The Sunday Telegraph, 1 May 2005, Plus correspondence with Science
LEADING
SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS 'ARE CENSORING DEBATE ON GLOBAL WARMING'
The Sunday Telegraph, 1 May 2005, Plus correspondence
with Science
LEADING SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS 'ARE CENSORING DEBATE ON GLOBAL WARMING'
The Sunday Telegraph, 1 May 2005
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html
By Robert Matthews
Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers
for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global
warming.
A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.
A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.
The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.
The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.
However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.
Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".
Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.
A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."
Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."
Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.
As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."
Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the news value that is most important."
He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.
As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."
Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming. In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".
A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."
Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.
"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.
Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."
Copyright 2005, The Sunday Telegraph
=========
LETTER TO SCIENCE MAGAZINE AND THE STORY OF ITS REJECTION
From: Etta Kavanagh [mailto:ekavanag@aaas.org]
Sent: 18 February 2005 18:17
To: Peiser, Benny
Subject: Your Letter to the Editor of SCIENCE
Dear Dr. Peiser,
A couple of weeks ago, you submitted a Letter to the Editor on Naomi Oreskes' Essay "The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" In its current form, it is too long for a Letter, but we would consider a shorter version if you are willing to edit it. It should be 500 words or less, not counting the references. A correction dealing with the mistake in the search terms ("global climate change" vs. "climate change") was published in our Jan. 14 issue.
Best regards,
Etta Kavanagh
Associate Letters Editor
SCIENCE
ekavanag@aaas.org
-----------
From: Peiser, Benny
Sent: 23 February 2005 14:13
To: Etta Kavanagh [ekavanag@aaas.org]
Subject: Letter to the Editor of SCIENCE
Dear Etta Kavanagh
Please find attached my revised letter which I have shortened below the 500 words limit. I will submit the letter also in electronic form via your website.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
Liverpool John Moores University
----------
e-letter to Science Magazine
sent: 23 February 2005
Letter Details: N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004
Abstract: As requested by Associate Letters Editor Etta Kavanagh,
I have revised and shortened my letter below.
Letter Text:
Oreskes (1,2) presents empirical evidence that appears to show a unanimous, scientific consensus on the anthropogenic causes of recent global warming. Oreskes also claims that this universal agreement had not been questioned even once in the peer-reviewed literature since 1993. Her assertion has been extensively reported ever since.
I replicated her study in order to assess the accuracy of its results. All abstracts listed on the ISI databank for 1993 to 2003 using the same keywords ("global climate change") were assessed (3). The results of my analysis contradict Oreskes' findings and essentially falsify her study: Of all 1117 abstracts, only 13 (1%) explicitly endorse the 'consensus view'. However, 34 abstracts reject or question the view that human activities are the main driving force of "the observed warming over the last 50 years" (4).
Oreskes claims that "none of these papers argued [that current climate change is natural]". However, 44 papers emphasise that natural factors play a major if not the key role in recent climate change (5).
The most significant discrepancy with Oreskes' results concern abstracts that are undecided whether human activities are the dominant driving force of recent warming. My analysis shows that a significant number of abstracts reject what Oreskes calls the 'consensus view'. In fact, there are almost three times as many abstracts that are unconvinced of the notion of anthropogenic climate change than those that explicitly endorse it (6).
Even if there is disagreement about any of these papers, it is highly improbable that all 34 are ambiguous. After all, the explicit and implicit rejection is not restricted to individual scientists (7). It also includes distinguished scientific organisations such as the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which formally rejects the view that anthropogenic factors are the main trigger of global warming:
"The earth's climate is constantly changing owing to natural variability in earth processes. Natural climate variability over recent geological time is greater than reasonable estimates of potential human-induced greenhouse gas changes. Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time" (8).
Despite this manifest scepticism, I do not wish to deny that a majority of publications goes along with the notion of anthropogenic global warming by applying models based on its basic assumptions. It is beyond doubt, however, that an unbiased analysis of the full ISI databank, which comprises almost 12,000 abstracts, will find hundreds of papers (many of which written by the world's leading experts in the field) that have raised serious reservations and outright rejection of the concept of a "scientific consensus on climate change". The truth is, there is no such thing!
In light of the data presented above, Science Magazine should withdraw Oreskes' study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science.
References
1. N. Oreskes (2004). The scientific consensus on climate change. Science, Vol 306, Issue 5702, 1686, 3 December 2004 (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686)
2. N. Oreskes (2005) Correction. Science, Vol 307, Issue 5708, 355
3. ISI Web of Science, (http://www.webofscience.com/)
4.) Of the 1247 documents listed, only 1117 include abstracts. The 1117 abstracts analysed were divided into the same six categories used by Oreskes, plus two categories (#7,8) which I added: 1. explicit endorsement of the consensus position; 2. evaluation of impacts; 3. mitigation proposals; 4. methods; 5. paleoclimate analysis; 6. rejection of the consensus position; 7. natural factors of global climate change; 8. unrelated to the question of recent global climate change. While 29% of the documents implicitly accept the 'consensus view', these papers mainly focus on impact assessments of envisaged global climate change. 470 (or 42%) abstracts include the keywords "global climate change" but do not include any direct or indirect link or reference to human activities, CO2 or greenhouse gas emissions, let alone anthropogenic forcing of recent climate change.
5.) C. M. Ammann et al., for instance, claim to have detected evidence for "close ties between solar variations and surface climate", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 65:2 (2003): 191-201. While G.C. Reid stresses: "The importance of solar variability as a factor in climate change over the last few decades may have been underestimated in recent studies." Solar forcing of global climate change since the mid-17th century. Climate Change. 37 (2): 391-405.
6.) Russian scientists K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos criticise "the undoubtfully overemphasised contribution of the greenhouse effect to the global climate change"; K. Kondratyev and C Varotsos (1996). Annual Review of Energy and the Environment. 21: 31-67. M.E. Fernau at al. stress: "More and better measurements and statistical techniques are needed to detect and confirm the existence of greenhouse-gas-induced climate change, which currently cannot be distinguished from natural climate variability in the historical record. Uncertainties about the amount and rate of change of greenhouse gas emissions also make prediction of the magnitude and timing of climate change difficult", M.E. Fernau, W.J. Makofske, D.W. South (1993) Review and Impacts of climate change uncertainties. Futures 25 (8): 850-863.
7.) "Today, proponents of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change, again claiming scientific consensus, threaten to create even greater energy market distortions at large social and economic costs." H.R. Linden (1996) The evolution of an energy contrarian. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 21:31-67.
8) L.C. Gerhard and B.M. Hanson (2000) AAPG Bulletin 84 (4): 466-471.
--------
From: Etta Kavanagh [mailto:ekavanag@aaas.org]
Sent: 13 April 2005 22:39
To: Peiser, Benny
Subject: Your letter to SCIENCE
Dear Dr. Peiser,
After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter. We appreciate your taking the time to revise it.
Best regards,
Etta Kavanagh
Associate Letters Editor
SCIENCE
---------
From: Peiser, Benny
Sent: 14 April 2005 15:37
To: 'Etta Kavanagh'
Cc: 'dkennedy@aaas.org'
Subject: RE: Your letter to SCIENCE
Dear Etta Kavanagh
I am extremely disenchanted to hear that you have decided against publication of my letter.
I would be grateful if you could send me evidence for your claim hat "the basic points of [my] letter have already been widely dispersed over the Internet." As far as I am aware, neither the details nor the results of my analysis have been cited anywhere. In any case, don't you feel that SCIENCE has an obligation to your readers to correct manifest errors?
After all, these errors continue to be employed by activists, journalists and science organisations (as I have informed you on a number of occasions since January).
A statement by the Royal Society from March 2005, for instance, uses Oreskes' flawed study as a key argument in the climate change debate:
"In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it" http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=2986
Aside from the purely technical matter of Oreskes' factual errors, does SCIENCE really want to stand behind her bizarre claim of a complete scientific consensus on global warming? Are you not aware that most observers know only too well that there is absolutely *no* consensus within the scientific community about global warming science? If not, let me remind you:
A recent international survey among some 500 climatologists found that "a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes."
As Professors Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr have stressed:
"The public statements made by well-known German climate researchers create the impression that the scientific fundamentals of the climate problems have essentially been solved. They claim that the scientific community has already established the conditions for taking concerted action. This is a view that in fact does not correspond to the situation in the scientific community. That's because a significant number of climatologists are by no means convinced that the underlying issues have been adequately addressed. Last year, for example, a survey of climate researchers from all over the world revealed that a quarter of respondents still question whether human activity is responsible for the most recent climatic changes" (Der Spiegel, 24 January 2005; http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,342376,00.html).
Even Tony Blair has emphasised the remaining uncertainties and ongoing scientific debates among climate scientists:
"So it would be true to say the evidence [on anthropogenic global warming]
is still disputed. It would be wrong to say that the evidence of danger is not
clearly and persuasively advocated by a very large number of entirely independent
and compelling voices. They are the majority. The majority is not always right;
but they deserve to be listened to" (Tony Blair, Davos Speech, 26 January
2005;
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7006.asp)
I very much regret your decision to reject my letter using a contrived technicality as an excuse. Obviously, your refusal leaves me no option than to publicise the results of my analysis somewhere else (results which anyone can of course verify) - but also to deplore the sad reality of your refusal to publish corrections of a fatally flawed paper.
With best regards
Benny Peiser
Liverpool John Moores University
Faculty of Science
========
MICHAEL CRICHTON ON "CONSENSUS SCIENCE"
Michael Crichton, Caltech Michelin Lecture, 17 January 2003
http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html
[...] I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science.
If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period...
*****************************
 |
 |