Secular Apostate

I believe it is likely that the firestorm ignited by the inflammatory material hacked from the Hadley Climate Research Unit servers will focus on temperature.

And this is most unfortunate, for two reasons:

• First, global temperature data are noisy. So it is difficult to make sense of raw temperature data in a graphical format. Because of this problem, mathematical tools have been applied to the data to smooth, or average out, some of the noise. This, of course generates sophisticated mathematical and statistical arguments (cf., hockey stick controversy) that are more or less unintelligible to the population at large. So, in this arena, I expect a barrage of unhelpful arguments like the controversy about the meaning of “trick” (e.g., “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps”) and, consequently, more heat than light. He says, she says, blah, blah, blah.
• Second, the truly insidious and destructive intentions to control the message and destroy any resemblance to work that could call itself climate science with a straight face will be overlooked.

For the moment, allow me to focus on the latter of the two. If you’re familiar with the peer-reviewed publication process, skip the next two paragraphs.

Normally, the process of scientific publication goes through a process called peer review. Manuscripts are submitted to journals and those manuscripts are reviewed by one’s usually anonymous (or at least nominally so) scientific peers. Some manuscripts, often the vast majority of them in a highly-prestigious journal, are rejected for publication. The premier journals simply don’t have the pages to publish every minor advancement in a given sphere of study and everybody wants to get published by the big dogs. Other manuscripts are accepted provisionally, and the authors are directed to address possible omissions, errors, overstatements, understatements, etc. by the reviewers. If and when the manuscript is edited and revised to the satisfaction of the reviewers, it is scheduled for publication.

In theory, the peer review process ensures the best possible means of adjudicating the winners among the thousands of manuscripts that are submitted annually.

In theory.

But, as Yogi Berra is alleged to have said, “In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.”

In politics, we see this on an almost daily basis. Post Roe v. Wade nominees to the Supreme Court are perhaps the most notorious and visible examples of Theory v. Practice. In theory, the US Senate is a dispassionate deliberative body Constitutionally commissioned to advise the President on, and consent to, Supreme Court judgeships. In practice, left-wing Presidents nominate left-wing judges to propagate left-wing political results and protect abortion. The conservatives filibuster. Right-wing Presidents nominate right-wing judges to propagate right-wing political results and limit abortion. The liberals filibuster. Fortunately, this process is public and the electorate can see what’s going on. Public embarrassment and fear of voter backlash serve to moderate the tactics of both political camps. It’s politics!

But the selection of peer review boards for scientific journals is not a public process. It is not visible. But it can have a profound effect – actually, “profound” does not capture the essence of what I want to say here. Nothing more than the politicization of peer review boards is necessary to effect the destruction of science as a disinterested, apolitical, objective pursuit of truth.

Publication in highly-respected, premier journals gets you grant money, plum academic positions, the bestest and the mostest graduate students and postdocs, and a huge megaphone. Premier journal publications amplify your voice and pay your bills. And when that becomes a political process, the American Association for the Advancement of Science will resemble ACORN more than it will resemble anything Galileo, Darwin, or Albert Einstein would recognize as an organization promoting the advancement of science.

And to that point, this is one of the most despicable, unethical, disgraceful screeds I have ever read if, as is alleged and if true, it came from a politician masquerading as a climate “scientist”:

I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…

What do others think?” “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past.”

Since this is my blog, I can freely say that – if that quote accurately captures reality -  I hope this scum-sucking bastard rots in the sub-basement of Dante’s Ninth Level of Hell, reserved for traitors.

This entry was posted on Saturday, November 21st, 2009 at 11:46 am and is filed under politics, rapture science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.