JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

Australian Environment Conference Oct 20 2012


micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Whistleblower Science Fraud Site is Shut Down

I would like to see what was on the Science Fraud site. The only parts left seem eminently admirable. Apparently in just six months, the site received anonymous tips documenting suspicious results in over 300 papers. Some of those papers were subsequently retracted.

Wherever there are big dollars, big-corruption follows. Whaddayaknow? Sadly, science is just like any other human endeavor. For every site reporting science fraud that is shut down, may ten alternatives spring forth.

Libertyblitzkrieg.com says “We need more sites like this not less.”

Bill Frezza describes what is known about the site’s demise on Forbes.

A Barrage Of Legal Threats Shuts Down Whistleblower Site, Science Fraud

Those of us concerned about the decaying credibility of Big Science were dismayed to learn that the whistleblower site Science Fraud has been shut down due to a barrage of legal threats against its operator. With billions of dollars in federal science funding hinging on the integrity of academic researchers, and billions more in health care dollars riding on the truthfulness of pharmaceutical research claims, the industry needs more websites like this, not fewer.

Regular readers of Retraction Watch, a watchdog site run by two medical reporters, got the news along with a story about the blog’s anonymous editor, who has since come forward and identified himself as Professor Paul Brookes, a researcher at the University of Rochester. Operated as a crowdsourced reference site much like Wikipedia, Science Fraud, in its six months of operation, documented egregiously suspicious research results published in over 300 peer reviewed publications. Many were subsequently retracted, including a paper by an author whose lawyer sent Science Fraud a cease and desist letter.

This is about scientists behaving badly

There are more retractions due to scientific misconduct than to errors:

When I first began looking into the increasingly vexing problem of irreproducible scientific research I assumed that the bulk of the problem was caused by sloppy science. Not so, says a National Academy of Sciences study that attributes two thirds of the retractions in the biomedical and life-sciences to scientific misconduct. And remember, these are only the people that have gotten caught.

At least there are plans to fill the gap…

The change will come not from public policy, but from the conscientious action of brave individuals. If you witness science fraud and you don’t speak out, consider yourself part of the problem. Meanwhile, a proposal is being drafted to establish a non‐profit foundation, the Association for Anonymous Post‐Publication Peer Review (AAPPR), whose purpose will be to continue the mission of Science Fraud under the auspices of an open, properly managed governance structure. Stay tuned as the story develops.

Read the rest on Forbes

Can anyone find a website, or cached copy of the site? Can someone file copies of the pages left up which advise anonymous whistleblowers how to stay anonymous? There is much we might learn from this effort in another high-finance field of science.

h/t David.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.0/10 (85 votes cast)
Whistleblower Science Fraud Site is Shut Down, 9.0 out of 10 based on 85 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/b56a8oj

100 comments to Whistleblower Science Fraud Site is Shut Down

  • #

    Unfortunately, just about everybody has their price. Scientists are no different. When the “scientists” at UEA were told that, due to funding difficulties, they may not always get paid they started pushing the CAGW hypothesis. Soon, the money began to flow. As the governments saw a way to usurp more money and more power from the citizenry they threw their weight behind CAGW, too. The media, always looking for a scary story to raise ratings, dutifully reported anything that the climate scientists said as if it were the word of God.

    With time, the climate scientists were able to corrupt the peer reviewed process and were willing to do anything to keep dissenting papers out of peer reviewed journals even, as the climategate emails show, it meant redefining what the peer review process is!

    Now, because of the billions at stake the climate scientists have the muscle to pretty much do as they please with no true scrutiny. Obviously, when sites like Science Fraud alter the status quo and threaten the taxpayer funded gravy train for various and sundry research programs those with vested interest swing into action to protect the cash flow.

    Although a lot of legitimate research is conducted there is an incredible amount of waste and fraud that is the funding equivalent of an Obama phone.


    Report this

    781

    • #
      Phil Ford

      The media, always looking for a scary story to raise ratings, dutifully reported anything that the climate scientists said as if it were the word of God.

      It’s worse than that. By happy coincidence the CAGW narrative played directly into the Marxist/socialist political leanings of the majority of broadcast organizations (particularly public service broadcasters almost everywhere across the western world) – which in turn meant that many in the media felt a political allegiance to the ’causes’ of the CAGW meme. We see this in everything from ‘common purpose’ trolls like the BBC to the UN/EU sponsored ‘Agenda 21′ (happily insinuating itself into every level of education and public service around the world for the best part of two decades, cheerled by its friends in the left-leaning media).

      Once CAGW – a political project from the very start – gained idealogical traction with a sympathetic media there would be no stopping it. And there still really doesn’t seem to be any stopping…


      Report this

      550

      • #
        Dennis

        It has always been about politics, GW/CC lies built onto facts and wealth seekers jumping onto the gravy train who have no interest in the political agenda.


        Report this

        230

      • #
        connolly

        CAGW as a political project started with Sir Crispin Tickell and Margaret Thatcher. It has been promoted by both conservative and left political groups. CAGW is now promotedd by Goldman Sachs and a large number of multinational corporations. Your analysis is wrong.


        Report this

        14

    • #
      Streetcred

      … and then UEA recruited ‘heavies’ to lie about their ‘independant’ enquiries ;)

      Acton may have a bit of a problem in his near future.


      Report this

      131

      • #
        Bite Back

        Doesn’t it make you wish you were selling whitewash?

        Better yet, don’t you wish you had a patent or 2 on it?

        The only thing missing from the picture is a nice juicy sex scandal. Surely there must be one somewhere to make this obscene mess complete.

        BB


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Ace

      I am afraid it is not anything limited to “climate science” and there is nothing whatever new about it. Every field in science is stuffed to the fecking rafters with two-timing bent bar-stewards who will lie through their teeth as it suits them. Just like most other walks of life really. And its always been that way.

      What has changed is that being a “scientist” is losing that aura of super-human unimpeachability that it once unaccountably had attained. It began to slip with the celebrated case of Sir Cyril Burt. Whole Education policies were built on his “research” which it laater turned out…Imean DECADES later…he pretty much sat at a desk and invented. He even invented co-workers who didn’t exist. Just basically your lying, scheming scum-bag who gets a knighthood out of it and does untold damage to untold numbers of lives.

      This blew up when I was studying psychology in the Seventies. About the sametime there emerged the Maragaret Mead affair. Meads pottering around in Samoa (her”work”) became immensely succesful and a colossal influence on the cultural relativism that lead to todays Political Correctness ideology. But it emerged that her “data” was a complete pack of lies she’d been spun by the locals. Whilst it might be concluded she was lessa fraud than an idiot, the factis that shewas easily, willfully lead to the conclusions her University and professor sent her there to come back with.

      Beteen these cases and smaller ones there began to develop a wider interest in investigating “research” in a forensic manner. Ive forgotten most of bwhat I knew about this but there was, for one example, a US govt sponsored investigation that found that a staggering proportion of “research” using a particular statistical method had fraudulently applied themathematics to obtain misleading results. Wearent talking 10 or 15 %, this was in this case more like 60%.

      Fraud in science is pretty much acknowledged now as endemic. Part of the problem is the very concept of “peer-reviewed” . Basically the bent policing the bent.Or indeed rejecting that which doesn’t suit their material or ideological requirements.

      Now, of course, we have had quite a few cases of criminal fraud laid at the foot of “scientists”. But in “social science” on theother hand, the Post Modern concept of “research” is putting your opinion down and publishing it. So its swings and roundabouts.


      Report this

      170

      • #
        mareeS

        The same argument can be applied to what passes for journalism at present. Children fresh out of media studies courses are making up history (or herstory, more often), now that most of the old hands have taken redundancy and gone fishing or travelling.

        Traditional media are like kindergarten with the kids in control, and about as productive.


        Report this

        150

      • #
        Mindert Eiting

        The problem has grown in the course of time and may have to do with what Ioannides called a null field. It is an area of research where nothing can be found. There is no progress, no interesting theory, just blind data collection. The data is run by statistical packages and if you get an asterisk to a five percent significant result, you perhaps get access to a Journal. In that environment your ethical standards soon erode. A good example is the Dutch Professor, Stapel, who admitted that he invented his data for many years. What is the difference with fishing a few subjects from the internet, ask them some silly questions, and doing a factor analysis of the results? In the mean time Dutch scientists use a new word for junk research and call it a ‘Stapel’ (or ‘Stapeltje’). Can be used as an alternative as it does not yet alarm the legal apparatus.

        See http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124


        Report this

        40

    • #
      Craig Thomas

      Science Fraud went down because of the amateur way it was run.

      The retractions is caused had nothing to do with climate science, or physics.

      http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/irony-paper-by-author-whose-attorneys-sent-cease-and-desist-letter-to-science-fraud-retracted/

      http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/

      Trying to conflate this story with your obsessive conspiracy-mongering over climate science is pretty pathetic.


      Report this

      145

      • #
        Otter

        A new Zero speaks!


        Report this

        120

      • #
        Ross

        Craig

        This thread by Jo is about science in general , not specifically climate science. Also where does the conspiracy theory bit come from ? Jo has read an article in Forbes , found it interesting and asked readers if the know anything more or have links to further information.
        It is you who is conflating the issue raised in the thread.


        Report this

        290

      • #
        Ace

        Appears to be someone speaking from beyond the grave.


        Report this

        100

        • #
          Ace

          I think he is referring specifically to our friend Eddy Aruda, but it aint too bright of the interred sprite not to be more explicit exactly what he means. Or on the other hand to lack the comprehension skills to distinguish between Jo Nova and Eddy Aruda. As reflected in that lovely gem of a sentence: “…the retractions is caused had nothing to do…”

          Still, its nice to know theres internet in the grave.


          Report this

          130

      • #
        Sonny

        A new alarmist! Yippee max excitement!
        Welcome to the Jo Nova forum.

        Can I start by asking you what part


        Report this

        41

      • #
        Sonny

        A new alarmist! Yippee max excitement!
        Welcome to the Jo Nova forum.

        Can I start by asking you what part of climate change scares you the most?

        Is it the hellish temperatures? The ocean rising up to swallow small islands and coastal cities? The cyclones and tornados? Or is it the loss


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Sonny

        A new alarmist! Yippee max excitement!
        Welcome to the Jo Nova forum.

        Can I start by asking you what part of climate change scares you the most?

        Is it the hellish temperatures? The ocean rising up to swallow small islands and coastal cities? The cyclones and tornados? Or is it the loss Of biodiversity? The bleaching of the coral? The melting of the arctic? The drowning of the polar bears?

        What scares you the most?


        Report this

        40

      • #
        Bite Back

        About Craig Thomas’ comment: Am I the only one who’s first reaction to the statement now on the Science Fraud site was like this — not very professional and an open invitation to trouble?

        It’s easy to make accusations. I get dozens of email messages every month making accusations and claims that simply are not true. They all demand that I pass them on. They try to shame me into passing them on. We can’t succeed doing business that way.

        I applaud the intent. But without being able to see what was there I can’t quite come down hard on Craig Thomas.

        We know about more than enough fraud and dishonesty to keep us busy for a long time. That a site like Science Fraud is necessary isn’t in question. But maybe we should take a look at how they went about it? I’m not surprised at legal trouble when apparently all you’re doing is putting every claim of dishonesty up for the world to see without investigating it first.

        BB


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Ace

          Bite Back…we’re not criticising The Late Mr Craigs criticism of the topical site, we are scornful of his snooty,pompous Freudian projection tacked on the end. I mean,just which side in the AGW debateis it that has the real armies of conspiracy theorists? According to them, everyone who disagrees with them is in the pay of Big Oil, and George Bush personally signs the cheques.


          Report this

          30

    • #
      Bite Back

      Our question is still, what are we going to do about it?

      Anyone?


      Report this

      00

    • #
      crosspatch

      When the “scientists” at UEA were told that, due to funding difficulties, they may not always get paid they started pushing the CAGW hypothesis. Soon, the money began to flow.

      Sadly this seems to be so. Looks like CRU inputs the desired AGW fear to the IPCC who then sends their results to the UNFCCC who produce “recommendations” for governments which get picked up by Defra who in turn consults with Tyndall Centre at great expense to the public purse to implement those recommendations. So the input from CRU pays off in the consulting fees to Tyndall Centre which is a part of the UEA.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Otter

    Can already hear brooksie, mattie, maxie cheering…

    I’d be Very interested to see if any of the retracted / corrupted papers, had to do with climate change.


    Report this

    200

  • #

    I was an innocent 50 year old when I gave up physics teaching to get involved in University research. Most of my new colleagues behaved very professionally, but a tiny minority fell pray to the temptations of research fraud.

    What really shocked me was that in order to protect the good name of the University, research fraud was buried instead of being punished. When I tried to expose it, I was the one that was ostracized.

    In the absence of a whistleblower site in my line of research (pedestrian protection in motor vehicle accidents) I have exposed the fraud on my own web site.
    Here is a link to the fraud exposure page: http://www.cheshire-innovation.com/sali/pedsali.htm


    Report this

    320

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      When the messenger brings bad news, shoot the messenger.

      It’s the age old reaction of emperors, tyrants, politicians and bureaucrats. Usually only bureaucrats survive the inevitable consequences, mostly by the “bird swarm” technique which makes it hard to focus on the target. That’s why there is never a single bureaucrat making a decision.


      Report this

      60

  • #

    The central flaw in the whole peer review process is that it assumes a basic honesty on the part of the paper’s author and then proceeds from there. That is a very human failing that badly needs to be addressed, especially in climate science.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/is-climate-science-just-a-belief/

    Pointman


    Report this

    330

  • #
    Jim Barker

    While I don’t know how to use the website, I thought there was a place called the Wayback Machine, that stored many old website screen captures. Anyone else familiar with it?


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Aus Autarch

    There’s only one snapshot on the wayback machine. The tag cloud doesn’t have anything on climate. Still looks like it’s worth a look.

    It seems certain people have forgotten that the internet is forever…


    Report this

    110

    • #

      There are 3 snapshots, 2 are the same, the other adds “Please Dr. Fiorucci, Don’t F*** With My Commenting System!” at http://web.archive.org/web/20121017214114/http://www.science-fraud.org/
      at http://www.science-fraud.org/?page_id=6 advice on anonymous submission:

      “How to Submit?
      I have no interest whatsoever in knowing who you are, and it’s probably best if the authorities don’t know either. Thus, it is advisable to register a new gmail account and use it for all communications regarding research fraud. Choose a sensible user name (i.e., not one including your initials) and be sure to use a strong password. Please try to limit PDFs to less than 5MB when sending here. PLEASE indicate in your email how you would like the tip attibuted. i.e., do you want to be named? If you do not say, I will just use whatever name is on the email.”


      Report this

      10

  • #
  • #
    Brad R

    The Wayback Machine: go to http://www.archive.org . You’ll see a box, top center, labeled “Wayback Machine”. Type a URL into the provided entry box, and click “Take Me Back.” You’ll get a list of all the dates for which an archive is available.

    For science-fraud.org, there seems to be just one, October 17th, 2012. See
    http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.science-fraud.org If you click on the 17th, you’ll get the archive page; click on links within that page to get to other archived pages. Good luck…and act fast.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Backslider

    There is a little on the Wayback Machine:


    Report this

    42

  • #
    Backslider

    Oops… screwed up the link: Wayback Machine


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Sean

    While the site has been shut down, don’t be surprised to see it pop up somewhere else, out of reach of legal systems. However, as useful at it may be, the real test of the quality of research and development is the utility of results, weather it be as part of new processes, materials, methods, therapies or whatever, or the basis of more work by others. Sloppy doesn’t hold up nor does fraud. The only way you get away with this for any period of time is if you produce results that cannot be tested (i.e. 100 year weather forecasts) or no one cares to test. In either case, pressure will be applied to the untestable results to do something that can be tested and interest (and funding) will wane in areas that no one cares to test. Good R&D begs to be be tested and if its important, it will be.


    Report this

    131

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The only way you get away with this for any period of time is if you produce results that cannot be tested (i.e. 100 year weather forecasts) or no one cares to test.

      Or you refuse to release your research notes, and models, and data, and rationale for any data adjustments that have been made, and results of “failed experiments or modeling runs,” and ….

      Back in the day, we used to release all of this stuff. And you know, occasionally somebody else would pick up on one of our “failures” and spot something that we had missed. When that happened, it was called, “Inventing Penicillin”, and very few people got precious over it.


      Report this

      270

  • #
    Owen Morgan

    I was trying to work out how to comment on this trend, without getting some twerp, desperate to justify the silencing of http://www.science-fraud.org, waving his/her hands and screaming “Godwin! Godwin!”

    This shutting down of http://www.science-fraud.org is Lysenkoism. Joanne Nova has exposed this method of obscurantism probably dozens of times, but it never goes away. The current victims aren’t actually shot in the back of the head, as Lysenko’s victims were, but they are intimidated into silence, when they, in reality, are the truth-tellers.


    Report this

    230

  • #
    Bulldust

    Seems like the site will be up again in due course under a less inflammatory name:

    retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/owner-of-science-fraud-site-suspended-for-legal-threats-identifies-himself-talks-about-next-steps/


    Report this

    80

  • #
    pat

    not surprised. meanwhile, looking to china to save the CAGW CO2 trading scam -

    19 Jan: Bloomberg: Carbon Traders Stung by Rout Try Again in China: Energy Markets
    by Mike Anderson & Pratish Narayanan
    Carbon traders are backing China to revive a global emissions market that lost 34 billion euros ($45 billion) last year as it shrank for the first time in history.
    Investors from Climate Change Capital in London to Climate Bridge Ltd. in Melbourne said this month they are seeking involvement in what may become the world’s largest emissions market…
    Falling European Union and United Nations prices shrank the value of carbon emissions traded around the world by 36 percent to 61 billion euros last year, Bloomberg New Energy Finance said Jan. 3…
    “Bad air quality will be putting a lot of pressure on the government to protect the environment,” said Qian Guoqiang, a former Chinese climate negotiator and now strategy director at SinoCarbon Innovation & Investment Co., a carbon consultant in Beijing. “China is very willing but not fully prepared to make carbon trading work because it is such a complex system.”…
    Most of China’s pilot programs will tap foreign trading expertise by relaxing rules that would ban their participation, said Qian, whose company counts Alstom SA (ALO), the French power- equipment maker, among its clients…
    Developers have produced more than 1 billion more offsets than emitters will need before 2020, according to Sjardin, driving prices to record lows. Certified Emission Reductions, or CERs, in the UN’s CDM program, created by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, have dropped 92 percent from a year ago, trading today at an all-time low of 31 euro cents on the ICE Futures Europe exchange in London…
    The glut of UN credits has grown as fresh sources of demand failed to materialize. While Australia joined New Zealand and the EU last year among offset buyers, new markets in South Korea and California ruled out UN credits at least through 2020. Russia, Japan and Canada dropped out of the agreement at last year’s climate summit in Doha to extend their commitments to the Kyoto Protocol.
    A surplus of emission permits has also driven EU prices to a record low of 5.05 euros a ton on London’s ICE Futures Europe exchange…
    ‘Effectively Dead’…
    “The CDM as a source of new emission-reduction projects in the developing world has effectively been dead for 12 months now, with the very low CER price making it almost impossible to justify developing a new CDM project,” said Alex Wyatt, chief executive officer for Climate Bridge, which started seven years ago in Shanghai. “China is by far the most interesting market in the world.”…
    China limits outside involvement in most of its securities and commodity markets, fueling speculation that the National Development and Reform Commission, or NDRC, will restrict foreign participation in carbon trading…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-18/carbon-traders-stung-by-rout-try-again-in-china-energy-markets.html


    Report this

    60

  • #
    pat

    18 Jan: Guardian: Gas market whistleblower sacked after accusing firms of price fixingICIS Heren dismisses Seth Freedman, whose concerns over market movements triggered FSA and Ofgem investigations
    by Terry Macalister and Rupert Neate
    Freedman’s concerns about unusual movements in the wholesale gas trade triggered investigations – which are ongoing – by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), and the energy regulator, Ofgem.
    Freedman said his sacking was “classic victimisation and intimidation of a whistleblower”…
    ICIS said it was forced to remove Freedman because he had lost the trust of price reporting agencies (PRAs) and his colleagues. The company said it had offered Freedman three alternative posts within the wider Reed Business Information publishing house, but he declined all the offers and was fired on 28 December.
    “Seth Freedman is no longer employed at ICIS. Reed Business Information offered him three other roles on the same terms and conditions within the company, including one at the New Scientist, but he declined them all,” a company spokesman said.
    Freedman said the other jobs had “no relevance to my experience or skills”. He said his “victimisation” may make other ICIS staff too scared to speak up if they spot wrongdoing at the company, which is part of publishing giant Reed Elsevier…
    Freedman’s lawyer, Shah Qureshi of Bindmans, said it “beggars belief” that ICIS had dismissed “the very person who raised issues of alleged wrongdoing”.
    “In his role as a gas price market analyst and guideline price setter he discovered market irregularities and evidence of market manipulation,” he said. “He brought those concerns to his employer’s attention and when he felt nothing was being done he raised these issues of public importance with the regulators; the FSA and Ofgem.”…
    Freedman joined ICIS as a UK wholesale gas price reporter in January 2012 but raised the alarm about wild gyrations in the unregulated and over-the-counter (OTC) gas market, particularly on 28 September.
    He took his concerns about these day-ahead trades to ICIS, who later reported them to Ofgem but, fearing inaction on the issue, he later himself went directly to the FSA in the middle of November.
    “Traders have made clear to me that manipulation of gas prices is taking place on a regular basis. They name big companies among those they accuse of trying to rig prices and reap profits. Market participants claim the fixing of prices is an open secret,” he said at the time.
    But Freedman was also critical of PRAs, saying key benchmark indices they produced in massive UK supply contracts were unreliable, undermined by poorly trained staff and cosy relationships between traders and price reporters…
    Citigroup, the only company to confirm it traded at the low price levels that aroused the suspicion of Freedman, has said it was acting in good faith on behalf of an unnamed energy client.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jan/18/gas-market-whistleblower-sacked


    Report this

    80

  • #
    pat

    re whistleblower Freedman from Reed’s ICIS:

    23 Feb 2012: AustralianClimateMadness: New Scientist wants indoctrination, not balance, in climate education
    comment by Baldrick:
    …Elsevier proudly boasts on it’s website:
    “We are also proud to announce that many Elsevier Editors and Editorial Board members have served significant roles as authors and reviewers for the 2007 and three previous IPCC reports conducted since 1990. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, is an Editorial Board Member of (our) Energy Policy and an Associate Editor for the Encylopedia of Energy.”
    So if you think your reading some independent ‘scientific’ journal, remember it has deep links to the IPCC, the purveyor of all things alarmist!…
    http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/02/new-scientist-wants-indoctrination-not-balance-in-climate-education/

    Elsevier have removed the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize page linked above:

    Sorry, the page you are looking for cannot be found
    http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/intro.cws_home/2007_Nobel_Peace

    2005: Lancet: Reed Elsevier and the international arms trade
    Since 2003, The Lancet’s owner and publisher, Reed Elsevier, has organised some of the world’s largest arms fairs through its exhibition wing, Reed Exhibitions…
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67306-0/fulltext


    Report this

    50

  • #
    pat

    whistleblower freedman was surely naive about the big players in the CAGW/energy scams:

    17 Aug 2012: Reed Elsevier names Duncan Palmer as new CFO
    Palmer previously worked at Royal Dutch Shell in the UK, the Netherlands and the US
    http://www.cfoworld.co.uk/news/people-management/3376543/reed-elsevier-names-duncan-palmer-as-new-cfo/

    ReedElsevier: Paul Morton to join Reed Elsevier as Head of Group Tax
    He joins Reed Elsevier from Royal Dutch/Shell where he was Head of Tax for the Oil Products division, one of its four major trading businesses. Morton has held a number of senior tax appointments at Royal Dutch/Shell in The Hague and in London since he joined from KPMG in 1989 and brings with him a wealth of international tax experience…
    http://www.reedelsevier.com/mediacentre/pressreleases/2005/Pages/AppointmentofPaulMorton.aspx

    Zoominfo: Herman van Campenhout, CEO Herman van Campenhout (1960) gained executive experience during 17 years with Royal Dutch Shell and from 2001 with Reed Elsevier.
    http://www.zoominfo.com/#!search/profile/person?personId=238959460&targetid=profile


    Report this

    50

    • #
      michael hart

      Pat, I find your posts hard to read, to the point of suspecting that you are not a real person. Apologies if you are a real person, but could I ask you to try and make them a bit shorter and less “mechanical”? (It’s something I have also been accused of.)


      Report this

      30

  • #
    cohenite

    There is nothing more sobering then getting a lawyer’s letter.

    But the solution is obvious; get your own lawyer.

    Most defamation threats are done by flat-track bullies who do not want exposure, which is what litigation will bring.

    Professor Brookes should have had the courage of his convictions: if he was sure he had the goods on these guys he should have arranged for a “see you in court” reply.


    Report this

    112

    • #
      Kevin Moore

      Cohenite,

      It’s not that simple.

      Rod Stuart @40 Weekend thread posted this –

      “Politicians are put there to give you that idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, and they’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, and the City Halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear. They’ve got you by the balls…….


      Report this

      100

      • #
        cohenite

        Kevin; I’m not that cynical, yet; what goes around comes around as Eddie Obeid and his chums are currently finding out.

        And I have expectations that we may get our first PM removed from office due to criminal charges.

        So I do think you should fight back in a considered way; anyway Brookes only had a few prima donna scientists against him; we’ve seen how they go to water with Mann and his ilk pulling up stumps everytime there’s some resistance.

        I tend to think that zero tolerance should be followed; if an AGW fanatic like Williams defames you, sue him; if there is a paper published which is so egregious it undermines science itself, such as Lewandowsky’s ‘survey’ then you go gang-busters.


        Report this

        283

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          Cynicism reigns supreme at this site –

          http://kangaroocourtofaustralia.com/

          Justice Rares hands down judgement countersigned by AG Nicola Roxon in the Peter Slipper James Ashby matterby Shane Dowling on December 13, 2012 in Attorney General Nicola Roxon, Justice Steven Rares, Peter Slipper

          Justice Steven Rares has handed down a summary judgement accusing James Ashby of abuse of process, his application being politically motivated and using the proceedings to defame Federal MP Peter Slipper. This is hypocritical of Justice Rares to the extreme. Rares judgement is clearly politically motivated and he abuses his position as a judge to defame numerous people [...]


          Report this

          80

    • #
      Tel

      Point is that if an institution pulling in ten million a year in research grants decides to spend 5% of that on lawyers to block dissent, then most individuals just can’t afford to go up against that.


      Report this

      160

      • #
        Kevin Moore

        The objective of a lawyer is to make money for his commercial company and particularly for himself,therefore it can generally be accepted that the side with the most money wins. That’s justice!


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Kevin Moore

          I am not a lawyer, but here are some Maxims of Law that might come in handy for someone -

          Truth is expressed by means of an affidavit (Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12).

          An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth in Commerce (1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15. Legal maxim: He who does not deny, admits.).

          An unrebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in Commerce (Heb. 6:16-17. Any proceeding in a court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or duel, of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.).

          A matter must be expressed to be resolved (Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:6; Eph. 6:19-21. Legal maxim: He who fails to assert his rights has none.)

          He who leaves the field of battle first loses by default (Book of Job; Matt. 10:22. Legal maxim:He who does not repel a wrong when he can, occasions it.

          Something which is presented as the Truth but is not the whole Truth is a deception. [Only God knows the whole truth. Don't commit perjury]

          There can be no crime without criminal intent.


          Report this

          11

          • #
            LevelGaze

            “… no crime without criminal intent”??
            I’m sure last night’s drunk driver didn’t INTEND to kill that mother and her child.
            So, no cime there??


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Bite Back

            LevelGaze,

            Negligence is a crime in such a case, even absent any intent to harm anyone, even absent any intent to be negligent. And Kevin certainly knows that quite well but he’s fond of pulling your chain to see what rattles.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            CHAPTER 5: THE CRIMINAL INTENT
            It is a maxim of the common law that there can be no crime without a criminal intent. And it is a perfectly clear principle, although one which judges have in a great measure overthrown in practice, that jurors are to judge of the moral intent of the accused person and hold him guiltless, whatever his act, unless they find him to have acted with a criminal intent; that is, with a design to do what he knew to be criminal.

            This principle is clear, because the question for a jury to determine is whether the accused be guilty or not guilty. Guilt is a personal quality of the actor, not necessarily involved in the act, but depending also upon the intent or motive with which the act was done. Consequently the jury must find that he acted from a criminal motive before they can declare him guilty.

            There is no moral justice in, nor any political necessity for, punishing a man for any act whatever that he may have committed, if he have done it without any criminal intent. There can be no moral justice in punishing for such an act, because, there having been no criminal motive, there can have been no other motive which justice can take cognizance of as demanding or justifying punishment. There can be no political necessity for punishing, to warn against similar acts in future, because, if one man have injured another, however unintentionally, he is liable, and justly liable, to a civil suit for damages; and in this suit he will be compelled to make compensation for the injury, notwithstanding his innocence of any intention to injure. He must bear the consequences of his own act, instead of throwing them upon another. And the damages he will have to pay will be a sufficient warning to him not to do the like act again……
            http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/Spooner/fpichap5.html


            Report this

            01

          • #
            LevelGaze

            Kevin,
            You can quote rubbish ad infinitum. Doesn’t make it not rubbish.
            I could recite almost endless examples of selfish, feckless and downright stupid acts done without malice but which led to (predictably) disastrous consequences to other people. The perpetrators should receive no further punishment than answer to their own conscience?
            If you believe that, you’re truly a very dangerous man.


            Report this

            00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            There can be no political necessity for punishing, to warn against similar acts in future, because, if one man have injured another, however unintentionally, he is liable, and justly liable, to a civil suit for damages; and in this suit he will be compelled to make compensation for the injury, notwithstanding his innocence of any intention to injure.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          LevelGaze

          Well Kevin,
          If all you are going to do is endlessly and moronically repeat a 100 year old anarchist tract, I suppose I might as well give up.
          Pity, I never imagined you to be a shallow sophist. If you are attempting humour, I’m afraid I just don’t get it.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Kevin Moore

            While you’re straightening out your feathers, here’s something else to think about —

            A legal definition of a Statute, is “A company rule created to regulate a society carrying the force of law by the consent of the governed”… “by the consent of the governed”? This is correct, because it is the governed who elect the Government – to create the Statute.

            Statute law is Admiralty law, Maritime law, Civil law, Commerce law, Fleet law … you can call it whatever you wish. It treats an individual as a corporation, or a ‘unit’ such as a ship – not the sovereign natural man of Common law.


            Report this

            00

  • #
    steve mcdonald

    The wet has arrived in the north. Is it a late arrival? Was it late in 93/94 and in 73/74?
    Does a late arrival allow above average temps in the centre of the continent to develop?
    If a northley blows will that push temps up in the south?
    When Adelaide and Melbourne have 35 degree temps with a southerly blowing the mmgw people have my attention.


    Report this

    120

  • #
    pat

    EEX cancels German CO2 permit auction on lack of demand
    LONDON, Jan 18 (Reuters) – German energy bourse EEX was forced to cancel an auction of 4.02 million spot EU carbon permits from the 2013-2020 trading phase on behalf of Germany on Friday after the reference price was not reached, underscoring weak demand that has slashed carbon prices.
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.2143822

    EU carbon plummets 10 pct on German sale cancellation
    LONDON, Jan 18 (Reuters Point Carbon) – European carbon prices plunged by as much as 10 percent on Friday after energy bourse EEX cancelled a German auction for 4 million EU Allowances, citing a lack of demand…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2144827?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    80

  • #
    pat

    Netherlands suspends U.N. emission project approvals
    LONDON, Jan 18 (Reuters Point Carbon) – The Netherlands will not approve CO2-cutting projects submitted by Dutch firms seeking U.N. carbon credits until new rules under the Kyoto Protocol become clearer, the country’s emissions registry said on Friday, dealing a further blow to investors…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2144128?&ref=searchlist

    ArcelorMittal, Belgium’s Wallonia go to court over CO2 permits
    LONDON, Jan 18 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Steel giant ArcelorMittal and Belgium’s Walloon government are locked in a bitter legal battle over 8 million euros worth of EU carbon permits, a government spokesman told Reuters Point Carbon this week…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2144138?&ref=searchlist


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Streetcred

    Excellent article … supplement it with: Great Moments in Failed Predictions.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Tim

    Anyone wanting to preserve their site for posterity could possibly look at http://www.reedarchives.com/


    Report this

    40

  • #
    steve mcdonald

    If my previous article is correct it makes Tim Flannery
    ‘s piece in The Australian self serving but, crucially irrelivant.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Paul-82

    Various tags have been given to changes in time of the ‘world’ view of various crafts, such as ‘Modern Art’ to ‘Post-modern Art.’ When strict honesty and integrity have been thrown away for the sake of the fame of a “spectacular” discovery in science, an appropriate label which could be applied is: “Post-moral Science.”
    There are several unexplained or questionable aspects of climate science, but the admitted exaggeration of the effect of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a start.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    wayne, s. Job

    Tallbloke, is putting together a conference bringing together the leading lights of a real theory of the way our climate varies over all time scales. Worth keeping an eye on.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    It is generally agreed that there has been no significant global tempoerature change in 16 years. It has been documented that many dendroclimatic papers have encountered divergence in the past 30 years. (“Hide the decline”).
    There is a strong case to request the recalibration and re-forecast of virtually all climate temperature proxy papers published 1950-2005 or so.
    Time has moved on. In the world of climate proxies, wrong assumptions about temperature trends made for calibration some years ago can now be replaced with actual measurements. In some cases, resampling of old areas and a repeat of the whole experiment has become possible, for example, recoring of trees last cored 30 years ago.

    Failure to recalculate and/or replicate and to issue a corregendium when an author and the scientific community becomes aware of the need is by itself about the greatest “fraud” I can envisage in climate science.


    Report this

    150

    • #
      JCR

      Geoff – not disputing you, but could you list a couple of papers referring to the 16 years pause. I was discussing this with a cousin who is a definite warmist (although, unlike many lefties, a genuinely nice, considerate guy). When I gave him the 16 years bit, his repsonse was, “I reall find that hard to believe.” That’s about as close as he’s ever likely to get to calling me a liar to my face :-) Anyway, I’d like to be able to point to the “source/s of truth” for the claim, rather than saying “I read it on a blog”, which understandably doesn’t get much traction.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Richard

    Early in my career, I was asked by a contractor to commit fraud.

    “What will it take for the test to pass?” He asked.
    “90 percent.” My standard reply.
    Then, as he thumbed a fat money clip in his hand, he said, “No, what will you take for the test to pass?”
    “Oh,” I replied. “Oh, I understand. Well, let’s see. Since I could easily be caught, and when caught, would never work again, I think 3 mil ought to do it.”
    With a disgusted look, he turned and walked away as I recorded yet another failed test.

    I said it as a joke, knowing he wouldn’t take me up on it. But what if he had? Would I have taken $3 million to commit minuscule fraud on one tiny test? I’d like to think not; I’d like to think I’d be above bribery. But, having never been offered that kind of money, I really don’t know for sure.

    Then I look at these people who are staring at millions to billions of dollars worth of grants and bribes, and it is clear to me that many will tell the money sources exactly what they want to hear. That’s where one would think government should step in to assure honesty. But, when government is the primary money source…


    Report this

    130

  • #
    junkpsychology

    There is definitely a need for more sites like the recently closed Science Fraud.

    Just not with the word “fraud” in their names.

    There are not many ways to lose a libel. slander, or defamation suit under current American law. But accusing someone of a committing a crime and failing to substantiate your accusation will do it. Hence the inadvisability of treating every questionable or poorly done study as a product of fraud.

    Unfortunately, libel, slander, or defamation suits that the plaintiff has absolutely no chance of winning at trial can be brought in US courts—and frequently are. All it takes is the resources, and the willingness to pay the lawyers… So sites that employ certain words with care will still need a legal defense fund.


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Dennis

      Beware of and protest against the changes the Australian government is preparing to target freedom of speech (noting that we already have laws to cover defamation) by making changes to the Act that journalist Andew Bolt was unfairly dealt with for referring to people as white. The PC brigade would have a field day silencing their political enemies and critics.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    bananabender

    Modern science is basically a pyramid scheme. The people at the bottom (graduate students) literally work for nothing and the people at the top get large salaries and generous perks. This creates a toxic environment where junior researchers are temepted to cheat so they can move up the pyramid. The people already at the top of the pyramid will tend to overlook fraud because they know there is almost no chance of exposure.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Ian H

    Science is both a set of ideals for how we should seek knowledge, and a set of imperfect and sometimes corrupt human institutions that service, sometimes only with the lip, those ideals.

    While the flawed human institutions of science can be corrupt, science the ideal remains unblemished. I have seen many failures of the institution of science to live up to its claimed ideals, but I have yet to see a case where the scientific method itself and the ideals of rationalism and objectivism have failed to bear fruit.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    janama

    we have way too many PhD students – every Tom, Dick and Harry goes to some kind of university these days – you need an undergraduate degree to flip hamburgers or drive buses because the Universities have dumbed down their courses every year so they can fill quotas and retain funding. Broach the subject with Uni lecturers and they just shake their heads, they are aware of it but can’t do anything as the bean counters now run the universities.

    It needs a serious complete overhaul IMO.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    janama

    May I add – so now we have peer reviewed science papers like the latest Richard Muller offering where there is a spelling mistake in figure 2!


    Report this

    30

  • #
    EcoGuy

    Just heard the radio an interview with Richard hill, author of whackademia. The book covers his research into why academia is turning out such bad graduates. It boils down to two core problems: cash for degrees/grants mindset and bureaucracy.. Basically the academics find it very hard to do any research as they are measured on indirect metrics and monetary contribution… When this is combined with a very pc approach to allowing endless appeals, peer review, etc – it’s no wonder we are churning out duffs.

    When given our PM wants 40% of people to have a degree, there is not a cat in hells chance the quality of what a degree is will ever improve…

    I also have a theory that why so much fraud is getting swept under the carpet is the very education system itself allows such behaviour. Previously such ‘naughtyness’ would have resulted in being booted off the course. Now the academics running these courses are run so ragged they stand little chance of discovering it yet along being able to do anything about it (remember the money angle…). So what was previously sifted out well before getting into the research side, is getting through and with the combined work pressures (see above) fraud seems the easy way out to keep your head above water…. Note: I do not support what they are doing at all, but the environment they operate in is a very strong factor.


    Report this

    20

    • #
      John Brookes

      I’m not sure you can make the blanket statement that academia is turning out bad graduates. Its still turning out a lot of very good graduates, as it always has.

      But having a much wider range of university degrees and accepting students of a much lower standard will reduce the average standard of graduates.

      Of course, if you want to know the quality of a degree, you have to look at its reputation.

      One other thing to keep in mind is that a straight degree now has the standing that the Leaving Certificate had 40 years ago. You’ll need a PhD or Masters to impress an employer.


      Report this

      45

      • #
        Sonny

        Actually John depending on the industry you’re in a phd or masters is actually a disadvantage.

        Engineering is a prime example.

        Employers understand that the longer a graduate spends in the day care centre that is university,
        The less fit they are to graduate into the real world.

        Infact becoming over qualified (accruing more government debt for education that is available for free online, while your peers earn m shows that a candidate is actually quite stupid.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          Len

          Would a graduate with a bachelor degree in Engineerig accumulate more knowledge and experience through actual work than a person endeavouring to gain knowledge through doing a Masters or Ph D degree? Is this general to all the hard science industries?


          Report this

          10

          • #
            michael hart

            “Would a graduate with a bachelor degree in Engineering accumulate more knowledge and experience through actual work than a person endeavouring to gain knowledge through doing a Masters or Ph D degree? Is this general to all the hard science industries?”

            -I can’t speak for for all hard science industries, Len, but in synthetic chemistry I can assert that that is definitely (sometimes) the case.

            Previous employers who I still greatly respect also told me the same when they employed me. Laboratory teaching courses are, and always have been, more expensive than pencil-and-paper courses. Synthetic chemistry is a great leveller, and a way of teaching students the scientific-humility that arises from multiple failures: If you can do, say, an experiment per day then you become accustomed to experiments not “working”. I’ve taught in undergraduate chem-labs where able, hard-working, students found it very difficult to accept that they got no product as a result of their own actions and yet insist “I did what it said” (i.e. “It’s not my fault”.)

            If, say, Phil Jones at UEA indicates he has effectively spent decades on one grand experiment, then I must ask how likely is it that he will put his hand up and say “Yeah, I didn’t do that as well as I might have done” when Steve McIntyre criticises his results. Results that may be based on data and methodology that was only released grudgingly, if at all?


            Report this

            20

        • #
          gbees

          I have 3 degrees – all were done part-time whilst working full time. they were not a hindrance to my employment. on the contrary in one case I was up against a similarly experienced applicant but with less qualifications. i got the job. multiple degrees doesn’t mean being baby say at university.


          Report this

          00

      • #

        John, I never said it would turn out 100% bad graduates – rather the focus on money for degrees, bureaucracy and the lowering of entry requirements would tend to result in more bad graduates.

        Also in this environment, looking at the reputation of a degree is a darn hard thing to pull off, as what makes up the degree varies at different times.. I have experienced this when hiring software engineers, may have a wonderful set of qualifications on paper but had zero ‘spark’ to practically problem solve, so essentially useless. This had happened a few times so certainly a trend.

        A degree should be an indicator of knowledge and ability in a given field to a certain well understood level, unfortunately that is no longer the case. Plus I don’t think the PM’s wish to have 40% of the population with degrees is going to do anything to really improve the quality of our employee’s skill base, I fear it probably going to do the exact opposite as the burden of selecting & ‘sharpening up’ will fall ever more with the employer.

        Academia needs a massive overhaul and a refocusing back to its core values; although this will be a massive undertaking given the entrenched bureaucracy, they will fight with every procedure, form, legal method and point of order in their books.


        Report this

        20

  • #
    janama

    A friend made a comment during a conversation on this the other day – “don’t accept anyone with a degree from XX university!”


    Report this

    10

  • #

    The front page of the Science Fraud is still active. This bit is worth quoting

    The legal bit…

    Obviously this site deals with information which, in the right hands, could have devastating consequences for the persons involved. As such, it is important to remember that everything reported here is in the public domain, submitted to scientific journals and published for all to see. As such, cease-and-desist letters from individuals whose work I report on will be ignored, because I’m only highlighting what’s already out there and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions. Similarly, requests from journal editors to take down information will be treated with appropriate level of disdain – if you didn’t want to be embarrassed by publishing iffy data then you shouldn’t have published it in the first place (and maybe you should tighten up peer review). If however you have a genuine legal beef, and feel that something published here is factually incorrect, I will be happy to discuss editing or removal.

    (italics mine)

    The mistake that the site’s author seems to have made is calling the site “science fraud”. Although there is clear criteria provided for checking to see if errors are mistakes or fraud, there may be differences of opinion – certainly a review panel would hear differences. That is, no matter how accurate the website is at exposing fraud, they are providing a damming conclusion. They are not just damming the author, but also implicitly of the peer review panel (and thus the journal). A lawyer would present this as side-stepping the established processes – essentially a vigilante exercise – to almost damage someone’s reputation. Justifiable exposure would not be heard.


    Report this

    20

  • #