Several days ago Louis Hoofstettler pointed to an article in American Thinker by David H. Douglass and John R. Christy, A Climatology Conspiracy? The article describes (a) the publication history of two articles in the International Journal of Climatology and (b) e-mail correspondence among authors of the second article. The first article is by Douglass, Christy, Benjanmin D. Pearson, and S. Fred Singer (Douglass et al.). The second is by Benjamin Santer and 16 co-authors. Both appeared in the November 2008 issue (Santer et al.).
Douglass and Christy present the events involving publication of these papers as evidence of a conspiracy among leading climatologists to suppress dissenting viewpoints. I am not a climatologist. I cannot evaluate the arguments for or against including data from RABOCORE v1.3 and v1.4 in an analysis of temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. I know a fair about statistics and probably could say something about the statistical dispute, but that's a technical issue and it doesn't seem to be Douglass and Christy's primary complaint. Instead, they're concerned about the publication process and the possibility that impartial peer review has been subverted. That I can say a little about, based on the description by Douglass and Christy and supplemented by a little investigation of my own.
My conclusion? It strikes me as a little odd that Santer et al. was not published as a response to Douglass et al., but if the evidence Douglass and Christy present is all they can muster for a conspiracy, I'm left asking, "Where's the beef?".
For details, click through.
Douglass and Christy present the events involving publication of these papers as evidence of a conspiracy among leading climatologists to suppress dissenting viewpoints. I am not a climatologist. I cannot evaluate the arguments for or against including data from RABOCORE v1.3 and v1.4 in an analysis of temperature trends in the tropical troposphere. I know a fair about statistics and probably could say something about the statistical dispute, but that's a technical issue and it doesn't seem to be Douglass and Christy's primary complaint. Instead, they're concerned about the publication process and the possibility that impartial peer review has been subverted. That I can say a little about, based on the description by Douglass and Christy and supplemented by a little investigation of my own.
My conclusion? It strikes me as a little odd that Santer et al. was not published as a response to Douglass et al., but if the evidence Douglass and Christy present is all they can muster for a conspiracy, I'm left asking, "Where's the beef?".
For details, click through.
Andy Revkin
The first complaint is that Andy Revkin contacted some of the authors of Santer et al. asking them for their reaction to page proofs of Douglass et al. They complain that Revkin's e-mail "implies prior correspondence." By "prior correspondence" Douglass and Christy can't mean that Revkin had contacted authors of the second paper before with questions about climate science, because any good reporter would have contacted these people (and others) before for comments on a complex, important, and controversial issue. That kind of "prior correspondence" isn't just OK, it's laudable.
They quote Revkin as saying
"Final word"
The biggest complaint is this:
A "response" in journals I'm familiar with is a particular type of paper. It's narrowly focused on identifying one or two deficiencies in a published paper and critiquing them. Authors of the paper being critiqued normally give a brief response. If the original published paper is 15-20 pages in length, the "response" might be 2-3 pages long, 4 at most. The rejoinder to that response would be about the same length.
In this case Douglass et al. is 9 pages long. Santer et al. is 20 pages long. Were I editor of a journal that received a similar "response", I'd want to treat it as a regular paper, not as a "response" with a rejoinder. The original authors could of course write a "response" to the new paper, or they could submit another original paper continuing the debate in great detail. There's no way any author can expect to have the "final word". I don't know Santer or any of the other authors, but I take the comments to mean simply that they didn't want to get into a point counterpoint.
As I say, reasonable people could reach a different conclusion about how to handle the Santer et al. paper, but I can't see how a reasonable person would call the editor's decision to treat it as a regular paper rather than a response part of a conspiracy to suppress debate.
Time to pubication
Douglass and Christy are also concerned that Santer et al. somehow colluded with the editor to delay publication of their paper. If you only looked at the dates of acceptance for the two papers, you might think they have a point:
It also doesn't appear that review of Santer et al. was particularly rushed, or conversely that review of Douglass et al. was particularly delayed.
In short, Santer et al. appears to have received special treatment only in the sense that there was an unusually short period of time between acceptance and publication. Given that (a) Santer et al. was inspired by Douglass et al. and (b) that Douglass et al. was sure to attract a lot of attention because it challenged findings incorporated into the IPCC report, it's not surprising to me that the editor would have moved Santer et al. ahead of other papers in the queue so that it could appear in the same issue as Douglass et al. and so that publication of Douglass et al. would not be delayed.
Again, there's the question of whether Santer et al. should have been treated as a response to Douglass et al. to which Douglass et al. should have been allowed a rejoinder. As I said, reasonable people can argue about whether the editor made the right choice, but I don't anyone can argue convincingly that the choice was unreasonable.
Conclusion
Both Douglass et al. and Santer et al. were published. Douglass and Christy can't complain that they were prevented from publishing their critique of model/instrument comparisons. If they think the paper Santer et al. published is flawed, they have the responsibility to prepare a critique of Santer et al. and to submit it for peer review. They can choose to submit that critique either to International Journal of Climatology or to any other journal they deem suitable.
If the critique of Santer et al. is long and detailed and especially if it is submitted to a different journal, I would expect an editor to treat the paper as a new contribution not requiring a response from Santer or his colleagues. I also wouldn't be surprised if the critique were sent to one of the authors on Santer et al. in addition to other reviewers. If I were editor of the journal where such a critique were submitted, that's what I'd do. I wouldn't take that review at face value, of course.2 Rather, I'd want to assess from the review whether the critique (a) hit a sensitive spot and (b) could be judged a fair critique even by someone who is likely to disagree with its conclusions.
Bottom line
If this is an example of a "climatology conspiracy," I'd say that the conspiracy is like Oakland.3
1It appears that there could have been a delay in publishing Douglass et al. I didn't check all of the acceptance dates on papers in earlier issues of the journal, but at least a few of the papers in the October issue were accepted after Douglass et al.
2An editor shouldn't take any review at face value.
3If you don't get that reference, click here.
The first complaint is that Andy Revkin contacted some of the authors of Santer et al. asking them for their reaction to page proofs of Douglass et al. They complain that Revkin's e-mail "implies prior correspondence." By "prior correspondence" Douglass and Christy can't mean that Revkin had contacted authors of the second paper before with questions about climate science, because any good reporter would have contacted these people (and others) before for comments on a complex, important, and controversial issue. That kind of "prior correspondence" isn't just OK, it's laudable.
They quote Revkin as saying
sorry to take your time up, but really do need a scrub of singer/christy/etc effortI'm sorry, but you have to be paranoid to see anything in that other than a reporter working on deadline trying to figure out what to say about a paper that's making an important challenge to a broad scientific consensus. Revkin would have to tell us for himself what he was thinking, but as I read that, he's just asking some folks he knows to be knowledgeable what to make of a new finding that runs counter to what the IPCC and others have concluded. I can't see anything devious there.
"Final word"
The biggest complaint is this:
The most critical point throughout these emails is the goal of preventing DCPS from providing what is considered normal in the peer-reviewed literature: an opportunity to respond to their critique, or as they put it, "be given the final word." One wonders if there is ever a "final word" in science, as the authors here seem to imply.Here you've got a judgment call and reasonable people could differ. The text of Santer et al. makes it clear that the authors are responding to Douglass et al. But let's talk a bit about the way in which scientific journals (or at least the ones I'm familiar with) are structured, and whether Santer et al. would be treated as a "response" in most of them.
A "response" in journals I'm familiar with is a particular type of paper. It's narrowly focused on identifying one or two deficiencies in a published paper and critiquing them. Authors of the paper being critiqued normally give a brief response. If the original published paper is 15-20 pages in length, the "response" might be 2-3 pages long, 4 at most. The rejoinder to that response would be about the same length.
In this case Douglass et al. is 9 pages long. Santer et al. is 20 pages long. Were I editor of a journal that received a similar "response", I'd want to treat it as a regular paper, not as a "response" with a rejoinder. The original authors could of course write a "response" to the new paper, or they could submit another original paper continuing the debate in great detail. There's no way any author can expect to have the "final word". I don't know Santer or any of the other authors, but I take the comments to mean simply that they didn't want to get into a point counterpoint.
As I say, reasonable people could reach a different conclusion about how to handle the Santer et al. paper, but I can't see how a reasonable person would call the editor's decision to treat it as a regular paper rather than a response part of a conspiracy to suppress debate.
Time to pubication
Douglass and Christy are also concerned that Santer et al. somehow colluded with the editor to delay publication of their paper. If you only looked at the dates of acceptance for the two papers, you might think they have a point:
Douglass et al.: accepted 11 October 2007But take a look at when other papers appearing in that issue were accepted: 11 August 2007, 30 October 2007, 30 November 2007, 3 June 2007, 21 January 2007, 1 December 2007, 1 December 2007, 10 November 2007, 1 December 2007. If publication of the Douglass et al. paper was delayed, it doesn't appear to have been delayed much.1
Santer et al.: accepted 20 July 2008
It also doesn't appear that review of Santer et al. was particularly rushed, or conversely that review of Douglass et al. was particularly delayed.
Douglass et al.: received 31 May 2007, accepted 11 October 2007 (elapsed time: 4 1/2 months)A one month difference in time spent in review doesn't strike me as remarkable, especially for a journal where the typical time from acceptance to publication is on the order of one year.
Santer et al.: received 25 March 2008, accepted 20 July 2008 (elapsed time: 3 1/2 months)
In short, Santer et al. appears to have received special treatment only in the sense that there was an unusually short period of time between acceptance and publication. Given that (a) Santer et al. was inspired by Douglass et al. and (b) that Douglass et al. was sure to attract a lot of attention because it challenged findings incorporated into the IPCC report, it's not surprising to me that the editor would have moved Santer et al. ahead of other papers in the queue so that it could appear in the same issue as Douglass et al. and so that publication of Douglass et al. would not be delayed.
Again, there's the question of whether Santer et al. should have been treated as a response to Douglass et al. to which Douglass et al. should have been allowed a rejoinder. As I said, reasonable people can argue about whether the editor made the right choice, but I don't anyone can argue convincingly that the choice was unreasonable.
Conclusion
Both Douglass et al. and Santer et al. were published. Douglass and Christy can't complain that they were prevented from publishing their critique of model/instrument comparisons. If they think the paper Santer et al. published is flawed, they have the responsibility to prepare a critique of Santer et al. and to submit it for peer review. They can choose to submit that critique either to International Journal of Climatology or to any other journal they deem suitable.
If the critique of Santer et al. is long and detailed and especially if it is submitted to a different journal, I would expect an editor to treat the paper as a new contribution not requiring a response from Santer or his colleagues. I also wouldn't be surprised if the critique were sent to one of the authors on Santer et al. in addition to other reviewers. If I were editor of the journal where such a critique were submitted, that's what I'd do. I wouldn't take that review at face value, of course.2 Rather, I'd want to assess from the review whether the critique (a) hit a sensitive spot and (b) could be judged a fair critique even by someone who is likely to disagree with its conclusions.
Bottom line
If this is an example of a "climatology conspiracy," I'd say that the conspiracy is like Oakland.3
1It appears that there could have been a delay in publishing Douglass et al. I didn't check all of the acceptance dates on papers in earlier issues of the journal, but at least a few of the papers in the October issue were accepted after Douglass et al.
2An editor shouldn't take any review at face value.
3If you don't get that reference, click here.
Leave a comment