# How does Prof Jones revelation affect AGW in particular and the peer review process generally?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [March 2, 2010, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038 "2010-03-02T21:10:54Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/41 "2010-03-03T06:47:22Z")
> [@elucidator](#):
>
> There is also a resolution in Texas to officially rename CO[sup]2[/sup] as “diamond gas”. OK, I made that up.
Good God man, don’t do that!
This is the internet. Before you know it, some cowpoke in a legislature somewhere in Texas is going to take your idea above and run with it!
---
### Author:  [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/42 "2010-03-03T07:39:32Z")
“Hostile scrutiny?”
Part of me wonders what the hell that is, and another part of me already knows that it doesn’t have anything to do with science.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/43 "2010-03-03T09:00:20Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> If your science can’t withstand hostile scrutiny, is it good science?
If a black guy can’t withstand a lynch mob does he deserve to live? Science can withstand hostile scientific scrutiny and indeed that leads to good science, but complex science is not very good at withstanding populist attack. Complex truths tend to lose out to simple lies. This doesn’t mean good science isn’t good science.
---
### Author:  [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/44 "2010-03-03T09:37:55Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#):
>
> It should not have to face hostile scrutiny by people who know little about science, often with an agenda, and funded by an industry that has a vested interest in discrediting the science.
I disagree: surely this is the acid test? If it withstands such scrutiny, then the case is all the stronger; if it doesn’t withstand such scrutiny, then science still advances.
---
### Author:  [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/45 "2010-03-03T09:50:12Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> I disagree: surely this is the acid test? If it withstands such scrutiny, then the case is all the stronger; if it doesn’t withstand such scrutiny, then science still advances.
You’re wrong. Science should face impartial scrutiny. Hostile people make shit up and ignore evidence that doesn’t fit their prejudices.
Most climate change deniers are untrained, ignorant people with an axe to grind.
---
### Author:  [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/46 "2010-03-03T10:04:28Z")
> [@Lobohan](#):
>
> You’re wrong. Science should face impartial scrutiny.
Impartial scrutiny is best, but that’s not quite what I said.
> [@](#):
>
> Hostile people make shit up and ignore evidence that doesn’t fit their prejudices.
As opposed to well-meaning people who make shit up and ignore evidence that doesn’t fit their prejudices? Sorry, but I maintain my position: if a piece of science withstands hostile scrutiny, then it is all the stronger.
> [@](#):
>
> Most climate change deniers are untrained, ignorant people with an axe to grind.
I’ll grant you the untrained, but I’d like cites for the latter two claims, please.
---
### Author:  [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/47 "2010-03-03T12:36:32Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> I disagree: surely this is the acid test? If it withstands such scrutiny, then the case is all the stronger; if it doesn’t withstand such scrutiny, then science still advances.
It depends what you mean by “withstand”. If we are talking about whether it can withstand hostile scrutiny and still be accepted by scientists that’s one thing.
However, because AGW isn’t just of theoretical but also practical importance, there is also the issue of whether it can withstand hostile scrutiny and remain accepted by popular opinion. If you mean “withstand” in that respect, I don’t think you are necessarily correct for reasons already given.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/48 "2010-03-03T13:32:26Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> As opposed to well-meaning people who make shit up and ignore evidence that doesn’t fit their prejudices? Sorry, but I maintain my position: if a piece of science withstands hostile scrutiny, then it is all the stronger.
So, you decide that ignoring history is also good?
History shows that it already did.
No people suffered more knowledgeable opposition than the researchers that back in the 40’s an 50’s came with research and papers that pointed out that CO2 and other gases were going to be a problem.
After more than 50 years of further research and evidence that scientific opposition came tumbling down until we reached the agreement levels of today, now most scientists agree that warming is happening, climate is changing and humans are causing the recorded increase.
[http://www.aip.org/history/climate/](http://www.aip.org/history/climate/)
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> I’ll grant you the untrained, but I’d like cites for the latter two claims, please.
Good lord, have you paid any attention to the previous discussions showing how deniers are axe murderers of the truth?
[http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global\_warming/mcintyre/](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/global_warming/mcintyre/)
[http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on\_those\_stolen\_cru\_emails.php](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/on_those_stolen_cru_emails.php)
> **[Michael Mann Exonerated](http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/02/michael-mann-exonerated.html)**
>
> Penn State has issued a phase one ruling on the inquiry into Michael Mann's conduct. They found there was no substance to the first three a...
> [@](#):
>
> Eli wants to get this out there because Morano and Co are already in full cry about the phase two inquiry. Remind everyone that on three of the four charges McIntyre, Morano, Myron Ebell and Co were shown to be pond scum.
>
> Mann has issued a response to the report
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > "I am very pleased that, after a thorough review, the independent Penn State committee found no evidence to support any of the allegations against me.
> >
> > ```
> > Three of the four allegations have been dismissed completely. Even though no evidence to substantiate the fourth allegation was found, the University administrators thought it best to convene a separate committee of distinguished scientists to resolve any remaining questions about academic procedures.
> >
> > This is very much the vindication I expected since I am confident I have done nothing wrong.
> >
> > I fully support the additional inquiry which may be the best way to remove any lingering doubts. I intend to cooperate fully in this matter – as I have since the beginning of the process."
> >
> > ```
>
> More details below the fold
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > Beginning on and about November 22, 2009, The Pennsylvania State University began to receive numerous communications (emails, phone calls and letters) accusing Dr. Michael E. Mann of having engaged in acts that included manipulating data, destroying records and colluding to hamper the progress of scientific discourse around the issue of anthropogenic global warming from approximately 1998. These accusations were based on perceptions of the content of the widely reported theft of emails from a server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain.
> >
> > ```
> > Given the sheer volume of the communications to Penn State, the similarity of their content and their sources, which included University alumni, federal and state politicians, and others, many of whom had had no relationship with Penn State, it was concluded that the matter required examination by the cognizant University official
> >
> > ```
>
> **All these communications were, as you might have expected given the source, incoherent.** The University attempted a synthesis of the charges flying about
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > At the time of initiation of the inquiry, and in the ensuing days during the inquiry, no formal allegations accusing Dr. Mann of research misconduct were submitted to any University official. As a result, the emails and other communications were reviewed by Dr. Pell and from these she synthesized the following four formal allegations. To be clear, these were not allegations that Dr. Pell put forth, or leveled against Dr. Mann, but rather were her best effort to reduce to allegation form the many different accusations that were received from parties outside of the University. The four synthesized allegations were as follows together with the phase one ruling:
> >
> > ```
> > Allegation 1: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to suppress or falsify data?
> >
> > Finding 1. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had or has ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with an intent to suppress or to falsify data. While a perception has been created in the weeks after the CRU emails were made public that Dr. Mann has engaged in the suppression or falsification of data, there is no credible evidence that he ever did so, and certainly not while at Penn State. In fact to the contrary, in instances that have been focused upon by some as indicating falsification of data, for example in the use of a “trick” to manipulate the data, this is explained as a discussion among Dr. Jones and others including Dr. Mann about how best to put together a graph for a World Meteorological Organization (WMO) report. They were not falsifying data; they were trying to construct an understandable graph for those who were not experts in the field. The so-called “trick”1 was nothing more than a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion by a technique that has been reviewed by a broad array of peers in the field.
> >
> > Footnote: The word trick as used in this email has stirred some suspicion. However, trick is often used in context to describe a mathematical insight that solves the problem. For example, see in a classic text on quantum mechanics by David Parks: "The foregoing explanation of the velocity paradox involves no new assumptions; the basic trick, the representation of a modulated wave as the superposition of two (or more) unmodulated ones, has already been used to explain interference phenomena..." pg. 21, Introduction to Quantum Theory, David Parks, Third Edition, Dover 1992.
> >
> > Decision 1. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.
> >
> > Allegation 2: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions with the intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data, related to AR4, as suggested by Phil Jones?
> >
> > Finding 2. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any actions with intent to delete, conceal or otherwise destroy emails, information and/or data related to AR4, as suggested by Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Mann has stated that he did not delete emails in response to Dr. Jones’ request. Further, Dr. Mann produced upon request a full archive of his emails in and around the time of the preparation of AR4. The archive contained e-mails related to AR4.
> >
> > Decision 2. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.
> >
> > Allegation 3: Did you engage in, or participate in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to you in your capacity as an academic scholar?
> >
> > Finding 3. After careful consideration of all the evidence and relevant materials, the inquiry committee finding is that there exists no credible evidence that Dr. Mann had ever engaged in, or participated in, directly or indirectly, any misuse of privileged or confidential information available to him in his capacity as an academic scholar. In media reports and blogs about Dr. Mann and other paleoclimatologists, those who are named in the CRU email files are purported to have been engaged in conspiratorial discussions indicative of a misuse of privileged or confidential information. Although it is not clear where the exact accusation lies in this with respect to Dr. Mann, it is inferred that the emails prove the case. Those who have formed this view feel that, in their capacity as reviewers, Dr. Mann and his colleagues had early access to manuscripts from other authors with whom they disagreed, and that they could somehow act on those to reject them for publication. Actually, when one does due diligence on this matter, and asks about what papers were involved, one finds that enormous confusion has been caused by interpretations of the emails and their content. In some cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that were about to emerge which members of the purported conspiracy had written, but which were simply under embargo. In other cases, the discussion and related debate centered on papers that have emerged in otherwise notable scientific journals, which they deemed to have been published with a lower standard of scholarly and scientific scrutiny. The committee found no research misconduct in this. Science often involves different groups who have very different points of view, arguing for the intellectual dominance of their viewpoint, so that that viewpoint becomes the canonical one. We point to Kuhn2 as an authority on how science is done, before it is accepted as “settled.”
> >
> > Decision 3. As there is no substance to this allegation, there is no basis for further examination of this allegation in the context of an investigation in the second phase of RA-10.
> >
> > ```
Of course what remains is an investigation to see if they actually did put action into the words (cherry picked and usually taken out of context by deniers) and check accusations that scientists made underhanded moves to prevent deniers from publishing their stuff, as I have seen, there is a difference between good skeptical research and trash. So far it seems that the scientists were just concentrating in denouncing the trash papers, I would call that “doing their job”.
> **[Private Site](https://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/pat-michaels-lying-in-the-wall-street-journal/)**
---
### Author:  [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/49 "2010-03-03T13:45:49Z")
> [@Colibri](#):
>
> I also regularly review scientific papers for journal publication, and have published such papers. I also have neither asked for, or been asked for, raw data. It is just not typically done. In some cases I have been asked to provide more detail to back up statements, but that’s about it.
>
> The OP is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the peer-review process.
I have no dog in the AGW fight, but I do confess to a fundamental misunderstanding of the peer-review process. Maybe I should say an over-all ignorance of the process.
Can you point me to a place to educate myself?
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/50 "2010-03-03T14:13:01Z")
A good video explanation regarding peer review, dealing also with the latest critics of the scientists:
[http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/2/uXesBhYwdRo](http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/u/2/uXesBhYwdRo)
> [@](#):
>
> Are climatologists censoring scientific journals and silencing alternative hypotheses on climate change? This is the second part of my look at the hacked/stolen e-mails from the Climatic Research Unit in the UK. I welcome intelligent opinions in the forum, but please refrain from posting the same inane comment a dozen times. Debates in science aren’t settled by those who argue the longest or the loudest, but by the accuracy of facts and the consistency of hypotheses with the facts.
Wikipedia seems to do a good job here, but always check the cites.
> **[Peer review](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review)**
>
> Peer review is the evaluation of work by one or more people with similar competencies as the producers of the work (peers). It functions as a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a profession within the relevant field. Peer review methods are used to maintain quality standards, improve performance, and provide credibility. In academia, scholarly peer review is often used to determine an academic paper's suitability for publication. Peer review can be categorized by the type and b Hen...
---
### Author:  [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/51 "2010-03-03T16:28:18Z")
Disagreeing with previously published scientific experiments or investigations is a part of the scientific method. It is the reason you decide to to study something. You look at the literature, and say, I don’t think that that is the correct conclusion. I think the method may be flawed, or the sample too small.
What you do then is to do a different experiment, or an different investigation, **and get your own data** so you can find out. And, if it is a sufficiently different result, two or seven other people will design new experiments, or conduct other investigations, and **generate their own data** to find out if the difference is one of observational method, or underlying aspects of the phenomenon being studied.
You investigate, and fact check data as part of your own experiment. You don’t waste time fact checking another experiment over which you had no control. If it is sufficiently at odds with your expectation to cause interest, you do another experiment.
Someone else doesn’t have data, they have a report. Publications based on reports is not scientific investigation. A fact is something you observed, not something someone told you.
And when you tell someone, it becomes a report again. It cannot ever be data again.
Now you can’t ever do all the observations or even all the experimental trials, so, you need to maintain the reliability of your collections systems, and your data storage. But that is so you can do your experiments, not to defend your experiments. If your methods are suspect for any reason, your results need to be verified by an entirely different experiment.
When your experiment is an entire world, you can expect high levels of variability on reliability. That means you need to examine many experiments, on many models, and repeat every type of examination many times. In the end, single investigations are going to be of little use, and only the broadest of data sets will be reliable enough to merit confidence.
Peer review is not a trap to catch errors, it is a filter to assure that there is some degree of confidence that the report merits consideration in what should be further investigated by others, with different methodologies. Finding out that a peer reviewed report was not an accurate reflection of the underlying realities isn’t at all rare. It is the point of the process. Finding actual deliberate misrepresentation is a career killer for a scientist. But it doesn’t invalidate the method of peer review, and subsequent experimentation by others, it is just another aberrant data point, and a ruined life.
Science stumbles on. Stumbling is the method.
Tris
---
### Author:  [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/52 "2010-03-03T17:33:37Z")
> [@Princhester](#):
>
> It depends what you mean by “withstand”. If we are talking about whether it can withstand hostile scrutiny and still be accepted by scientists that’s one thing.
Yes, I mean be subjected to hostile scrutiny and still come out on top, science-wise. I’ll grant you that public opinion is a wholly different story.
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> Good lord, have you paid any attention to the previous discussions showing how deniers are axe murderers of the truth?
😃
I know there are some, but you stated ‘most’.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/53 "2010-03-03T18:08:40Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> Yes, I mean be subjected to hostile scrutiny and still come out on top, science-wise. I’ll grant you that public opinion is a wholly different story.
AGW hasn’t been scratched by scientific scrutiny. Political slander is not scientific scrutiny.
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/54 "2010-03-03T18:28:23Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> Yes, I mean be subjected to hostile scrutiny and still come out on top, science-wise. I’ll grant you that public opinion is a wholly different story.
Hostile scrutiny by those competent to have an opinion. There is enough dissension in science so that at least one reviewer of any paper is going to be hostile - but fair and honest.
Do you think biology would benefit from “hostile scrutiny” from creationists who will not change their opinion no matter what the data says? What data is going to convince AGW deniers?
---
### Author:  [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/55 "2010-03-03T18:45:40Z")
> [@Khadaji](#):
>
> I have no dog in the AGW fight, but I do confess to a fundamental misunderstanding of the peer-review process. Maybe I should say an over-all ignorance of the process.
>
> Can you point me to a place to educate myself?
Let me pile on here also. I work in Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, in computer design. I’ve got somewhere around 30 papers (I’ve lost track) and have done hundreds of reviews, and more usefully, have read well over a thousand reviews. I’ve program chaired several conferences, been on the program committee of more than I remember, been on the editorial boards of two journals, and have edited somewhere around half a dozen special issues of journals.
Each paper gets sent out to at least three and more often 5 - 8 reviewers. Reviewing is done on a volunteer basis, and the most sought after reviewers are the best known in the field and also the busiest. Even today, some professors reassign papers to grad students. Not all people do reviews in detail - it depends on how well you know the details of a particular area, how much time you have, and how well the paper is written.
Reviews typically consist of check boxes, rating writing style, content, innovativeness, use of references, on some sort of scale. The most important part are the comments. Most review forms have a place for comments to the committee or editor which the author does not see, and also comments to the author. Editors will weigh reviews on the depth of the comments. Someone just saying “it’s great” or “it stinks” is not going to influence the decision as much as someone writing a detailed critique. In our conferences there is also a place for reviewers to give their confidence in the material, because you get stuff in areas you are really on top of, and also get stuff you know but not so well.
In conferences the accept/reject decision is made based on the reviews. In journals it still is, but there is the possibility of the paper being revised and sent for another round.
Now, given how busy reviewers are, asking them or expecting them to look at the raw data is laughable - especially since the data is input to some sort of analysis process. Looking at code is even more absurd. Even given that a researcher would want to release code, it would take weeks or even months to get any degree of confidence in it.
Peer review just forces authors to consider prior work (some of which possibly written by the reviewers) and get their argument in order. Results contradicting other results is going to need a lot more support than results supporting others (but will have a greater chance of being published if it seems correct.) Some academics I know argue for a lower accept rate at our conference, since it seems that their tenure review committees think high reject rates are indicators of higher quality. In industry we don’t get rated on paper writing for the most part, so high reject rates mean fewer submissions, since industry people don’t want to waste their time. It is a dilemma.
Also, most papers will be published and then never be seen again. If a paper is truly significant, which is hard to predict, others will try to reproduce the work. That is the real test! As for not being able to predict what papers are important, I ran a committee selecting the most significant papers from the first 35 years of our conference. Our choices had very low correlation with the best papers selected each year.
Hope this helps. I don’t think you understand a peer review process until you’ve run a few.
---
### Author:  [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)
#### Post date: [March 3, 2010, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/56 "2010-03-03T23:19:24Z")
> [@Quartz](#):
>
> 😃
>
> I know there are some, but you stated ‘most’.
What appears is that there is another element into the mix, besides deniers and skeptics: the boneheaded media (And in the end, a media that lies as it does not bother to make any corrections so far).
Imagine that if in a recent genetics scandal the media instead of getting the opinion from skeptical biologists of the research of the guy being discredited, instead got commentary from creationists like Duane Gish!
This is indeed what is happening lately when outfits like The Australian, Daily Mail, the Telegraph and The Wall Street Journal are cited recently. The newsmen are giving a forum to discredited and hatchet men like Mark Morano, Steve McIntyre or Lord (not of the house of lords) Monkton to comment on the “scandals”. You should then be able to see then who’s fault when they are propping up even non scandals like the one mentioned in the OP.
---
### Author:  [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/57 "2010-03-04T00:58:25Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#):
>
> What appears is that there is another element into the mix, besides deniers and skeptics: the boneheaded media (And in the end, a media that lies as it does not bother to make any corrections so far).
With this, I will agree, though I do object to your citing Steve McIntyre. Unlike the others, he is entirely open about what he does and how he does it.
---
### Author:  [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/58 "2010-03-04T01:35:40Z")
He admits to being a demagogue and a fraud? He’s the James O’Keefe of climate change.
---
### Author:  [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/59 "2010-03-04T02:03:20Z")
> [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#):
>
> Oh, I see. If you don’t send out your raw data to hostile members of the general public who have an agenda to crap on your research and don’t themselves publish in the field, then you’re automatically guilty of fraudulent behaviour.
>
> Gotchya.
The accusations of fraud and conspiracy are way over the top, I agree. But on the other hand, someone checking if YOUR methodology applied to the raw data YOU used gives the results YOU published is not “crapping on your research”. The data asked for wasn’t even Jones’: it was from Australian, Russian and Chinese weather stations, and McIntyre wanted to know the specific stations invoved in Jones’ 1990 study and the datasets from them that were used to produce his results. Jones should have had the confidence in his own work to give out the information and let McIntyre do his worst. Incidentally, McIntyre HAD published in the field when he requested the data.
Reportedly Jones has recently stated in an interview with Nature that there WAS a problem with the Chinese station metadata (station locations) but he wasn’t aware of it at the time, and he has said issuing a correction was “worthy of consideration”. Which may or may not affect his original paper’s conclusion (1990 is pretty far back in terms of climate science anyway) but it might have come to light a damned sight sooner if he’d _allowed someone to critically review his work_.
(The Nature interview is supposedly here: ['Climategate' scientist speaks out : Nature News](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100215/full/news.2010.71.html) but it’s a subscription site. I’d be grateful if anyone with access could verify the story and/or add context.)
[QUOTE=jshore]
Take the two skeptics, Roy Spencer and John Christy: their most scientifically-respected work is their analysis of the satellite temperature record even though it is now known that their original analysis was plagued by several errors, most of which biased their results in the direction of reducing warming. (In fact, when they first published their analysis, it showed cooling.) It took over a decade of other scientists pointing out these errors and, in some cases, publishing their own independent analyses before there was more general agreement on the results…and, to this day, there remains some areas of disagreement (such as temperature trends in the tropics). Nonetheless, Spencer and Christy are rightfully respected for pioneering the use of the satellite data to study global temperature trends even if they did get it largely wrong.
[/quote]
Did Spencer and Christy conceal which temperature records they had analysed and the way they analysed it? Because according to Jones, that’s standard practice.
Incidentally, AGW skeptic Spencer has recently conducted his own analysis of Northern hemisphere temperature data using methods similar to Jones, come up with similar results, and _said so_. He has also specifically refuted the claims of AGW skeptics D’Aleo and Watts that the reduction in temperature measurement stations since 1973 has introduced a warming bias into the temperature record by culling of cooler stations. (Cooler stations have indeed been dropped, but the methodology for combining the records prevents this from introducing a warming bias.) His analyses and results are on his own blog: [New Work on the Recent Warming of Northern Hemispheric Land Areas « Roy Spencer, PhD](http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/new-work-on-the-recent-warming-of-northern-hemispheric-land-areas/)
That’s how things are supposed to be. People should analyse the data, say what they did and how they did it, and publish even if it is in opposition to their ideas. So if say, your tree-ring proxies show declining temperatures in the later 20th century, you PUBLISH IT, say what you think is happening, and justify using those proxies anyway in your paleoclimate analysis. As opposed to chopping off the “decline” part and splicing on instrument data, for example.
[QUOTE=Triskadecamus]
Disagreeing with previously published scientific experiments or investigations is a part of the scientific method. It is the reason you decide to to study something. You look at the literature, and say, I don’t think that that is the correct conclusion. I think the method may be flawed, or the sample too small.
What you do then is to do a different experiment, or an different investigation, and get your own data so you can find out. And, if it is a sufficiently different result, two or seven other people will design new experiments, or conduct other investigations, and generate their own data to find out if the difference is one of observational method, or underlying aspects of the phenomenon being studied.
You investigate, and fact check data as part of your own experiment. You don’t waste time fact checking another experiment over which you had no control. If it is sufficiently at odds with your expectation to cause interest, you do another experiment.
[/quote]
Tris, I agree completely, but the truth is, suprisingly little actual experimentation occurs in climate science. Mann didn’t go out and take tree ring cores from old trees all over the world to produce his hockeystick; Jones didn’t go out and establish a whole bunch of weather stations all over the world with GPS position and altitude and urban/rural site data for each one to put together the HADCRUT records. _Everyone uses the same data sources_, believer and skeptic alike. When these guys publish papers demonstrating some point-or-other, they take a relevant subset of the existing data and mathematically analyse it. Jones took Russian, Chinese and Australian data to demonstrate that the Urban Heat Island effect wasn’t signficant. It’s entirely true that other researchers could have attempted to follow his method with their own subsets of data, possibly in different countries entirely, but why is it so unreasonable to first try and duplicate his results with HIS subset?
---
### Author:  [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)
#### Post date: [March 4, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038/60 "2010-03-04T03:13:15Z")
> [@matt](#):
>
> It’s entirely true that other researchers could have attempted to follow his method with their own subsets of data, possibly in different countries entirely, but why is it so unreasonable to first try and duplicate his results with HIS subset?
The answer to why is a complex set of reasons, scientific, academic, and legal. But, even assuming all those could be overcome, the best you can hope to add to the pile of evidence by re-examining an existing collection of data is that different statistical methodologies produce different conclusions. Now a third party must examine your methodology, and compare it to the original, and offer yet a third set of conclusions, without introducing any new information into the study of the underlying phenomenon.
A far better use of scientific effort, and resources is to gather data from as many sources as you can find independently, perhaps some of the same, perhaps not, and use your own method, then publish your results, and give your conclusions. This way, you have increased the body of knowledge, whether you resolve, or rekindle the debate on the previous research. It might also engender those with differing views to be more receptive to the possibility that combined efforts would benefit both researches. You “looking over my shoulder” and you “examining the same phenomenon through a new perspective” are much different things. Scientists are human.
Tris
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038.md?page=2)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-does-prof-jones-revelation-affect-agw-in-particular-and-the-peer-review-process-generally/531038.md?page=4)