How about individual scientists? James Bradbury, why didn’t you email Mann?

Why don’t some of you email Keith Briffa or Phil Jones right now and tell them that they are needlessly dragging others through the mud? Ask Briffa for site identifications for Briffa et al 2001? While you’re at it, ask him for the measurement data for Taimyr, Tornetrask update and Yamal? Ask Jones to archive his station data and methodology. Ask Briffa why he didn’t publish the updated Polar Urals results. Ask Hughes to archive the 2002 Sheep Mountain data.

It’s understandable that one would not wish to drive into a swamp of the ‘who-what-why’ of the Mann vs. M&M debacle, but for those that do it is an unpleasent eye opener – as least for the engaged lay observer.

In any case, a number of questions linger, many of which do have serious political repercussions:

A) Is climate science “a cut below” the ethical and peer review standards of other sciences?

Among the few ‘others’ I know engaged in Marine Sciences and Econometrics I get two answers: a) no big deal, climate science is like many others BUT b) “my own speciality” has far more integrity than climate science (a sort of circle the wagons).

B) Being human is understandable, but being dishonest and/or covering up is niether understandable nor acceptable. Critics of global warming have a whole new weapon, one feeds into the popular suspection of institutional authority and academics as being (like everyone) politically driven. At one time, the George Wallace types could only chide intellectuals as ‘pointy heads who can’t park their bicycles straight’, but the new stereotypes are pretty scathing (feeding off the public trough, grant chasers, arrogant elites, etc.). Unfortunitly we can now add a perception of fraud and coverup to that mix.

C)It is an open question if climate science has learned anything from this. Having just reviewed McIntyre’s latest troubles in getting data and methods from other study authors it does not seem so – in fact McIntyre indirectly complimented Mann by noting that the others are much more obstructionist than Mann was.

The worse thing climate science and its journals could do would be to begrudgingly acknowledge a few faults and to send the guards back up on the fortress walls – I fear that is exactly what they are doing.

And until those walls comes down, global warming skeptics need only ask the public “Many climate researchers say we are undergoing human caused warming, but given their on-going coverups, why should anyone trust them”?

So, I’ll attempt to recreate part of it to justify my point that the Hockey Stick debate *prior* to M&M was largely spurious… here goes:

It is clear that some scientists reacted to questioning from M&M with some degree of scorn, etc. That is true. The “wagon circling” was knee-jerk… but that reflex existed for a good reason, IMO. Recall that most previous efforts (pre-M&M) to “break” the Hockey Stick were highly dubious and intellectually dishonest. Interestingly, many of those waging such attacks were funded by fossil fuel lobbies. Some of those efforts included op-ed articles that were full of slanderous, unsupported claims about the poor quality of Mike Mann’s research. E.g., I recall Legates writing that there was no overlap between the proxy and instrumental records and that Mann had just stuck the two together with no regard for calibration. Total nonsense.

I’m not defending the circling of the wagons, necessarily, but I do think that it was basically understandable in the context of the *reality* of the debate at the time.

Jim Clark,

I agree with concerns about less effective policies resulting from poor quality science and I also agree that the scientific process of peer review has its flaws. But these problems are not isolated to the climate research community… they are basically true for all specialized scientific fields.

All,

I think that climate scientists can learn from this experience and many of us are taking it very seriously. However, I feel strongly that finger pointing from either side is fundamentally unproductive and prevents people from working on finding a middle ground. Also, if we get too busy engaging in “pile on the scientist” (by this I mean, accusing individuals of being human… to one degree or another) then they won’t come out to play in the future… and maybe (just maybe; tongue in cheek) that is what some people were hoping for all along.

- James

My last post went up before I read your response.

As usual, you boil it down much better than I could. So, I’ll just say that I agree 100% that we should be engaged in a discussion of the integrity of science. However, I think that the very public and political targeting of individuals (Mann et al) and the paleoclimate community specifically is fundamentally misguided.

Perhaps I misread von Storch and Zorita’s letter, but if Republicans are really prepared to question all climate research on the basis of a flare up over the Hockey Stick in the context of what had already become a politically charged (and largely spurious) debate… then we are in bad shape.

This is not the road to fixing the peer review process or to fixing the problems that exists at the nexus between policy and science. Targeting individuals and individual communities will not pave the way for an open debate on these subjects. The tactics and rhetoric used by Barton et al only make scientists defensive and, if anything, less open to changing toward more open policies and procedures.

This is especially true when you consider the end result: the Wall Street Journal Editorial page tells us that climate scientists are all socialists with anti-capitalist motives.

Roger, this debate needs redirection and I hope you can help make that happen.

Best Regards,
James

Thanks for replying…

1) The vast majority of the people (scientists) I know agree that Mann could have and should have handled his dealings with M&M better… especially at the outset. But why does his handling of this incident automatically reflect on all climate scientists?

2) Please don’t gauge your understanding of climate scientists’ views strictly on the perspectives of those in the blogosphere.

“Is this not something which we should learn from?”

Absolutely… and many of us are learning a great deal from it. Again, thank you for your insights.

Jim (and Eduardo),

“…strictly analytical questioning of their methods?”

Um… ever spend any time perusing comments or trying to engage in this “strictly analytical” discussion over at Climate Audit? The tone of this debate became sour and highly politicized looooong before M&M surfaced.

I cannot deny that some scientists reacted to questioning from M&M with some degree of scorn, etc. That is true. The “wagon circling” was knee-jerk… but that reflex existed for a reason. Recall that most previous efforts (pre-M&M) to “break” the Hockey Stick were highly dubious and intellectually dishonest. Interestingly, many of those waging such attacks were funded by fossil fuel lobbies. Some of those efforts included op-ed articles that were full of slanderous statements about Mike Mann and many contained all sorts of spurious unsupported claims about the quality of his research. I recall Legates writing that there was no overlap between the proxy and instrumental records and that Mann had just stuck the two together with no regard for calibration. Nonsense.

I’m not defending the circling of the wagons, necessarily, but I do think that it was basically understandable in the context of the *reality* of the debate at the time. For some context, read Chris Mooney’s Mother Jones article on Exxon Mobile funding for anti-AGW propaganda.

So, who started it? Who cares? That is an unproductive debate.

Still, I agree with your concern about less effective policies and I also agree that the scientific process of peer review has its flaws. But these problems are not isolated to the climate research community… they are basically true for all specialized scientific fields.

Again, I think that climate scientists can learn from this experience and many of us are taking it very seriously. However, I agree with Roger that finger pointing from either side is fundamentally unproductive and prevents people from working on finding a middle ground on policy issues. Also, if we get too busy engaging in “pile on the scientist” (by this I mean, accusing individuals of being human… to one degree or another) then they won’t come out to play in the future… and maybe (just maybe; tongue in cheek) that is what some people were hoping for all along.

-James

Thanks for your comments. There are several issues at work here.

1. A personal battle between different camps, motivated by politics, ego, fame, power, etc. Much of the RC vs. CA debate has, unfortuantely, taken place at this level as Eduardo refers to. Far worse however are many (most?) of the commenters on those sites who take on the issue as the latest in realty-based internet entertainment

2. Very real and substantive issues of science in policy and science in politics, having to do with the IPCC, the role of scientists in debates that become politicized, and the use of scientists as pawns by politicians.

It is unfortunate, but not at all unexpected, that those engaged in the dynamics of #1 take issue with those focused on #2 (e.g., “if you are not with us, then you must be against us”). Your own comments about FUD (never saw that spelled out, thanks!) speak exactly to this point. Hans von Storch’s exchange with the Rep. from IL also speak to this point. Should we restrain our discussions of integrity of science? I don’t think so.

Scientists, like doctors, lawyers, generals, teachers have historically had, etc. have an ever more important role in society. That is a good thing. But is also means that scientists are going to be treated like these same folks have, e.g., put under a microscope. Many scientists aren’t used to such behavior. I understand why folks at CA and RC, and their fellow travelers, might sometimes not like to be discussed or get upset. Some don’t distinguish between #1 and #2 above.

My advice to scientists in the midst of such debates would be to carefully distinguish the #1 stuff from #2 stuff above, and in general, grow a nice thick skin Above all, focus on the long-term sustainability of your science and the scientific enterprise.