Journals have created a self reinforcing loop to achieve what are considered noble ends. There is only one result from a self reinforcing loop. My hope is the rest of us don't get taken down with it. As a past editorial board chairman for a non technical professional publication, I'll say again, we have to find a different path for peer review. Double blind review is if no use if the primary quest is politics, not science. My idea is that qualified reviewers be chosen at random much like a jury. That the reviews be published and subject to rebuttal. Yes, a flawed idea. But maybe a start.
"First, we should all recognize that peer-review provides a minimal standard of review"
I disagree. Reviewers are free to do as much or as little as they please. They can be vindictive towards the authors or they can be shameless promoters of the authors. There is no accountability for reviewers.
You have found a home on substack because your writing and your scientific integrity is such that people like me are willing to pay you to keep going, because we have concluded that most 'Peer Reviewed' papers have become just another way of suppressing unwanted inputs, regardless of the actual scientific merit. Government funded 'scientists' prepare 'scientific' papers that are then 'peer reviewed' by other government funded 'scientists' - and they all then use the fact that they have published 'peer reviewed' papers to get more government funding.
You and like-minded scientists need to start your own peer-reviewed online scientific 'magazine' where 'peer review' can return to it's original intent - separating good science from bad science. Think of it this way; when the history of this shameful period is written, wouldn't you like to be remembered as the guy (or group of guys) who created the institution that eventually becomes the new gold standard for real climate science - one that even governments can't afford to ignore?
Roger, you asked for examples of tactical science that we may have been involved in, so here's my contribution.
As some, if not all, readers may recall in March of 1989 the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound Alaska spilling approximately 250,000 barrels of oil into the water. The oil spill and associated cleanup resulted in numerous law suits, criminal prosecutions and fines being assessed. Resolution of many of these actions involved determination of the impact of the spill on all types of marine organisms, people and evaluating human errors in management of Exxon's operations. I was personally involved in the company's response to the spill for almost 2 years.
I don't think that anyone here would be surprised to find out that in a situation like the oil spill with the responsible party being (at the time) the company with the deepest of deep pockets, many people and organizations wanted to seize the opportunity to reap as big a settlement as they could whether justified by facts (and science) or not. While Exxon was prepared to live up to its' responsibilities and pay all justifiable costs and fines it was well aware of the need to try to minimize unsupportable claims for additional recompense. I've got many war stories that I could tell.
Exxon is a data and science driven company, more so than any other major oil and gas company. At the time Exxon (prior to the Mobil merger) had 3 companies dedicated to R&D across the full spectrum of the energy business. I would guess we had about 5000 employees, half having advanced degrees and probably 1000 PhDs. Hiring criteria were very selective with most hires coming from the top of the class at the top science and engineering programs in the country. These resources were brought to bear in support of Exxon's defense.
From almost day one we recognized that it was going to be critical to gather all sorts of data: biologic, chemical, geologic, photos, animal populations, economic etc. From scratch we had to develop systems to acquire, store and manage this data. Outside contractors were hired for much of this as well as to supplement company personnel. During the course of the next 10 years thousands of studies were undertaken and papers written. Many were delivered at symposiums and many were published in peer reviewed journals. Some of the work was top notch world class science and some was dreck. Was some of this work "tactical"? Almost assuredly some, if not all of it was. U.S. Government scientists (NOAA, USCG, DOE) published papers to support high awards for damages. Some groups wrote papers that were meant to generate support for longterm funding of research that had little chance of being funded otherwise. Exxon probably (I say probably because I really don't know for sure) published papers that were meant to support damage assessments at the lower end of the range.
Reflecting back 35 years now, I would probably guess that the large majority of the published work on the oil spill was tactical science with a very small portion not being of any tactical value. It's hard to say anything supportable about the quality of the science that was actually done.
Having worked in the Fed system for 25 years as an ATC, if the government is attached to it in any way, I immediately dismiss it. What does being an Air Traffic Controller have to do with science and Government? Government is a system. Same system and standards used for all aspects of government. So I find places like Roger’s site and one called Reason to Believe. Although their thing is science and the Bible the put out many article’s relevant to current events, they all are relevant to the Bible, and they have no reason to go to bad/
It's interesting how the power dynamic of funding played out in these efforts to jointly address controversial questions via codesign of research. Framing and design is another upstream source of bias.
Roger, It sounds like Tactical Science is an updated version of Lysenkoism? Tactical science strikes me as too sanitized and oxymoronic. Is it bad science by definition?
Perhaps the greatest tactical, or even rhetorical, paper ever was the original Cook et al 97% consensus paper. I recall that one or both of Lindzen and Curry were specifically included as part of the consensus based on their published papers
That's because the definition was quite broad: indicating that you believe it has warmed up since 1750 and that humans have caused any amount of that rated your paper as supporting the consensus
The rhetorical use this "statistic" has been put to use for is truly global and influential on a decadal scale. I am part of the 97% consensus without a doubt, and don't believe much of anything people say when they invoke it
Most people are not intentionally misunderstanding what the paper actually revealed, which is an interesting situation. It may be very influential for the general debate if they find out
I think it's important to parse out differences between scientific disciplines. Some do designed experiments where design and analysis and conclusions can be critiqued. Some do models with assumptions and the results are not tested empirically. Good assumptions versus bad assumptions seems intrinsically value laden. Economists use sensitivity analysis; I don't think climate modelers do or can because of the complexity. Then there's the fact that researchers may not employ QAQC with their experiments or data. Point being- there's a lot more to building trust in research results than peer review.
Good article. I've been concerned of late that "Peer Reviewed" is the new "shut up and don't dispute this paper because its been peer reviewed". I'm not sure if it just the Climate Science universe, which sometimes looks mor like a swamp of dreck, but trying to find truly relevant good science seems an increasingly losing battle against the underlying politics. Is there really a way out of this downward spiral?
Just out of curiosity would you be more supportive of peer review if funded came without strings?
It seems the most readily available path to weed out fraud as long as scientists aren't self selecting reviewers, or only self selecting within an institution? More collaboration and international eyes would help. Research groups know who their rival/friends/competitors are. Disclosure of funding is a must as well as some path to making science less publish/perish and more agnostic. Thoughts? Almost like a rotating body that adjudicates ethics complaints and distributes funds? Philanthropy should not go directly to a scientist but to an oversight body that distributes funds fairly. I have no idea why wealthy universities with huge endowments would need federal tax dollars. They are betting on their horses by choosing professors. There has to be a corrective mechanism there.
Journals have created a self reinforcing loop to achieve what are considered noble ends. There is only one result from a self reinforcing loop. My hope is the rest of us don't get taken down with it. As a past editorial board chairman for a non technical professional publication, I'll say again, we have to find a different path for peer review. Double blind review is if no use if the primary quest is politics, not science. My idea is that qualified reviewers be chosen at random much like a jury. That the reviews be published and subject to rebuttal. Yes, a flawed idea. But maybe a start.
"First, we should all recognize that peer-review provides a minimal standard of review"
I disagree. Reviewers are free to do as much or as little as they please. They can be vindictive towards the authors or they can be shameless promoters of the authors. There is no accountability for reviewers.
Roger,
You have found a home on substack because your writing and your scientific integrity is such that people like me are willing to pay you to keep going, because we have concluded that most 'Peer Reviewed' papers have become just another way of suppressing unwanted inputs, regardless of the actual scientific merit. Government funded 'scientists' prepare 'scientific' papers that are then 'peer reviewed' by other government funded 'scientists' - and they all then use the fact that they have published 'peer reviewed' papers to get more government funding.
You and like-minded scientists need to start your own peer-reviewed online scientific 'magazine' where 'peer review' can return to it's original intent - separating good science from bad science. Think of it this way; when the history of this shameful period is written, wouldn't you like to be remembered as the guy (or group of guys) who created the institution that eventually becomes the new gold standard for real climate science - one that even governments can't afford to ignore?
Just my (recurrent) thoughts :)
Thank you again Roger for standing strong for basic integrity.
Roger, you asked for examples of tactical science that we may have been involved in, so here's my contribution.
As some, if not all, readers may recall in March of 1989 the Exxon Valdez ran aground in Prince William Sound Alaska spilling approximately 250,000 barrels of oil into the water. The oil spill and associated cleanup resulted in numerous law suits, criminal prosecutions and fines being assessed. Resolution of many of these actions involved determination of the impact of the spill on all types of marine organisms, people and evaluating human errors in management of Exxon's operations. I was personally involved in the company's response to the spill for almost 2 years.
I don't think that anyone here would be surprised to find out that in a situation like the oil spill with the responsible party being (at the time) the company with the deepest of deep pockets, many people and organizations wanted to seize the opportunity to reap as big a settlement as they could whether justified by facts (and science) or not. While Exxon was prepared to live up to its' responsibilities and pay all justifiable costs and fines it was well aware of the need to try to minimize unsupportable claims for additional recompense. I've got many war stories that I could tell.
Exxon is a data and science driven company, more so than any other major oil and gas company. At the time Exxon (prior to the Mobil merger) had 3 companies dedicated to R&D across the full spectrum of the energy business. I would guess we had about 5000 employees, half having advanced degrees and probably 1000 PhDs. Hiring criteria were very selective with most hires coming from the top of the class at the top science and engineering programs in the country. These resources were brought to bear in support of Exxon's defense.
From almost day one we recognized that it was going to be critical to gather all sorts of data: biologic, chemical, geologic, photos, animal populations, economic etc. From scratch we had to develop systems to acquire, store and manage this data. Outside contractors were hired for much of this as well as to supplement company personnel. During the course of the next 10 years thousands of studies were undertaken and papers written. Many were delivered at symposiums and many were published in peer reviewed journals. Some of the work was top notch world class science and some was dreck. Was some of this work "tactical"? Almost assuredly some, if not all of it was. U.S. Government scientists (NOAA, USCG, DOE) published papers to support high awards for damages. Some groups wrote papers that were meant to generate support for longterm funding of research that had little chance of being funded otherwise. Exxon probably (I say probably because I really don't know for sure) published papers that were meant to support damage assessments at the lower end of the range.
Reflecting back 35 years now, I would probably guess that the large majority of the published work on the oil spill was tactical science with a very small portion not being of any tactical value. It's hard to say anything supportable about the quality of the science that was actually done.
'Tactical Science' is a euphemism. 'Politicized Science' or 'Propagandized Science' would be more accurate!
Having worked in the Fed system for 25 years as an ATC, if the government is attached to it in any way, I immediately dismiss it. What does being an Air Traffic Controller have to do with science and Government? Government is a system. Same system and standards used for all aspects of government. So I find places like Roger’s site and one called Reason to Believe. Although their thing is science and the Bible the put out many article’s relevant to current events, they all are relevant to the Bible, and they have no reason to go to bad/
Why can’t we immediately edit a post right after we accidentally post it?
You can. Click on the 3 dots to the right of the post and you will be offered the opportunity to edit your post.
When I do that without waiting I get share , hide or delete.
I get edit or delete. Strange. Are you a paid subscriber?
Yes. And some where down the line I will eventually get the editor delete also.
Technical science. And a lot of current science has a bearing on their model.
Some short cuts work. If it's by Jacobson or Socolow you pretty much know ahead of time that its lying garbage.
It's interesting how the power dynamic of funding played out in these efforts to jointly address controversial questions via codesign of research. Framing and design is another upstream source of bias.
https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article/80/2/390/6613543
Roger, It sounds like Tactical Science is an updated version of Lysenkoism? Tactical science strikes me as too sanitized and oxymoronic. Is it bad science by definition?
Wow! Another great piece, Roger.
Perhaps the greatest tactical, or even rhetorical, paper ever was the original Cook et al 97% consensus paper. I recall that one or both of Lindzen and Curry were specifically included as part of the consensus based on their published papers
That's because the definition was quite broad: indicating that you believe it has warmed up since 1750 and that humans have caused any amount of that rated your paper as supporting the consensus
The rhetorical use this "statistic" has been put to use for is truly global and influential on a decadal scale. I am part of the 97% consensus without a doubt, and don't believe much of anything people say when they invoke it
Most people are not intentionally misunderstanding what the paper actually revealed, which is an interesting situation. It may be very influential for the general debate if they find out
I think it's important to parse out differences between scientific disciplines. Some do designed experiments where design and analysis and conclusions can be critiqued. Some do models with assumptions and the results are not tested empirically. Good assumptions versus bad assumptions seems intrinsically value laden. Economists use sensitivity analysis; I don't think climate modelers do or can because of the complexity. Then there's the fact that researchers may not employ QAQC with their experiments or data. Point being- there's a lot more to building trust in research results than peer review.
Good article. I've been concerned of late that "Peer Reviewed" is the new "shut up and don't dispute this paper because its been peer reviewed". I'm not sure if it just the Climate Science universe, which sometimes looks mor like a swamp of dreck, but trying to find truly relevant good science seems an increasingly losing battle against the underlying politics. Is there really a way out of this downward spiral?
Just out of curiosity would you be more supportive of peer review if funded came without strings?
It seems the most readily available path to weed out fraud as long as scientists aren't self selecting reviewers, or only self selecting within an institution? More collaboration and international eyes would help. Research groups know who their rival/friends/competitors are. Disclosure of funding is a must as well as some path to making science less publish/perish and more agnostic. Thoughts? Almost like a rotating body that adjudicates ethics complaints and distributes funds? Philanthropy should not go directly to a scientist but to an oversight body that distributes funds fairly. I have no idea why wealthy universities with huge endowments would need federal tax dollars. They are betting on their horses by choosing professors. There has to be a corrective mechanism there.
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2015/funding-for-scientific-research/
"peer review does organically produce truth" -- Is there a "not" missing?
Ha!
Good catch, a very important missing word