Monday, August 19, 2013

There Is No Free Lunch, But How About Two Free Dinners and Your Name on the Heartland Institute's NIPCC Report.

Honorary authorship is a device, often seen in the scientific literature and frowned upon greatly.  It comes in several flavors, amongst them are the money guy gambit (grant PI but did none of the work, OTOH we gotta add his name to keep the funding), the I'm your boss guy (and you are going to add my name to the paper, even though I did not do any of the work), the please your boss guy (if this bunny adds that bunny's name to the paper maybe that bunny will vote for this bunny's tenure) and the how are we going to get anyone to believe this nonsense guy (let's add the name of some Nobel Prize winner to the author's list).

Eli has recently come into possession of an interesting missive from one S. Fred Singer, sent to some sixty worthies in 2009, many of whose names the readers of Rabett Run would recognize, offering what appears to be Honorary Authorships by the five dozen

From:   "S. Fred Singer"
Subject:    NIPCC -- 2nd Edition
Date:   January 25, 2009 8:19:22 PM CST
To: info@sepp.org
Cc:  (Let Eli not go there for now)

Attachments: 2 Attachments, 135.4 KB
Dear Friends

We are readying a 2nd updated and slightly expanded edition of the NIPCC Summary, to be published in March/April 2008

Pls read the attached Preface and consider adding yr name as a contributor/reviewer (We are blurring the disitnction on purpose to provide deniability to some who are concerned about repercussions)

I hope you will accept this invitation and send me BY JANUARY 31 a 2-3-line bio-sketch, along the model shown on page 29 of the NIPCC report Nature Not Human Activity Rules the Climate http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf

Thank you -- and best wishes for 2009!

Fred
 

NIPCC participants are invited to a dinner on March 9 in NY City during the Heartland Conference and to a dinner on April 23 (or 24) during the EGU General Assembly in Vienna. I am to present an invited paper in Session GD10 (see attached abstract)
************************************************************
S. Fred Singer, PhD, President
Science & Environmental Policy Project . .
http :// www.sepp.org
**************
To their credit, all except one on the list did not bite.  The only Email on the list which corresponds to someone all the Rabetts know and admire who is also listed as an author on the 2009  is one Nicholas Scafetta.  Now, of course, this is not ironclad proof,  in the sense, that maybe NS called Fred up and asked to add something or, in the ambiguous words of the Email "blurring the disitnction on purpose to provide deniability" (sic) reviewed the thing, and indeed that someone accepted is not such a huge deal given the general reputation of the NIPCC, but that the honor :) was offered, ah tells you something about Heartland and Fred. Indeed this is not the first time that S. Fred has played the author/reviewer game.

And, of course, Fred did not only offer Honorary Authorship, in a bid to spice up the Heartland Institute's NIPCC Report, but even better than a single free lunch, two free dinners.  And Eli might speculate that the Heartland bought some mighty fine dinners

So the answer to the question above is that Heartland provides dinner, oh yes, and hard cash.  For the NIPCC report SEPP (or in other words S. Fred) got 143K$ for that in case anybunny wonders what the wages of obfustication are. And he and Craig Idso appear to have remained on the payroll into 2012.

Eli awaits anxiously the soon to appear 2013 edition.  He expects an offer in the moment, with a wonderful gift of carrot cake and cookies.

31 comments:

Rattus Norvegicus said...

That has to be one of the funniest things I've seen in ages. I'd like to see the recipient list, though. Please, pretty please?

Anonymous said...

Since Heartland leak clever bunnies should know there's more to gain than two carrots. BTW did Eli try the Gleick trick?

Andreas

Thomas said...

It would be useful to get some kind of evidence for the authenticity of the mail.

John said...

This is just GREAT!

Many thanks to His Royal Rabettness!

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

In my lab, there is also the prima donna authorship--the author you include just so they don't melt down upon finding they weren't included. There is also the "critical skills" author, whose skills may be needed for the next publication, though not the current one.

As to the Heartland dinners, I doubt I'd enjoy anything prepared by Heartland--too oily.

Russell Seitz said...

"Pls read the attached Preface and consider adding yr name as a contributor/reviewer "


While this MO expains many a signature seen on past prefaces to volumes collated by Singer, it is no guarantee that they read the things.

This is especially true in the case of his deader board members.

Russell Seitz said...

"Pls read the attached Preface and consider adding yr name as a contributor/reviewer "


While this MO expains many a signature seen on past prefaces to Singer volumes it is no guarantee they read the things.

Judging by his deader board members, he appears to view consensual silence and the silence of the grave as a continuum.

Russell Seitz said...

Please ask Ethon to carry of the first draft

Lionel A said...

BTW Should that not be 'Nicola' and 'Scafetta' or have I missed something.

Jim Lakely said...

Jim Lakely from The Heartland Institute here. Glad to see you’re all anxiously awaiting the release of Climate Change Reconsidered II. As devastating as Climate Change Reconsidered I and the 2011 Interm Report were, I’m told II is even better. But will your knives be long enough?

Dr. Singer’s email was “leaked” and widely discussed around the time it was written, some four years ago, so this is hardly a bold new discovery. All (or almost all) of the people Dr. Singer emailed had previously been sent some or all of the manuscript for review, so it was appropriate for him to send them this invitation to be identified in the final product. Nobody Dr. Singer contacted would have agreed to be listed without reading the portions of manuscript that fell into their area of scientific specialty, and none did.

By the way, the IPCC's method of listing contributors and reviewers is far worse since NONE of the people they list read (much less approved) the final version of the manuscript bearing their names. As you well know, IPCC reports are political documents, not science. They are revised to fit political agendas after the scientists finish their work. The IPCC just sent out a news release once again acknowledging that this is the case with its latest report. This is just one of the many procedural problems that render IPCC reports so unreliable.

Michael Mann -- who helpfully alerted Heartland to this blog post on Twitter -- should be careful about promoting a commentary criticizing others over how one attracts co-authors and reviewers to scientific work. The Wegman report, commissioned by Congress, places Mann in a rather conspicuous glass house.

John Mashey said...

How good of Lakely to remind folks about the misdeed-suffused Wegman Report, much written by an alcoholism modeling post-doc and grad students, etc, etc, and charged to government research grants. Not only was the science bad, and social network analysis mis-applied, but even the statistics was incompetent at best, but I'd allege, fraudulent from reading Effect of selection in the Wegman Report and http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/">Replication and due diligence, Wegman style.

Explicit "R" code to do a 100:1 cherry-pick is hard to call an honest mistake. Of course, Wegman then never made the code available, despite promises.

Anonymous said...

John Mashey,

Ever since Deep published that excellent exposé of McIntyre's fraudulent statistics behind the Wegman report, I always wonder why none of the ACC deniers will ever acknowledge that it has a serious credibility problem.

But then... if they can't observe and at least personally acknowledge the obvious changes that are happening in the world all around them, I suppose that is a powerful demonstration of just how potent that whole 'blinded by their ideology' gig can be.

Russell Seitz said...

Jim, given Fred's habit of submitting his works to moribund nonagenarians for the favor of review , we are deeply shocked by his failure to add more senior figures to the masthead.

To raise the editorial tone of Fred's DIY peer review , you might drop a line to Edgar Cayce, ring up Mary Baker Eddy. or have Jay Lehr channel his oldnemesis, J. Edgar Hoover.

EliRabett said...

Now some, not Eli to be sure, think that Jim Lakely has reached the Geoffrey Howe level of savagery. Eli is tickled.

Anonymous said...

I love Jim Lakely's response: "All (or almost all) of the people Dr. Singer emailed had previously been sent some or all of the manuscript for review"

The "almost all" is lawyer-speak that none of the people had seen it ... Fred was fishing for co-authors.

Jim: for having to defend people like Fred and the other d-bags at the HI, you win the "worst job in the world" award.

Anonymous said...

Mr Lakely,

There's a nice discussion (in which John Mashey and I participated) that highlights in plain English what is wrong with one of the main "hockey-stick" claims pushed by McIntyre/Wegman -- you can find it at this link: http://wottsupwiththatblog.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/debunking-the-hockey-stick/#comments

There's the 100:1 cherry-pick as described by Mr. Mashey, the "hockey stick" contamination of what was supposed to be "random noise", the bit about failing to compare magnitudes of McIntyre's "random noise" eigenvalues vs. Mann's tree-ring-data eigenvalues.... the basic stuff that good students learn to sort out in Time-Series Analysis/Statistics 101.

You know, you guys really ought to leave the climate-science to folks who don't completely f*&! up everything they touch.

--caerbannog

Anonymous said...

Mr Lakely,

Here's a quick summary of some issues with the McIntyre/Wegman work (namely the "hockey sticks from random noise" bit).

1) McIntyre relied on a 100:1 cherry-pick to get his “random noise” hockey sticks, per John Mashey above. (And yes, I confirmed this by looking that the R-code myself).

2) His random noise was badly contaminated with “hockey-stick” signal statistics (i.e. he didn’t filter the hockey-stick out of the tree-ring data before he used it as a template for his random noise) -- also confirmed by looking at McIntyre's R-code.

3) In spite of (1) and (2) above, McIntyre’s random-noise hockey sticks were *much* smaller than Mann’s genuine tree-ring hockey-stick. No competent analyst would confuse a McIntyre random-noise hockey stick with a genuine Mann tree-ring hockey stick.

Mr Lakely, you "think" tank types (the scare-quotes are there for a reason) really ought to leave the climate-science to folks who don't f*&! up everything they touch.

--caerbannog

Martin Vermeer said...

> As devastating as Climate Change Reconsidered I and the 2011 Interm Report were, I’m told II is even better

I'm all shaking in my boots

Thomas said...

I'm confused that Lakely after complaining that the IPCC report is too political chooses to refer us to the "The Wegman report, commissioned by Congress", as if the political nature in that case is a merit, rather than the apolitical NRC report.

ourchangingclimate said...

In light of the HI's habit of recycling, I expect my rebuttal to the 2009 NIPCC version to still be relevant:
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/the-nipcc-report/

Bart

Anonymous said...

Lakely adds another lie to the story. The Wegman report was not commissioned by congress, but by the Committee on Energy and Commerce, a committee of the House of Representatives, which even this non-American bunny knows not to be the same as Congress (twice over: the House of Representatives is just part of Congress, and the Committee is just a little part of the House of Representatives). Or will Lakely say that the NRC report was *also* commissioned by Congress and showed Mann in a much better light?

Marco

Anonymous said...

The Wegman Report, commissioned by Congress ... "

Bwahahahahaha ...

.... was a tendentious piece of plagiarism.

Toby

EliRabett said...

Let's all hop over to the Heartland Blog where the bunnies can point this out to Jim. Of course, he may not post your comments, but then we can twitter about his not wanting to talk about this.....

http://blog.heartland.org/2013/08/silly-rabett/

Russell Seitz said...

" Anonymous said...
I love Jim Lakely's response: "All (or almost all) of the people Dr. Singer emailed had previously been sent some or all of the manuscript for review"

The "almost all" is lawyer-speak that none of the people had seen it ..."


A vile canard- far from failing to show it to some of his reviewers, S.Fred merely waited until they went legally blind.

Spilgard said...

Reading Mr. Lakely's teaser for the upcoming power-packed scien-mo-tifical hoax-buster, I am reminded of one of the crank publications discussed by Martin Gardner in his book "Fads and Fallacies". The title page of said publication assured the reader that the text was "free of hi-de-hi mathematics" and "bristling with new axioms".

EliRabett said...

"Dr. Singer’s email was “leaked” and widely discussed around the time it was written, some four years ago, so this is hardly a bold new discovery."

Anybunny remember that???

EliRabett said...

Thomas asks:

"It would be useful to get some kind of evidence for the authenticity of the mail."

Jim Lakely provides"
"Dr. Singer’s email was “leaked” and widely discussed around the time it was written, some four years ago, so this is hardly a bold new discovery. "

Eli is a full service blog, we even get the people from Heartland to shoot themselves in the heart.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that when I read anything by Jim Lakely I automatically think of this?


Bernard J.

Russell Seitz said...

Let's all hop over to the Heartland Blog where the bunnies can point this out to Jim. Of course, he may not post your comments, but then we can twitter about his not wanting to talk about this.....

http://blog.heartland.org/2013/08/silly-rabett/

You may twitter when you are ready, Eli:

The lilly-livered Lakely has somewhat unreasonably refused to post my remarks on S.Fred's zombified peer review.


Anonymous said...

I personally love the paragraph where Mr Lakely catalogs the IPCC report as "political". He conveniently forgets to mention which country has screamed the most for "revisions" during the last IPCC report.
Saudi Arabia.
I really wonder why.

Bratisla

Russell Seitz said...

Here's the commeent censored by Lakely :

Lakely writes :
" Nobody Dr. Singer contacted would have agreed to be listed without reading the portions of manuscript that fell into their area of scientific specialty, and none did."

Though at least one erstwhile reviewer of the first edition was legally blind when "shown" the manuscript on his deathbed, there's no doubting that it made a profound impression.


He died the next day.