Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.


Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Support

Bluesky Facebook LinkedIn Mastodon MeWe

Twitter YouTube RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe

Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...

New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts


Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review

Posted on 20 June 2011 by John Cook

Reposted from The Conversation. This is the sixth part in a two-week series Clearing up the Climate Debate.

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Professor Stephan Lewandowsky holds “sceptics” accountable for their subversion of the peer review process.

On 20 April 2010, a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and creating the largest oil spill in history.

When President Obama sought to hold the corporation accountable by creating a $20B damage fund, this provoked Republican Congressman from Texas Joe Barton to issue a public apology.

An apology not to the people affected by the oil spill … but to BP.

In a peculiar inversion of ethics, Barton called the President’s measures a “shakedown”, finding it a “tragedy in the first proportion” that a corporation should be held accountable for the consequences of its actions.

What does a Congressman’s inverted morality have to do with climate denial?

Quite a bit.

In a similar inversion of normal practice, most climate deniers avoid scrutiny by sidestepping the peer-review process that is fundamental to science, instead posting their material in the internet or writing books.

Books may be impressively weighty, but remember that they are printed because a publisher thinks they can make money, not necessarily because the content has scientific value.

Fiction sells, even if dressed up as science.

During peer review, by contrast, commercial interests are removed from the publication decision because journals are often published by not-for-profit professional organizations. Even if private publishers are involved, they make their profit primarily via university subscriptions, and universities subscribe to journals based on their reputation, rather than based on individual publication decisions.

Very occasionally a contrarian paper does appear in a peer-reviewed journal, which segments of the internet and the media immediately hail as evidence against global warming or its human causes, as if a single paper somehow nullifies thousands of previous scientific findings.

What are we to make of that handful of contrarian papers? Do they make a legitimate if dissenting contribution to scientific knowledge?

In some cases, perhaps.

But in many other cases, troubling ethical questions arise from examination of the public record surrounding contrarian papers.

For example, in 2003 the reputable journal Climate Research published a paleoclimatological analysis that concluded, in flat contradiction to virtually all existing research, that the 20th century was probably not the warmest of the last millennium. This paper, partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute, attracted considerable public and political attention because it seemingly offered relief from the need to address climate change.

The paper also engendered some highly unusual fall-out.

First, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over its publication, including the incoming editor-in-chief who charged that “…some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.”

This highly unusual mass resignation was followed by an even more unusual public statement from the publisher that acknowledged flaws in the journal’s editorial process.

Three editorial resignations and a publisher’s acknowledgement of editorial flaws are not standard scientific practice and call for further examination of the authors and the accepting editor.

The first author of this paper, Dr Willie Soon, is an astrophysicist by training. In U.S. congressional testimony, he identified his “training” in paleoclimatology as attendance at workshops, conferences, and summer schools. (The people who teach such summer schools, actual climate scientists, published a scathing rebuttal of Soon’s paper.)

Undaunted, Dr Soon has since become an expert on polar bears, publishing a paper that accused the U.S. Geological Survey of being “unscientific” in its reports about the risks faced by polar bears from climate change.

Most recently, Dr Soon has become an expert on mercury poisoning, using the Wall Street Journal as a platform to assuage fears about mercury-contaminated fish because, after all, “mercury has always existed naturally in Earth’s environment.”

Lest one wonder what links paleoclimatology, Arctic ecology, and environmental epidemiology, the answer is not any conventional area of academic expertise but ideology.

As Professor Naomi Oreskes and historian Erik Conway have shown in their insightful book, Merchants of Doubt, the hallmark of organized denial is that the same pseudo-experts emerge from the same shadowy “think” tanks over and over to rail against what they call “junk science”.

Whether it is the link between smoking and lung cancer, between mercury and water poisoning, or between carbon emissions and climate change, ideology inverts facts and ethics whenever overwhelming scientific evidence suggests the need to regulate economic activity.

So what of the editor who accepted the flawed Climate Research paper, Dr Chris de Freitas of Auckland?

Later, De Freitas co-authored a paper in 2009 that some media outlets heralded as showing that climate change was down to nature.

One of the authors, Adjunct academic Bob Carter from James Cook University, claimed that “our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation.” Welcome news indeed, at least for the coal industry, but does the paper support this conclusion?


For starters, the 2009 paper by McLean, de Freitas, and Carter did not address long-term global warming at all.

It discussed the association between ocean currents and air temperature — in particular the time lag between the warm El Niño current and the ensuing increase in temperature.

Indeed, the article does not even contain the words “climate change” except in a citation of the IPCC, and its only conceivable connection with climate change arises from the speculative phrase “ … and perhaps recent trends in global temperature …” in the final sentence.

It appears ethically troubling to derive strong statements about emissions regulations from such a tentative clause in one’s final sentence in a paper on quite a different issue.

Such statements appear even more troubling if one considers paragraph 14 of the paper, which reads, “to remove the noise, the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations. Here the derivative is the 12-month running average subtracted from the same average for data 12 months later.”

What happens to data if successive annual values are subtracted from each other? This mathematically removes any linear time trend.

In other words, temperatures could have doubled every other year and it would have escaped detection by the authors.

This removal of the trend did not escape detection by the scientific community, however, and the published rebuttal of this “it’s-all-natural” paper was as swift and devastating as it was for Dr Soon’s.

To remove the linear trend from temperature data in a paper that does not address climate change, and to then claim that nature is responsible for global warming and there is no scientific basis for emissions regulations smacks of an inversion of scientific ethics and practice.

Let us return to Congressman Barton.

Before apologizing to BP, not for the nearly $3,000,000 he has received in contributions from the oil, gas, and energy industries, but for President Obama seeking accountability from the corporation, Mr Barton also sponsored a contrived investigation of the famed “hockeystick” paper by Professor Michael Mann and colleagues.

The hockeystick is the iconic graph that shows the sky-rocketing temperatures of the last few decades in comparison to the relatively constant temperatures during the preceding centuries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences affirmed the basic conclusions of Professor Mann, as have numerous other papers published during the last decade.

Mr. Barton, however, relied on a report by a certain Professor Wegman, who claimed to have identified statistical flaws in the analysis underlying the original hockeystick. (Even if correct, that criticism has no bearing on the overall conclusion of Professor Mann’s paper or on the numerous independent hockeysticks produced by other researchers.)

Professor Wegman subsequently published part of his report in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. Although normally a peer-reviewed journal, in this instance the paper was accepted a few days after submission, in July 2007, in an especially ironic twist as the paper tried to cast doubt on the quality of peer review in climate research.

Alas, the paper’s lifetime was cut tragically short when it was officially withdrawn by the publisher a few weeks ago.


The paper by Wegman and colleagues was officially withdrawn because of substantial plagiarism. Conforming to the typical pattern of inversions, Wegman also appears to have plagiarized large parts of his initial hockeystick critique for Congressman Barton, while additionally distorting and misrepresenting many of the conclusions of the cited authors.

We have examined just the tip of an iceberg of inversion of normal standards of ethics and scientific practice.

These multiple departures from common scientific practice are not isolated incidents — on the contrary, they represent a common thread that permeates all of climate denial.

Because climate denial is just that: denial, not scepticism.

Science is inherently sceptical, and peer-review is the instrument by which scientific scepticism is pursued.

Circumventing or subverting that process does not do justice to the public’s need for scientific accountability.

At a time when Greenland is losing around 9,000 tonnes of ice every second — all of which contributes to sea level rises – it is time to hold accountable those who invert common standards of science, decency, and ethics in pursuit of their agenda to delay action on climate change.

0 0

Printable Version  |  Link to this page


Comments 1 to 13:

  1. A recent case with Lindzen: L&C, GRL, comments on peer review and peer-reviewed comments A very recent case with Lindzen: Lindzen goes Emeritus
    0 0
  2. I can't wait to see what our resident skeptics have to say on this one.
    0 0
  3. The same column referred to in the Lindzen goes Emeritus link, written by Chip Knappenberger based on information from Lindzen, also showed up at WUWT June 9th - complaining that Lindzen had received special treatment that led to his paper being rejected by PNAS (twice), and before that from GRL. Discussion (ahem) ensued. Lots of "conspiracy" claims, criticisms of L&C rejected based upon Lindzen's "authority" in the subject compared to anonymous posters (basic "argument from authority"), many references to the "warmistas" and the "Team"... about what you might expect. The rejected papers are referenced here, the PNAS reviewers comments are referenced here, where I posted them on an earlier Lindzen & Choi thread. (Note - I did miscalculate the impact factor/citations for E&E in that post, typing too quickly and not checking my reference)
    0 0
  4. Would the disgraceful mixing of the pseudo-scientific and ideology (with the emphasis on the latter) produce a form of denial belief-system called Scientology...if that name hadn't already been taken, off course !
    0 0
  5. So it seems all 4 reviewers rejected L&C (Jan. 19, 2011 message), and 2 of those reviewers were recommended by Lindzen, one which included Will Happer (of all people)? Did anyone visiting the WUWT zoo point that out?
    0 0
  6. NewYorkJ - I believe that Will Happer was outright rejected by the PNAS editors (as was Chou, Lindzen's co-author on the 2001 "iris" paper); Lindzen suspects that one was Minnis; another might have been Ramanathan. The other two apparently came from the editors original suggestion list.
    0 0
  7. Thanks once again John for pointing out the obvious. Deep Climate has extensively analyzed works by Wegman and found substantial problems of plagiarism and what could only be described as academic shortcomings. They also have a in depth discussion on Wegman's use of the atrocious McIntyre and McKitrick paper that was used to try to convince the gullible that Mann's methods generate hockey sticks out of random data. It is truly a work of art in deception. I am yet to hear anything from skeptics about it that would make sense.
    0 0
    Response: [JC] Note - Steve Lewandowsky wrote this article. I'm just reposting it from The Conversation website.
  8. I read the Stoat summary wrong. It certainly seemed highly unlikely that Happer would ever recommend rejection of a Lindzen paper. So Lindzen's argument boils down to the fact that he doesn't appreciate an independent review (that could improve the quality of his paper) or scrutiny of the qualifications of his reviewers. What's more revealing is that while the rejection of Happer was due to his insufficient expertise on the subject matter and Chou's rejection related to his collaboration with Lindzen on Iris (conflict of interest), Lindzen rejected 2 suggested alternate reviewers on the basis of: "Both are outspoken public advocates of alarm, and Wielicki has gone so far as to retract results once they were shown to contradict alarm." How professional - this after claiming the Happer rejection justification was "libelous". One of Lindzen's alternate reviewers (Minnis) was said to be chosen. Lindzen then characterizes the paper being rejected in the end only because it was too long. Yet all 4 reviews noted: Suitable quality: No (x4) Conclusions justified: No (x4)
    0 0
  9. Nice piece overall, but:
    What happens to data if successive annual values are subtracted from each other? This mathematically removes any linear time trend. In other words, temperatures could have doubled every other year and it would have escaped detection by the authors.
    Doubling every other year is not a linear trend.
    0 0
  10. What say you to the oft heard response that Wegman's plagiarism doesn't necessarily detract from the veracity of his analysis?
    0 0
  11. Joshua, it is true that plagiarism does not "necessarily" indicate a lack of veracity in other matters, but it certainly begs the question. In any case, the problems with Wegman's report fell more into the category of 'political spin' than factual inaccuracy. That is... he noted that various authors had worked together on various papers... and then implied that this suggested a dark conspiracy and failure to properly check results. True factual statement, completely bogus implication. The Wegman and NAS reports contained virtually all the same observations... and based on these reached diametrically opposed conclusions.
    0 0
  12. Joshua, you should have a look at DeepClimate's analysis of Wegman's analysis (or should that be McIntyre and McKitrick's analysis ?) here and here.
    0 0
  13. Since Wegman is back in the news, here and here: a) Plagiarism was the simplest problem. b) But only a few pages of the 91-page Wegman Report avoided problems. The science was often wrong and even the statistics was wrong c) And then there was the misrepresentation, where they plagiarized Bradley, but changed conclusions they didn't like.
    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

The Consensus Project Website


(free to republish)

© Copyright 2024 John Cook
Home | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us