“If you want to focus on science then go the peer-reviewed route. But don’t tell us that you are simply interested in getting the science right and then appear before the US Congress.”

Here is the great irony. Those doors were closed from the outset.

Archane and complex policies about articles, letters, corrigenda, blah blah blah mean that the “peer reviewed” route is one that can be utilised only by those with years of training in how to work with it and can be deployed to keep out the “amateurs”. To denegrate anyone’s contributions to science for failure to pursue “peer review” is specious and fails the most base test of logic.

If, like Steve, you are just someone with excellent analysis to contribute, you can be sidelined without valid cause (I sometimes wonder where this tale would have led had Nature not been so obtuse in its treatment of M&M’s attempeted contribution to this debate at a nascent stage).

And we haven’t even touched on the “clique” issues illustrated by Wegman, which mean that you can be black-balled out of the “peer review club” by members if you get on their wrong side, or simply irk their sensibilities by having the temerity to be an “amateur” questioning “their work”.

I don’t think Steve has anything to be ashamed about by appearing in front of a Congressional Committee. It was the final evidence that he has chaken one small corner of this ivory tower to its foundations and walked in to make logic, reason and solid analysis heard (i.e. true science). Most people outside the suffocating and incestuous world of academic publishing would share the view that it is Michael Mann who should feel compromised by having to appear in front of a Congressional Committee.

I believe Steve’s greatest lasting contribution could (not yet assurred) be the wake-up call that this gives to professional academics (including you Roger) who over time have come to believe that science=peer reviewed publications. No, peer review just evolved as a useful propogating media for science; towhit, the ongoing testing, stretching, breaking and evolution of ideas.

The next time ideas come from outside the usual suspects, in any scientific field, let Steve McIntyre’s name be the warning to all to be true to science. Treat any contribution with the objective respect it deserves and avoid at all cost the academic hubris that could be the source of your own downfall.

This tale has all the hallmarks of a Shakespearean tragedy.

You write, “Of course my testimony was also a ‘marriage of convenience’.”

Plunk! vbmnb (Sound and results of my jaw hitting my keyboard. )

Well, I’ll say this for you…at least you’re not being hypocritical. You are consistently wrong…about Steve’s testimony AND your own (and presumably you think everyone else who testifies before Congress is participating in a “marriage of convenience”).

There are 3 concepts that virtually everyone would agree are associated with marriage:

1) It is a partnership,
2) It is significant, and
3) It is long-term.

Virtually all Congressional testimony meets *none* of those criterion.

1) Congressional testimony is *not* a partnership. Here are three partnerships that COULD be labeled as “marriages of convenience”:

a) Al Gore and Joe Lieberman in 2000
b) Chrysler and Daimler-Benz, and
c) Ford and Jaguar.

In all of those cases, the two separate entities UNITED for some common purpose. As you yourself have noted, there is no partnership in Congressional testimony. (For example, you did not leave your position at the University of Colorado at Boulder to testify.)

2) Congressional testimony is not significant. Marriage is a *significant* relationship! In fact, it is for many, it may be the significant relationship they have in their lifetime. In contrast, I’ll bet a Congressperson who heads an active committee for many years invites literally hundreds of people to testify before his or her committee. Just in the session where you testified, there were at least 5 people giving testimony. The idea that the Congressperson “marries” 100s of people is ridiculous.

3) Congressional testimony is not long term. Marriages generally last for many years…even a lifetime. Congressional testimony is over in hours. Even the shortest “marriage of convenience” I listed in item #1 (Gore-Lieberman in 2000) lasted many months. The idea of “marriages” that last for *hours* is just plain silly. It doesn’t even pass the straight face test.

You conclude with, “I am happy with my characterization. And we can agree to disagree!”

Well, you shouldn’t be happy with your mischaracterization. It’s clearly wrong, as I’ve pointed out in these comments. Further, your mischaracterization demeans Congressional testimony participants, and is not conducive to good policy development. (To incorrectly infer that people who give testimony have some “partnership” with members of Congress…let alone “marriage!”…creates suspicion where none should exist.)

You’re right that we can agree to disagree. But I hope you realize that probably 9 out of 10 English majors, 9 out of 10 married people, and 9 out of 10 contractors for the federal government (especially those who’ve testified before Congressional committees!) also disagree with you.*

Best wishes,
Mark

P.S. *Of course, that doesn’t guarantee that you’re wrong. But you definitely shouldn’t like your odds.

From what I remember of Steve McIntyre testimony before the congress hearing I don’t believe that he made any attempt at saying what the policy should be. He just presented the result of his work which was the sources, at least in part, of the Wegman and NAS reports.

Although I admit that he gain a lot in visibility by appearing before congress. In this way both Mr Barton and McIntyre had to gain from this “marriage of convenience”.

This is about a month that I visit your blog often and if I understood your position correctly the science shouldn’t matter in policy because climate change or not the cost of catastrophic event like Katrina are getting always higher. I believe it is also your point that even without the science their are other both economic and security reason to put new policy in place. (hope that it made some sense)

I have another question concerning peer-review process:

Shouldn’t the name of the author be kept anonymous and the name of the reviewer revealed. I believe that this would, not only, prevent the publishing of scientist based on their name, but also give us knowledge, if any, of the biases of a reviewer.

Thanks for linking to the open peer review at Climates of the Past. Very interesting!!

Thank you for linking to your testimony. While I still have a knee-jerk reaction to statements that ‘the science doesn’t matter’, I am beginning to see your point.

For clarification: Would your recommendations change if our understanding of the percentages of human vs. natural climate variability changed?

In principle I would agree. But in case of Steve McIntyre this may be somewhat unfair – the “peer-review route” was simply not open to him. In the beginning this had certainly something to do with the fact that he was not used to the rituals of publishing in science. This happens to all new-comers, but in particular so if the newcomer is a self-taught scientist without an experienced supervisor or advisor. But, what was more severe was the fact that the peer-review process in this specific field was blocked by people like Dr. Mann and his network, as indicated by the Wegmann report and felt by many of others. A good example of this gate-keeping has now become public due to the open access-review process of “Climate of the Past”, see reviewer #2 on http://www.cosis.net/members/journals/df/index.php?a_id=3991. Most people I know believe that this review is by Dr. Mann.

Thus Steve McIntyre did not really have chance to successfully go the peer-review route. And I am impressed by Steve’s stamina to hold on, in spite of a really hostile reaction to his legitimate attempt to simply replicate a significant result of climate science. In doing so he did an important service to climate change science.

That said, I’ve got to say that I read the “marriage of convenience” phrasing as perjorative too, and as suggesting that Steve was willing to be used by the Republican Party.

If that isn’t what you mean — as your other comments suggest — you might be well served to retract the phrasing “marriage of convenience” and substitute something that doesn’t have the perjorative connotation to at least some of your audience.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/PielkeTestimony7_20_06.pdf