The Letter Elsevier Should Have Sent Roger Jr.
Some time ago Eli followed a lead from Dean Dad to CK Gunsalus' College Administrator's Survival Guide. Gunsalus described the difference between the aggressive bully and the victim bully as
Aggressor bullies fit the usual definition of a bully, they threaten to beat you up if you don't give them your lunch money. Victim bullies, in contrast, demand your lunch money because of some harm they claim you've done to them.Dean Dad elaborated
Unlike simple passive-aggression, victim bullies use accusations as weapons, and ramp up the accusations over time. Unlike a normal person, who would slink away in shame as the initial accusations are discredited, a victim bully lacks either guilt or shame, honestly believing that s/he has been so egregiously wronged in some cosmic way that anything s/he does or says is justified in the larger scheme of things. So when the initial accusations are dismissed, the victim bully's first move is a sort of double-or-nothing, raising the absurdity and the stakes even more......
Victim bullies thrive in the no-man's-land created by the deadly combination of slow and cumbersome processes, and failure of managerial nerve. Because defeating a victim bully takes tremendous endurance, most people don't try. Victim bullies know this, and are able to intimidate others into leaving them alone to do pretty much as they please.Gunsalus favors first the softer approach, basically talking with the victim bully about collegiality but she does not rule out "blue therapy", e.g. calling the cops. Most importantly she discusses how bullies need to be shown that their behavior will lead to shunning and if necessary shunning them.
The recent back and forth between Elsevier's Global Environental Change and Roger Pielke Jr. is a perfect example of this. The journal and editors sent him rather innocuous boilerplate letters informing him that he was being taken off the Editorial Board. No doubt the same letter was sent to the others that were not reappointed and basically is the same form letter Elsevier uses for all its journals.
"Dear Professor Pielke,But with victim bullies you can't be nice, because if you are, they will twist your words into being a dishonest attack on them. People like Roger Jr. never disappoint.
Subject: Rotation of the Editorial Board of Global Environmental Change
As a member of the Editorial Board of Global Environmental Change you have been instrumental in helping to organise a rapid and efficient editorial process, and maintaining the high standards of our publication. Your work has been greatly appreciated.
To help keep the journal current, and give other scientists the chance to gain experience of editorial duties, it is our policy to rotate members off our Editorial Boards at regular intervals. For this reason, and in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, I am asking you to step down from the Editorial Board.
I hope that you will understand our approach and that you have enjoyed your association with the journal and will continue to take an interest in it by encouraging the submission of high quality manuscripts.
Thank you sincerely for the work and expertise which you have given to the journal during your time on the Editorial Board. I wish you the very best for the future.
With kind regards,"
Lest there be any confusion, below is the text of the original email I received from GEC dropping me from the GEC Board. It contains several untruths: (1) about the notion of "rotate members at regular intervals" and (2) an expression of "appreciation" for my work.(1) was indeed false for Roger, maybe not for the others, but it was, if you will the kind of politeness people use to avoid conflict, but in the case of a victim bully, the food that they thrive on as the bunnies know. Social politeness has its uses but it can too easily be turned against you. There is a cost too to not using it as Eli has learned. As it were, a cost-benefit calculation, is the disappointment of everyone else for your being blunt equal to the benefit of not having to deal with the victim bullies. Depends on the density of the latter of course. Reading between the lines, bunnies can see what the letter should have been
Upon receiving the letter, I knew that (1) was false, as I have shown. (I have since learned the falseness of (2)). If you tell people untruths you should expect that they will wonder about the truth.
Dear Prof. Pielke,
This letter is to inform you that the Editors have chosen not to renew your membership on the editorial board of Global Environmental Change at the end of your second term. There are two reasons for this.
First your participation in the editorial work of the journal has become insufficient to justify reappointment to a third consecutive term. If we were being nice we might say that the bulk of submissions to the journal have moved away from your area of expertise, but let us not sugar coat it. Your interested in reviewing for GEC has diminished over your second term and was none too high to begin with. As you were told on your initial appointment we expect Board Members to review up to five papers per year. We have invited you to review 18 papers in the six years, of which you agreed to review just six and submitted five reviews. Your last review was submitted in August 2010. Last year, in 2012, we invited you to review 3 papers which you declined. Thus, in the last 2.5 years of your second term you reviewed 0 papers for the journal. Based on this record our most courteous conclusion is that your areas of interest are not a good match to the papers submitted to Global Environmental Change and this is increasingly the case.
Second, it is the policy of the Journal to rotate membership on the Editorial Board. This year there are 6 new Editorial Board Members, one through death of a previous member. In total 24 of the 37 board members from 2005 have been replaced since you joined. That 13 members remain is based on the judgement of the editors of their work on the Editorial Board.
We thank you for the editorial work you have done in your two terms of membership, and look forward to working with you on future submissions to Global Environmental Change if any.
PS: Elsevier don't do FOIA inquiries.
Posts
88 comments:
It isn't so much that (1) was false, as that it was incomplete...
eg, it might have been more correct to have added an additional clause, eg,
"...it is our policy to rotate members off our Editorial Boards at regular intervals by kicking out those members who have been least active..."
-MMM
The letter misses the most important sentence:
> Thank you for your concerns.
Another though Eli, from part of something I just posted at Roger's place:
"....But there is more going on here than meets the eye Christoph-- there is also more on this going on behind the scenes about this as we speak. There are some issues that can be clarified objectively. For example, I'm surprised nobody has asked Roger if he agrees that his second three year term did end in 2012? It is simple question."
Not surprisingly, he answered it. More or less as I would have expected him to as you'll see from the analogy I gave in the comment prior to Roger's.
I'm not sure how that was supposed to be some kind of key, critical, impossible to answer correctly question that he was supposedly avoiding. With respect, both it and the answer seem mundane (and obvious).
From Roger's place,
"Hi Roger,
Ok, so you agree that your second term ended in 2012.
However, you have claimed in the main post, and later stood by your original claim up thread, when challenged, that you were "sacked" (for want of a better word) mid term.
So you are still standing by your claim that:
" I have never received a mid-term request to step down from any journal."
Do you not see the problem here?"
Did you read his answer?
Because it's kind of important to his perception of things.
A paragraph seems to be missing from Christoph's comment at Dodger's, reproduced in his first comment here:
> Albatross, I can't understand what constructive point you're trying to make considering that GEC asked Pielke, Jr. to review Brysse et al., er, 2013 . . .
Not that I can undestand how the "2013" transforms Albatross comment into an non-constructive one.
willard, read Roger Pielke, Jr.'s reply to Albatross's question (as repeated by me at Albatross's suggestion).
You can take issue with Roger's contention that he considered himself in the middle of his third term, but that is his answer.
I think it's a reasonable perception considering he'd done two full terms before and was asked to review another paper in 2013. That's where "2013" becomes relevant.
Christophe, Eli has always held that with folk like Roger (e.g. those trained in political science) it is futile to try and game out what they think because they have anticipated you. What you must do is look at the effect, not take the words at face value.
Well I understand what Roger says pretty plainly.
IN FACT, that's what I guessed before he said it, because that's what I would have assumed in his position.
Obviously if I'm working with organisation A, have been for a while, and they ask me to do work beyond not just my first, but my second, commitment period with them, I'm still going to think I'm with organisation A.
It would be the height of pedantry to think that was an unreasonable assumption of Roger's -- it's the natural one.
Dear Christoph,
Thank you for your concerns and for clarifying the relevance you see in "2013". What I doubt is that this determines the constructivity of Albatross' question. This question has more to do with the debating techniques employed so far.
Speaking of debating techniques, I believe that this quote
> I take his response to mean that I am indeed the only one who has been removed at this time. So there you have it, another climate ink blot. Coincidence? You be the judge.
contradicts Dodger's claim that
> "victim" is not a characterization I have used or implied.
There's also the expression ""special" treatment".
I also believe this has something to do with Albratross' question, more than calculating immaterial contract terms.
***
As far as I can see, Junior can only provide circumstancial evidence against Adger's claim:
> The Editors reviewed the Board at our meeting in November 2012 and subsequently informed Elsevier of who to rotate off.
2013.
Junior's and Adger's "understanding of the agenda" are tough to reconcile, and considering how the victim playing is not owned, seeking clarity about that november meeting, as Albatross' question suggests, seems quite relevant.
Also, I fail to see which paper he was asked to review in 2013. By that, I mean if Junior has been asked to review a paper in 2013, not being asked to review what would be purported to be published in 2013. Of course, Junior's blog post does not count:
> Just to be clear the "review" I did of Brysse et al. was not for GEC, but post-publication on this blog.
Again, many thanks for your concerns, which provides a good illustration of one of Eli's points in his blog post.
w
Christophe, if you are working on a fixed term basis for someone and you don't hear from them, that is a pretty clear message that you are not working for them any longer. Your term has expired.
If you have any doubts, you call them up and ask. Sometimes they answer your call. Sometimes not. In either case you have your answer.
Christoph, Pielke's contention that he was dismissed in the middle of his third term is ludicrous. There were five people asked to stand down at the beginning of 2013. Where they also asked to stand down in the middle of their terms?
Many of his other claims are equally absurd. We can start with his claim in update two that "...I am indeed the only one who has been removed at this time." Um, no! Five were stood down.
Or try the suggestion that, "There are 13 members of the 2005 board who continue through 2013. If those 13 members (of 38 total in 2013) have not all be asked to "step down" at this time, then yes, I am getting "special" treatment." (My emphasis).
As it happens there where 12, not 13 ongoing members from 2005, and 1 of them was asked to stand down. In fact, 5 out 36 editors in 2012 were asked to stand down, so that if people being asked to stand down were chosen randomly, we would have expected just 2, not 12 of the 2005 editors to be asked to leave - hardly a strong basis on which to claim special treatment. What is worse, three other editors who had been editors no longer than Pielke were asked to stand down. So by Pielke's maths, 4 out of 5 stand downs constituted "special treatment".
Past experience shows, however, that even when given unusually favourable treatment, Pielke will discover that he has been subject to unfavourable "special treatment". He's not happy unless he's throwing a little tantrum.
"I think it's a reasonable perception considering he'd done two full terms before and was asked to review another paper in 2013. That's where "2013" becomes relevant."
Odd. I've served on boards (real ones, not academic pissy-fit editorial journal boards, boards where you have ficiuary responsibility). I'd never assume that not being told I've been renewed nor replaced meant that I'd been renewed. Even if, say, they asked me for my opinion of this or that within the NGO.
At the very least, Dodger should've been pro-active after his term expired in March 2012 and asked, "so, what's my status"?
No soup for Rodger.
Of course the possibility exists that Dodger's never been asked to serve in such an exalted position before (or since) and doesn't understand the ropes.
This would lower his reputation in his own narcissic eyes, for sure.
dhogaza, we should not make the mistake of believing that Pielke's term began in March of 2005 just because he said that is when it began. It is quite noticable that Global Environmental Change only publishes a list of the editorial board annually. It is certainly possible that Pielke was invited in March of 2005 for a term that began in January of 2006 (the first year he is listed on the editorial board). Alternatively, he was asked in March of 2005 to be the editor for three volumes (16,17,& 18, ie, 2006-8), and that his editorial duties began early because of the long lead in time to publication, but did not finish his second term until the end of 2012 (ie, the sixth volume to which notionally, he contributed).
In any event, the fact that four other editors were "rotated out" at the same time shows there was nothing untoward about the timing. Further, that two of those rotated out had only been editors for three years shows there is nothing untoward about Pielke's term not being renewed after six years.
Wow! A quick scan through and I see so much going on here in consequence from the RPJ GEC post here! Where to start?
@Tom Curtis said...
"We can start with his claim in update two that "...I am indeed the only one who has been removed at this time." Um, no! Five were stood down."
Where do you get this knowledge of the rotation of the editors?
Also ... it is not a difficult thing to quote a short sentence that includes a point you want refer to. But can I ask you why you quoted the following sentence
"I take his response to mean that I am indeed the only one who has been removed at this time."
in the truncated form you did? Why did you attach the interpretation of the truncated form that it was a "claim"?
Was that easier to do with the truncated quote than the longer one? ;)
Do you know what a "claim" is?
I am now worried posting here that what I post may be "SKS'd" edited to point out I in fact "claim"[ed] something rather than asked something ;)
TLITB, you might want to read the second e-mail Pielke received for that information on the Editorial Board.
Second, the first part of the quote from Pielke is the infamous "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Pielke makes a claim as there is *absence* of evidence: because Adger does not say that others have been relieved of their duties (only explaining why Pielke was removed), Pielke just assumes he is the only one. That makes it a claim.
For your benefit, the definition of "claim" is "An assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt". As we now know, based on the evidence, Pielke incorrectly interpreted the absence of evidence as evidence of absence. That is, he asserted a truth that was actually false. He could have written that Adger did not answer the questions Pielke sent to Elsevier, so still did not know whether others had been removed, but no, he drew a conclusion based on lack of evidence.
Marco
TTLIB, I get my information from the current page for editorial board membership, two cached pages from Jan and Aug, 2012; and the detailed listings with each volume of the Journal starting from 2004 (prior to which it is pay walled).
It is not difficult to look up, and Pielke should have done so before he started making ridiculous insinuations. When you do so you see that the problem here is not poor communication from the board, but Pielke's insinuations of, and later, direct claims of malfeasance based on the absence of evidence. Evidence, I note, that was only absent because he couldn't be bothered taking half an hour to check publicly available data.
Further, I quoted Pielke's statement in the abbreviated form because the fact that he based his claim on the absence of evidence was not relevant to my main point. In full, in update two, Pielke states the evidence to be absent, and that he infers from that that he was the "only one removed". Because he makes the inference, and states that he makes that inference, logically he has also made the claim.
Unless, of course, he (and you) have adopted some strange denier logic in which you can both state that "A", and that "I infer B from A", but not thereby commit yourself to the belief that "B".
The Involvement of Conspiracist Ideation in Science Denial
"Unlike simple passive-aggression, victim bullies use accusations as weapons, and ramp up the accusations over time. Unlike a normal person, who would slink away in shame as the initial accusations are discredited, a victim bully lacks either guilt or shame, honestly believing that s/he has been so egregiously wronged in some cosmic way that anything s/he does or says is justified in the larger scheme of things..."
Has me thinking of someon else too.......calling Judith Curry...
Anonymous Etc
“Unless, of course, he (and you) have adopted some strange denier logic in which you can both state that "A", and that "I infer B from A", but not thereby commit yourself to the belief that "B".”
Yeah sweet Tom, but my point was you describe the facts that were shown on RPJ's page before this post went up here is the upshot my asking about your knowledge - to help the confused ;)
But you can't resist over-elaborating with discussions of archives back to 2004 as if that improves your demonstrated ability! Too funny! :)
He didn't "claim" it was the case. End of. Your pseudo greco-boolean-syllogistic chunderings don't change the fact you describe a claim that wasn't made but yet you still engineered a scenario to help fuel your indignation (and others here I guess).
Taking logical steps that don't allow for considerations of time at each step is the charlatan's way - I guess it is the best hope that your desired reviewers see the end product without understanding the steps that got there because that is the most important thing? ;)
The irony is that it is such an obvious post hoc rationalisation is what I love the best. Did you take a cue from Anonymous before you ? ;)
I like the fact that you essentially say that being summarily dismissed - which is the essential understandable perception from the POV of RPJ - can be excused by pointing the person to some other place where the information was "publicly available"
This reminds me of the Douglas Adams story you may have heard of (and inspired my badly formed acronym handle) where the aggrieved Arthur Dent is patiently told by the guy about to demolish his house that the plans where freely available in a basement at the town hall with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard! :)
I think you love the concept of analysing past history perfect information games because you don't have the honesty to see how things developed. It is a problem with nerds on both sides.
TLITB, I noticed after my comment here that you had found out similar information, albeit from Google cache rather than the wayback machine. However, what you did not find out (the reason for the search back to 2004) was that C Folke, one of the five people "rotated out", was also one of the twelve (not thirteen as Pielke would have it) who were members of the board in 2005 prior to his joining, and still members in late 2012. That puts paid to another basis of Pielke's claims to specially adverse treatment.
A further reason to search back was to find out that S Agrawala and J Alcamo had only been members of the editorial board for three years, having been first mentioned as being on the board in Vol 20, Issue 2 (May 2010). Or that Pielke himself is first mentioned as a member of the board in Volume 17, Issue 1 (Feb 2007), thus showing that he has been an editor for exactly six volumes, and hence six years of publications; ie, the two terms he is reported as serving and which he doubts.
No doubt you don't want people actually searching the full record. When they do, they must inevitably find that Pielke's various claims are contradicted by the public record, and were contradicted by that record before Pielke put libelous pen to paper.
I duly note your rejection of logic when you find it inconvenient.
I note also that time has nothing to do with it because:
a) The information that falsified Pielke's claim to be the only person "rotated out" was a mater of easily accessible public record at the time he wrote it. Indeed, he had already accessed part of that public record for his update 1; and
b) Pielke has yet to retract that claim, and indeed, after it was corrected by Adger, he said, "I stand by this post", a statement he did not qualify. If he says he stands by it, we are not entitled to infer that he does not stand by some part of it without his explicitly saying so.
After all, this is the Pielke who wrote to Adger that, "I will chalk this up to poor communication coupled with unfortunate timing."
then proceeds to inform us that he stands by his post, which suggests that the reason he was asked to stand down was because of his blog criticism of a paper in GEC. From that example, if Pielke tells you something, don't believe him.
Dear TLITB,
In this sentence:
> I take his response to mean that I am indeed the only one who has been removed at this time.
It might be a reasonable perception that the claim in that sentence should be something like:
(1) J is the only one who has been removed at this time.
You do seem to express concerns regarding that interpretation. What would be your own suggestion?
***
I think it's a reasonable perception that the claim does not stand on solid grounds, viz.
(2) A's response means (1).
Since Tom is discussing the relationship between (1) and (2), your concerns about what he has "truncated" should be understood by the lolz of your last comment, lolz that might be the only response you can provide to Tom's answer to your:
> Where do you get this knowledge of the rotation of the editors?
I take your response to mean that your question doesn't matter anymore to you.
***
Perhaps it's just a vocabulary thing: is it the word "claim" raises concerns in you? If that's the case, what word would you prefer?
Many thanks for your concerns,
w
"A further reason to search back was to find out that..."
Oh please you are so precious how could your reason be to find out something so specific? You don't even know how to write in a time consistent way.
"The information that falsified Pielke's claim to be the only person "rotated out" was a matter of easily accessible public record at the time he wrote it."
I had the Google cache from Feb 10 I can only know that it must have changed since then. How do you know it was that way at the time Roger looked at his Update 1?
It may have been there, and he missed it or otherwise, but without certainty you project it unduly and that is your problem - you think in flat time; you see today everything and with your political antagonism against what you perceive and label as “deniers" and try to bury those antagonists in your dull pit of flat world logic.
"No doubt you don't want people actually searching the full record."
Yeah no doubt indeed from the certain person. The certain projectors.
"...if Pielke tells you something, don't believe him."
“..he said, "I stand by this post", a statement he did not qualify. If he says he stands by it, we are not entitled to infer that he does not stand by some part of it without his explicitly saying so.”
One minute you don’t believe his every utterance, and the next you claim disenfranchised by RPJ’s logic – do you ever look at the knots you tie yourself into?
The information and comments on RPJ's site tell us the full story. There is no reason for him to do some acrobatics that will have you salivating at the concept of capitulation.
Albatross also asks for removals and changes on his site to fit some kind of concept of retribution which also seems to align with your weird concept of contrition you require from your antagonist when you haven't put in the work to show why.
God you’re lazy. I guess it must be lack of exercise lounging around only engaging in the mutual stroking in the forums you regularly visit? Why not talk to real people?
We have here a fantasy letter and fantasy reasoning spun off it. I don't believe a word *you* or anyone else says here, but I don’t think you are a liars ;)
TLITB has descended into babbling incoherence so there is no point of further discussion with him. However, on just one point he makes, his claim that the information about changes in the editorial board was not easily and publicly accessible, he deserves a clarification. Specifically, the most germane evidence about changes in the editoral board at GEC is to be found in GEC's published list of members of that board which accompany every issue of their journal. That list has been available publicly online for every issue from Vol 14, Issue 3 (Oct 2004), prior to which it is pay walled.
I found this out by following Roger Pielke's links in his first update. Because I do not have access to the journal, I then needed to click on the issue link at the top of the page, and then the link for the PDF version, but no doubt for people with access to the Journal, including Pielke, his link would have taken them directly to the listing of the editorial board members at time of publication.
So how do I know that the information was easily accessible for Pielke in his 2nd update? Because he had accessed it for his first update. Of course, when he did so he only had eyes for potential evidence that he was hard done by; and did not have time to check the answer to the question he had asked about whether or not he was the only one rotated out.
TLITB is so clueless that he apparently hasn't recognized yet that more than the cached information for 2012 is available (despite my and Pielke'links) nor recognized that Pielke has demonstrated that he had access to the information that would have conclusively answered his question in update two, but did not bother consulting it to answer that question before concluding from the absence of evidence (that he could be bothered finding) that he was the only one dismissed.
Tom Curtis,
Flames and lulz feed one another.
The facts can win by themselves.
Gunsalus' approach might be appropriate here.
Another cross-post from Roger's place:
"Hi Roger,
Just to clarify, no-one is suggesting that you engaging in dog whistling constitutes a conspiracy as you incorrectly suggest at @100. It is you, alone, playing some sort of game for self benefit and/or attention, at least so it seems. You also seem to be projecting @100, because the reality is that it is you (Pielke Junior) who has been slyly insinuating that there is a conspiracy afoot at GEC and EIC.
Re your comment about Ben Hale "The principle holds that one should interpret the comments of others in the most charitable interpretation possible"
Agreed. But, wow, are you really handing out that advice to others on that topic? If so, how ironic given that your blog posts over the years demonstrate your repeated failure in that regard (e.g., your propensity to fly off the handle and flippantly accuse others of lying). Hence people's valid lack of trust in you and skepticism about your claims.
Given that you steadfastly refuse to amend your post above as recommended, despite the obvious inaccuracies, misleading statements and omissions therein (and no, not everyone wades through the comments, nor should they have to), I hope to not see you demanding others (Romm, IPCC, NOAA whomever you have it in for on a particular day) to change or modify their text or statements to correct errors or to reflect new developments. Because doing so, will demonstrate your huge double standard by you ;)
Have a nice weekend and we'll all reflect on Dr. Hale's advice.
Thanks!"
@Tom Curtis said...
"...his claim that the information about changes in the editorial board was not easily and publicly accessible, he deserves a clarification."
Wow! I was right. Spend long enough here I get accused of making a "claim" I haven't made. I guess the only benefit is that all my babbling information is available here for anyone curious enough to see exactly what I "claimed" ;)
Seriously would you be able to point to any place where I claimed that "information about changes in the editorial board was not easily and publicly accessible"?
I did make a question about timing, but you seem incapable of dealing with that. You do know we are talking about a quarterly and it seems the latest edition falls on the Feb 2013 - and it is February 2013 right now?
BTW, on this page for the February 2013 publication you can see the Editorial Board pdf. Tell me what you see.
If RPJ was polling the website to keep up to date on his editorial status, as you seem to think it is reasonable to expect, then it could be easily be misunderstood he is still on the board even now. ;)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09593780/23
Dear TLITB,
Still waiting for your answers.
***
Here' the claim underlined by Tom is this one:
> [T]he information about changes in the editorial board was not easily and publicly accessible
Here's something you said:
> Oh please you are so precious how could your reason be to find out something so specific?
Here's another thing you said:
> But you [Tom] can't resist over-elaborating with discussions of archives back to 2004 as if that improves your demonstrated ability! Too funny! :)
And another:
> I like the fact that you essentially say that [let's say P] can be excused by pointing the person to some other place where the information was "publicly available"
You finally offer this story:
> where the aggrieved Arthur Dent is patiently told by the guy about to demolish his house that the plans where freely available in a basement at the town hall with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard! :)
Now, I do wonder why you are reminded of this story if you never claimed what Tom is saying you did.
Perhaps it's just a vocabulary thing. What would you suggest to be doing if not claiming? What would this claim or else be, according to you?
Many thanks!
w
@willard said...
"Still waiting for your answers."
Oh sorry, I literally overlooked that you were directing comments to me.
"What would be your own suggestion?"
What I would do is read the words and even say them out loud and then take them at their basic meaning. But to further help RPJ asked:
"Could you tell me which other members of the editorial board are being asked to step down at this time? And also, could you tell how many others have served on the board 6 years or longer and remain on the board?"
And he said the responder omitted answering that question.
My suggestion is that he isn't claiming, he is assuming. I think that they are really different concepts, and I think the difference is obvious. He lays out his assumption to be seen, people could say "Hey Roger you can't assume that from the information right now!"
A claim implies more strength of association with an implied truth in my opinion, and someone saying their antagonist claims something after they have now seen time pass and more information come available is pretty shoddy stuff really IMO.
But playing "Gotcha" obviously suits a person antagonistic to Roger but it has no more purpose than dog whistling. Knock yourself out on that one if you want to get him "Lying" about claims ;)
I like this passive:
"Here's something you said:"
And then you quote something you hope will do ;)
Tom Curtis said:
"A further reason to search back was to find out that S Agrawala and J Alcamo had only been members of the editorial board for three years"
I said in response to this (although I was lazy and used an ellipsis halfway when quoting TC's original comment back)
"Oh please you are so precious how could your reason be to find out something so specific?"
The point I was trying to make was that TC had stated something as if he knew he would find the specific thing he found ahead of his search. "Search" implies, well, searching not pulling out something you knew already. Maybe this is where my babbling could be seen, because I was probably branching out too glibly and getting meta about TC's style here.
But I really think Tom has issues with tense. He seems to know ahead what he will find and also compresses the past into a space that is viewed at a glance with no consideration of how it unfurled.
It can work at a shallow level with friendly eyes I guess, but it wouldn't stand up in court ;)
To be clear I think it is easy to find information on the net. Anyone can do it. Like me finding that the editorial pdf for February 2013 still has RPJ listed on it above ;)
So no joy showing I "claimed" it was hard to find information then eh? Shame ;)
A colleague of Roger's has apparently just emailed him informing of the 2013 PDF that TLITB directed us to.
That raises a question-- is TLITB perhaps a colleague of Roger's?
More importantly though, Roger has urged people to not read too much into the 2013 list of Editors-- it still has someone who passed away last June listed!
GEC really ought to update their list of editors more frequently!
@Albatross said...
"That raises a question-- is TLITB perhaps a colleague of Roger's?"
Amusing ideation! No I am not in academia at any level :)
I don't know what are the relevant times between MST and this blog but isn't it possible that the "colleague" got the nod from reading comments on this site?
If so then Tom Curtis should get the credit since he provided the link to the page that was only two clicks away from that Feb 2013 editorial board pdf! ;)
TLITB,
Thank you for your response:
> My [TLITB's] suggestion is that he isn't claiming, he is assuming.
I am not sure how replacing all the "claim" by "assume" or "assumption" would change Tom's point. To see why, let's recall that a claim is a statement of something as a fact and let's emphasize what Junior's assuming:
> I am indeed the only one who has been removed at this time.
This looks like a statement of fact to me.
But this is not all that J said:
> I take his response to mean that I [J] am indeed the only one who has been removed at this time.
The first part introduces J's interpretation of A's response. If it assumes something, it still looks like a fact: the "mean" in J's sentence conveys a factual implication. In other words, J's conditional sentence expresses a factual implication.
If we could only produce assumptions with conditional sentences, we would have a hard time expressing any factual statements.
In the auditing sciences, the accepted term is "surmise", by the way:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site%3Aclimateaudit.org+surmise
I could also agree with the word "implies", but in a stronger sense than "insinuates". The rest of your comment does imply a lot in that latter sense. It might be profitable to pay due diligence to it, considering the topic of Eli's blog post.
Thank you again for your response and your overall concerns,
w
Seems that Christoph reported some problems posting here:
> My comments, which had previously been posted, don't seem to be going through at Rabett's Run, so it looks like I've been banned or moderated (although there was no message about moderation as there is on this blog after I submit a comment).
It also seems to refuse that this dogwhistling:
> I take his response to mean that I am indeed the only one who has been removed at this time. So there you have it, another climate ink blot. Coincidence? You be the judge.
amounts to victim playing:
> If I was being charitable, I could say willard is not aware that many Americans simply refuse to self-identify with being a victim on principle.
Glad to know that fact about Americans, but I'm not sure how it relates with victim playing:
> Victim playing (also known as playing the victim or self-victimization) is the fabrication of victimhood for a variety of reasons [...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_playing
It would be interesting to see how that fabrication escapes Americans.
Nothing from him in the spam bucket, and Eli has not chopped anything from him, but who knows what evil lurks in the code of Blogger?
OTOH, and bunnies, consider this fair notice, Eli, Brian and John are going to get pretty aggressive about deleting comments which use curse words to describe others
Albatross, the current listing of the full Editorial board does not include Ostrom. Nor did it do so in August 2012. In contrast, the current listing does not include Pielke and five others, whereas they were included in the August listing. The listing shown with the Feb 2013 journal is the same one that has been shown since Aug 2011, when J Fang left the board in the middle of a term. Jingyun Fang (English order) is still listed in the Department of ecology at Peking University, so his departure was not due to death. He is the only person listed as leaving mid term apart from Elanor Ostrom.
For the full publicly available record (ie, excluding data behind pay walls), we find that in April 2004, 28 of 29 editors left, and 31 new editors joined the board. In February 2007, a further 10 editors left, with 11 new editors joining for that issue, and a further 2 for the following issue. Pielke was one of the 11 new editors. A further 11 editors left in May of 2010, with 12 new editors joining. Fang, of course, left in August 2011.
There is no discrepancy between this and Pielke's claim to have started his term in 2006 (probably March 2006), or in including Ostrom on the list of Feb 2013. The list in the journal lists editors who have at least notionally contributed to that issue. Given the long lead in time to publication, an new editor must have been reviewing articles for up to a year prior to there contribution actually being relevant to an issue; and of course, issues they have contributed to may not be published until after their formal departure (a fact that may have contributed to the delayed departure of two editors in 2007, and possibly Fang if he was working on a paper which took a long time to bring to publication).
The timings of these departures show there is a clear policy of periodic refreshing of the editorial pool - possibly instituted in 2004. The last two such attempts to refresh the pool have been space three years apart. That clearly demonstrates the truth of the claim in Adger's first email to Pielke that it is the Journal's policy "... to rotate members off our Editorial Boards at regular intervals." That is a claim Pielke still holds to be false, on no evidence. I note that Adger make no additional claim about the basis on which it is decided who will depart to make room for fresh blood. Given available data, random selection is not excluded. It is, however, far more probable that advantage is taken of that policy to cut away under performers.
If he isn't actually carrying the load of reviewing papers, why does he care?
(Continued from previous)
Given that possibility, it is interesting to note that the journal has published 556 articles since mid 2004, and had 170 editors over that period. On average, there have been 0.466 articles published per editor, per issue; although that number has significantly increased in recent years. Over the last six years (Pielke's time at the journal), that number has risen to 0.535; over the last three years, when Pielke's contribution fell to essentially nothing, the number has risen to 0.635. Over the full period of his tenure, Piekle reviewed an average of 0.24 per articles per issue. Number of reviews per issue, and number of editors per article per issue may not be directly comparable numbers - but this evidence very strongly suggest that Pielke was an under performer.
In the end, the only part of Pielke's various claims that might be true is that it may have been a white lie to say that, "Your work has been greatly appreciated". Even that, however, may not have been false. There is no contradiction in both appreciating the gratis work Pielke did perform (five reviews and six attempted) while considering that Pielke was overall an under performer. The best that can be said about Pielke's comment regarding whether or not he was appreciated was that his only justification was an uncharitable interpretation of the words of another.
Regardless of whether Adger did, or did not appreciate the five reviews performed by Pielke, I strongly suspect that by now he is certain dropping Pielke was a good decision.
Jeffrey Davis, he cares because by pretending he is being persecuted, he can pretend he is doing something worth while whereas in fact his academic contribution is rather mundane and second rate.
(Just my 2c)
TLITB claims that Pielke was not "claiming", but "assuming" that "I [Pielke] am indeed the only one who has been removed at this time."
There are two problems with this interpretation. The first being that you can assume something without being committed to its truth, as when you assume something for the sake of argument. There is, however, no doubt that Pielke was committed to the truth of his claim, at least when he made it.
The second is that to assume something is to take it for granted without regard to the evidence. However, Pielke's full statement shows he was very much considering the "evidence" (and that his "evidence" was simply a lack evidence where he expected some is beside the point).
Ergo, Pielke did not "assume". Nor did he simple "conjecture". He believed the claim, and asserted sentences whose logical consequence was that he believe the claim.
Teapot, meet Tempest.
Maybe, David, but I'll wager that in a year, I'll run into people out in the trenches who'll use RPJ as an example of the persecution of "skeptics". You can bet folks like TLIBT won't lift a finger to disabuse them of the notion. Games, games, games.
> [Y]ou can assume something without being committed to its truth, as when you assume something for the sake of argument.
Indeed, but one also assume a fact like snow is white, just as one can say
(3) Something was said about gotcha games earlier in the thread; I assume it was by TLITB.
when one wishes to state a fact.
***
One could also say:
(4) TLITB's comments make me assume that he's here for the lulz.
which would commit its utterer to its plausibility more than its truth, for the simple reason that even TLITB has no access to the ultimate reason why he's here.
***
Another important matter is that a claim can both refer to a speech act and to the product of a speech act. There seems to be a difference between claiming:
(5) TLITB has ignored my request to comment on his Hitchiker's Guide reference.
and surmising about it:
(6) I can surmise that TLITB has nothing to show against (5).
In the last example, I did not need to claim (5), as I presumed it.
The same division of labor can be observed with many other speech acts, to the point that it seems to be the general case.
***
I assume that this analysis would lose its point if TLITB was not here for the lulz.
@ willard said...
"(5) TLITB has ignored my request to comment on his Hitchiker's Guide reference."
Sorry been away from net. You mean this (rhetorical sounding) question of yours? :
"Now, I do wonder why you are reminded of this story if you never claimed what Tom is saying you did."
I had a specific claim that Tom didn't actually know the state of the editorial board web page when RPJ put up his post. It is that simple.
TC said:
"TTLIB, I get my information from the current page for editorial board membership, two cached pages from Jan and Aug, 2012"
"a) The information that falsified Pielke's claim to be the only person "rotated out" was a mater of easily accessible public record at the time he wrote it."
I really would have been satisfied, and taken his word for it, if he said for example "As soon as I saw RPJ's post go up..." and or at the time of the relevant updates he went to the web site and saw the information - at that *time*.
The question of timing is the point. Maybe the information wasn't there, maybe it was, I was taking issue by the elision Tom imply he knew something was available at a *time*.
TC said:
"Indeed, he had already accessed part of that public record for his update 1; and ... Pielke has yet to retract that claim"
The links in question, at RPJ's update 1, actually point to the Feb 2013 list with him still listed as editor.
I claim Tom is projecting undue certainty about what time RPJ saw stuff. To simplify this - and that is why I mentioned over-elaborating, Tom isn't lazy I'm sorry ;) - I say there is only one existing web page showing he was taken off the board of editors, and Tom hasn't shown when that page was changed. I saw a Feb 10 cache with RPJ still on it. That is all. If someone can say that it was changed before RPJ post went up then that would be interesting but not damning of RPJ position I think, since I think anyone getting canned would like to know personally before it went up in a public place.
I am claiming TC, by his references to information "publicly available" on web sites, thinks this is a fair means of communicating something to people, and that any other responsibilities about the exact problems of communication in this case are not to be considered. i.e. ignore everything RPJ said explicitly about how he thinks the communication is poorly handled. TC ignores this and instead hunts around the net for stuff RPJ could have seen.
I wouldn't want Tom Curtis as a boss if that's the case. "Why are you here? You're sacked", "What!", "yes, haven't you checked the web page?" ;)
"(3) Something was said about gotcha games earlier in the thread; I assume it was by TLITB."
Here is some suggestions. I *did* say something about "Gotcha" games. Just quote it back and presto! No need to assume, you can say I did! :)
"(4) TLITB's comments make me assume that he's here for the lulz."
Well speculating about the motives about the poster is something anyone can do in a light weight, pointless, way. I can't defend myself against the *claim* I *make* you feel this way.
Why tell us of a train of evidence can only be explained by how I *make* you feel?
"I assume that this analysis would lose its point if TLITB was not here for the lulz."
Do you hope to make others feel the same way? It does however seem to invite speculation and ideation of their own, possibly conjuring additional information e.g.
"Ah he's here for the lulz, we all know something extra now."
Now that *is* lazy. But I don't care ;)
Any "lulz" here are an unintended by-product I assure you. But if the subject of a claim based on no evidence ever comes up again I can't beat this example:
"No doubt you don't want people actually searching the full record."
Utterly baseless, but provoking a laugh out loud :)
It's the Illuminati, that's who it is.
The expectation used to be that when you did a crappy job, you would got fired.
Now, the expectation seems to be just the opposite: that you will get rewarded (even promoted).
Of course, this seems to be precisely the way things work in business management (think banking) and in politics these days (and perhaps academics is the same way, though I don't have direct working experience with that*) so perhaps the expectation is warranted.
RP Jr seems to be the poster child for the "reward me because I screwed up" type.
*My experience working in R&D in the high tech industry is that the idiots and/or incompetents got shuffled to the top because none of the competent engineers and scientists wanted them around mucking things up.
~@:>
TLITB says:
'I like this passive:
"Here's something you said:" '
----
Perhaps you should add "parsing a sentence" to the list of things you don't know.
"Here's something" is active. "you said" is active. There is nothing passive in that sentence.
If you can't separate clauses, you shouldn't try playing the grammar card.
Danger Mouse
-- Anonymous, 8:16 AM
It's probably old hat in management circles nowadays, but the Peter Principle says that people are promoted to their level of incompetence.
Since management mantra is "up or out", meaning that it's not possible to remain in a job without promotion, this leads to two results:
- The incompetent are promoted even further into higher positions where they can't do any harm to reality.
- Engineers who actually do things (rather than go into some management track) are awarded meaningless promotions and paygrades now and again, while their duties remain unchanged. This satisfies management theory, while still allowing things to work.
Danger Mouse
Danger Mouse,
Thank you for the the grammatical point.
Nevertheless, we should bear in mind TLITB might be expressing the fact that I have quoted him without interpreting what he said. That's what I read when he completed his "I like this passive" with:
> And then you quote something you hope will do ;)
There is also evidence that he tried to clarify what he meant.
***
I take TLBTI's liking of my formulation to mean that he also liked Jr's:
> So there you have it, another climate ink blot. Coincidence? You be the judge.
I should have said "you be the judge" to make myself clearer.
***
I'll try to clarify my interpretation later this evening.
willard,
You're right. I just got impatient with a load of semantics that (to my mind) don't seem to go anywhere.
I defer to your patience and judgement...
Danger Mouse
@Anonymous said...
"Perhaps you should add "parsing a sentence" to the list of things you don't know."
Er, almost paid the penalty for overlooking again, I was wondering whether to bother about trying to formulate a response along the lines admitting I'm crap at grammar - and you are welcome to your vinegar strokes pointing out those important errors - but know when I am being left with little to work with, before I then noticed Willard said it better and more politely himself. Thanks.
I'm with Benson on Tempest and Teapot. Every minute spent by somebody with something better to do (including myself) on this hooey is a minute wasted. Somebody else mentioned with victim bullies you are better off looking at the result rather than the specious arguments.
TLITB,
Glad you’ve been away from the net. Not sure how this explains anything, since it has not prevented you to comment inbetween. It’s OK. As you said, it sounds like a rhetorical question. It was, in a way: I still wonder why you’d refer to that particular Hitchiker’s episode if not to convey something like Tom said you did. Here’s the relevant bit:
> I like the fact that you essentially say that being summarily dismissed [...] can be excused by pointing the person to some other place where the information was "publicly available".
The bolded part looks like lulz to me. The italicized part seems to explain why you are reminded of the episode, as you follow with:
> This reminds me of the Douglas Adams story [...] where [...] the plans where freely available in a basement at the town hall with a sign on the door saying beware of the leopard! :)
Now, let’s look how Tom interpreted your “claim”:
> [T]he information about changes in the editorial board was not easily and publicly accessible.
While you could argue that “freely available” entails being “publicly accessible” (with my emphasis), I don’t think you can say that Tom’s paraphrase is that far from what you’re trying to say.
You do seem to object for the pure fun of it, TLITB.
***
Contrary to what you claim, I do not have to speculate much about your motives to support my hypothesis that you’re here for the lulz. Notwithstanding your pussyfooting about Tom’s interpretation of your Douglas Adams’ remark, here are ten sentences from your comments.
First, this emoticon:
> Was that easier to do with the truncated quote than the longer one? ;)
Second, this rhetorical question:
> Do you know what a "claim" is?
Third, an emoticon that confirms the victim playing:
> I am now worried posting here that what I post may be "SKS'd" edited to point out I in fact "claim"[ed] something rather than asked something ;)
These three sentences follow one another in your first comment here, TLTBI.
***
Notwithstanding these innocuous teases, there are more direct statements.
Fourth, this concern trolling:
> Yeah sweet Tom, but my point was you [...] to help the confused ;)
Fifth, this sign of amusement:
> [Y]ou can't resist over-elaborating [...] Too funny! :)
Sixth, this dismissive, mind-probing guess:
> Your pseudo greco-boolean-syllogistic chunderings [...] fuel your indignation (and others here I guess).
Seventh, the two following sentences ending with emoticons.
Eigth, and most importantly in my opinion, this quite direct admission:
> The irony is that it is such an obvious post hoc rationalisation is what I love the best. Did you take a cue from Anonymous before you ? ;)
Ninth, we get to the Douglas Adams episode, which we’ve already covered.
Tenth, there is this fall, which is yet another of your “guesses”:
> I think you love the concept of analysing past history perfect information games because you don't have the honesty to see how things developed.
***
It’s not that tough to see that these provocations are here for the lulz. This meets your challenge of providing my “train of evidence”.
I will leave your other claims to Tom. He now knows what would satisfy you. My own issues were your digs about “claim” and your overall provocations, which I believe I have shown sufficient ground to support that they were made for the lulz.
I’d like to to admit that one can surmise or assume or contend a factual implication, as I’ve showed a few times now, and that this renders your point about Tom’s use of “claim” a bit moot.
My example “I assume you said” was an example of how to claim something by way of the words “I assume”. Indeed, there is no need to only assume when one says “I assume”.
Thank you again for your concerns, TLTBI, and hoping this comment provides you with even more merriment,
Best,
w
TLITB.
FFS.
Pielke was a notable under-performer in his role on the editorial board. The journal doesn't do honorary positions, and it doesn't do passengers, so when it's time for a bit of revitalisation why not cut out the dead wood?
Other, and likely more worthy, editors were also let go for rejuvenation, so Roger should just get over himself.
This is a tantrum more suited to a three year old.
Bernard J.
(sarc)Roger Pielke Jr. is such an upstanding, ethical and professional fellow, such an honest broker(/sarc)
Pretty juvenile, unprofessional and cowardly if you ask me. Roger is quite a bitter chap.
"Roger Pielke Jr. is such an upstanding, ethical and professional fellow, such an honest broker"
Mary, Mary Rosh, is that you?
@willard said...
"Glad you’ve been away from the net. Not sure how this explains anything, since it has not prevented you to comment inbetween."
Er no, I didn't comment "inbetween". My "away from the net" was literally me saying I was away from the net for 11 hours er, when I was away from this page. Bit redundant I guess. But I added it when I responded straight after you said I ignored something which you said you wanted answered.
Alright I put it through the grinder and I see - I think.
You think, Tom thinks, I claim a metaphorical "leopard" was put up to stop RPJ finding out stuff - maybe he did think that I meant that - but I want you to ignore that construction (maybe until you show interest and ask *him* ;) ) and instead see the part I explicitly showed concern about again and again - the part about information being available and then not when knowing when it is best to poll for that information.
Also if the website was changed on the same day or after then, yes indeed it was guarded by a leopard. The "Leopard of Time" - ooh er*, That is a possibility. Let me know it was definitely changed before - as Tom implies, but doesn't know, (I claim).
I'm betting Tom will never answer that specfic question where he would have to admit overstating his knowledge about a specific claim like this, relevant to the subject, but may come back and do some lighthweight post hoc confirming of your opinion of his opinion ;)
Timing eh?
Seems to be a problem here. I am beginning to understand better now ;)
"Provocation for the lulz" provocation for an answer? You see it your way. I may not be have been polite but making out that lack of politeness is "for the lulz" is a strange construct that can only be for your own benefit. Why not say you think I am a troll? How/why should I deal with your speculations here? Give me a clue, like persuade about what hyper-serious reason are you here for Willard? ;)**
@24/2/13 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...
"Pielke was a notable under-performer in his role on the editorial board. The journal doesn't do honorary positions, and it doesn't do passengers, so when it's time for a bit of revitalisation why not cut out the dead wood?
Other, and likely more worthy, editors were also let go for rejuvenation, so Roger should just get over himself."
Here is a key passage in the email to RPJ that the journal editors *want* to be known by *you*:
"As we described in the previous email, the only reason for seeking new Board Members is to refresh the Board with new members. We conveyed this to our meeting of Board members during the fringes of Planet under Pressure conference in March 2012, which you were not able to attend."
You see the *only* reason there? And you see when they decided it (nearly a year ago) if anyone can show they told him in good time "inbetween" since then that would be really fascinating for me. If you can show they really thought him less "worthy" than the other 5 too that would be good. Otherwise the speculation on the merits of who is clearly a hate figure here is pointless. Also the ignoring of RPJ's clear explicit concerns about the poor communication is being overtly ignored.
* Ooh! attempt at humour. ** Oh crap! emoticon!
TLBTI,
You say:
> I want you to ignore that construction (maybe until you show interest and ask *him* ;) ) and instead see the part I explicitly showed concern about again and again
[...]
I know you want that, but “I will leave your other claims to Tom. He now knows what would satisfy you” seems clear enough. I have no commitment to this matter you keep injecting in your responses to me.
I want you to acknowledge that your point about Tom’s use of “claim” was moot at best.
I also want you to acknowledge that I have provided a sufficient “train of evidence” of your lulz.
You keep repeating your points against Tom to me while ignoring my points. To call you a troll would be “lazy”, as you say. I prefer showing how you can’t repress you lulz while expressing concerns which we could have easily chalked out a while ago, TLBTI. This is not a speculation, even if you still ask “How/why should I deal with your speculations here?” after I have provided evidence.
***
Finally, to answer what appears to be a tu quoque, I am here to show that love and light is the best way to deal with such an act as yours, TLBTI:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/tagged/LoveAndLight
Your only way out of this hole you made for yourself would be to provoke the rabbits enough so they get rabid and start to flame you. I try to make sure that does not happen while analyzing speech acts, which is an interest of mine.
Again, thank you so much for your concerns,
w
> And you see when they decided it (nearly a year ago) if anyone can show they told him in good time "inbetween" since then that would be really fascinating for me.
The "it" refers to the decision to rejuvenate the board.
The "it" might not refer to their decision about Dodger.
The letter is quite explicit about that:
> The Editors reviewed the Board at our meeting in November 2012 and subsequently informed Elsevier of who to rotate off.
Did Dodger miss the November 2012 meeting too?
@willard said...
"...such an act as yours..." Oh the horror Willard!
I guess I'm Kurtz?
Thanks for calling off the attack rabbits you apparently have on a leash! ;)
Amen to your love and light.
@Tom Curtis
If you are there do pipe up and tells us exactly how you know this (my emphasis):
"Pielke's various claims are contradicted by the public record, and were contradicted by that record before Pielke put libelous pen to paper."
Do we have any publicly available or accessible evidence of editorial work by our honest broker between March 2005 and January 2006 for that journal?
Willard, no need to be on the Editorial Board to review papers. If it were a requirement, I'd have to be on about 30 Editorial Boards!
Marco
Do we have any publicly available or accessible evidence of any kind of work by our honest broker between March 2005 and January 2006 for that journal?
Do we have any publicly available or accessible evidence that our honest broker shared his critique of Brysse et al. 2013 with its authors before publishing it on his blog?
Do we have any publicly available or accessible evidence that our honest broker asked around before posting Interesting Timing to be Removed from GEC Editorial Board?
The answer seems to be yes:
> I did reply by accepting their request and asking the following two questions which might help to clarify the terms of my release: [...] If I get a reply I will update this post.
The same piece of evidence helps us answer this other question:
Did our honest broker wait for a response before posting Interesting Timing to be Removed from GEC Editorial Board?
The answer seems to be no.
Tom Curtis,
Perhaps we could reword this sentence:
> Pielke's various claims are contradicted by the public record, and were contradicted by that record before Pielke put libelous pen to paper.
in such a way that we don't have to hypothesize the existence of a claim before someone commits to it. Taking what TLBTI said so far, we could try this:
> Pielke's assumed facts are contradicted by the public record, and were contradicted by that record before Pielke committed to them.
(This works if we assume that facts are independent from the propositions that express them. This assumption almost defines realism. But let's not digress.)
Perhaps TLBTI could even agree with that one.
Perhaps it was just a vocabulary thing, after all.
Willard, GEC publishes a list of reviewers for the previous year in the first issue of the journal each year. Unfortunately, all such lists are pay walled, except for 2007 (listing reviewers for 2006, Pielke among them) and 2013 (from which we learn that Pielke was not a reviewer in 2012).
For what it is worth, none of the board members asked to step aside were reviewers in 2012. Most, but not all of the board members who where not asked to step aside were reviewers in 2012.
TLITB has finally deigned to state in clear language the issue that vexes him. Given that, I am able to respond that, yes, I had until he stated the issue, assumed that the current listing of the editorial board membership as available on the 22nd was also available two days earlier, ie, when Pielke wrote his second update. It is possible that that assumption was mistaken. Certainly on the 15th, the list had not been updated as shown on the currently available Google Cache. That it had changed by the 22nd is know by the fact that I consulted it then. Further, it was available on the 22nd in the author information pack of that date. Unfortunately I still do not know whether the listing was changed on the 20th, ie, when the emails where sent to the people asked to step down, or on the 22nd (when the author information pack was changed). If the former, Pielke's claim in his second update was contradicted by publicly available evidence at the time he wrote. If the second, it is now demonstrably false from the public record, but was only partially faslifiable from the public record at the time he made the claim. In the later case, the best that can be said in Pielke's favour is that he drew a conclusion from an absence of evidence which was in fact false.
He did not draw just one conclusion from Adger's declining to comment on who else had been asked to step aside. He also concluded that this was "another climate ink blot", which only makes sense as a suggestion that he was asked to step down because of his critique of Brysse et al. Yet, as a matter of public record, Pielke had only served two terms on the board, and was not dismissed mid term. Further, as a matter of public record, all Elsevier publications have a policy of the "... journal’s Board generally undergo[ing] a complete revision every two or three years, and this will involve removing some individuals, inviting others, and renewing some existing members for another term." (Wayback, Jan 15) So, as a matter of public record, the key elements of the email to him from Elsevier were accurate, with the possible exception that they did not appreciate the work done, although I suspect that also was true.
So, at the time that Pielke wrote the blog, he had no reason for his suspicions. He had a reason for making them public before taking any effort to allay those suspicions however. A lie, as they say, goes around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants. Pielke knows that he can get is message out, and never be forced to admit he was wrong on the primary claim, even as each point of evidence he offers for that claim is demolished.
I said at 24/2/13 4:41 PM:
"Pielke was a notable under-performer in his role on the editorial board. The journal doesn't do honorary positions, and it doesn't do passengers, so when it's time for a bit of revitalisation why not cut out the dead wood?
Other, and likely more worthy, editors were also let go for rejuvenation, so Roger should just get over himself.
This is a tantrum more suited to a three year old>"
to which TLITB replied by quoting from a letter from Elsevier:
"As we described in the previous email, the only reason for seeking new Board Members is to refresh the Board with new members. We conveyed this to our meeting of Board members during the fringes of Planet under Pressure conference in March 2012, which you were not able to attend."
and then whining:
You see the *only* reason there? And you see when they decided it (nearly a year ago) if anyone can show they told him in good time "inbetween" since then that would be really fascinating for me. If you can show they really thought him less "worthy" than the other 5 too that would be good.
It seems that logical thinking is not TLITB's fort.
The journal's decision to "refresh" the editorial board does not preclude the situation that some of that refreshment was desirable as a consequence of the significant under-performance of one or more of its members. The two are not mutually exclusive, and indeed refreshment is usually an action predicated on other reasons.
And given Pielke's absence from duty one can hardly expect the journal to chase around trying to find their AWOL editor. They are not his nursemaids.
Face it. The guy was canned because he wasn't pulling his weight - unless your definition of such includes lurking in the dark with hands in pockets.
He was the Editor Who Didn't. A tick. An acrochordon. A remora. The journal has a job to do, and Pielke wasn't doing it to anything resembling a minimum standard.
As to Pielke being "less worthy" that the others, I only said that this was "likely". Given Pielke's complete inaction for the last 2 and a half years, and the poor action preceding that period, it would be difficult for other editors to be even less active. And the other editors may have had different reasons for not being able to continue with they editorial tasks, so they get the benefit of the doubt.
If Pielke has a serious justification for expecting retention on the board, I'd like to hear of it.
Oh, and TLITB, you need to improve your comprehension skills somewhat - I am not anonymous. I am, as I signed in my previous post...
Bernard J.
[I think, therefore I am not a robot.
QED]
Bernard,
As a non-robot, I assume you'd like to be recalled of this response from our honest broker to Adger:
> Your speculation that I have "waning interest" in the journal could have been easily discussed via email or phone.
I believe this suggestion has merit. Our honest broker might apply this should apply to himself.
Another suggestion could be for the editors to directly post the news on their webpage, a practice honest brokers would notdispute":
> And people wonder why I air issues in public?
***
Let us also note that our honest broker does not seem to have access to what has been discussed in the last two meetings:
> I find it remarkable that you have known for 3 months, and perhaps as long as one year, that you were going to remove me from the editorial board and not once in that period did you see fit to contact me to either discuss or let me know.
With our emphasis.
Has our honest broker inquired about the minutes of these two last meetings?
In fact, is it public knowledge which meetings our honest broker have attended?
Could this be another peer-review inkblot?
You be the judge.
PS: Capcha is blineder.
Tom,
Thank you for your analysis.
I believe it helps illuminate this comment by our honest broker:
> Lest there be any confusion, below is the text of the original email I received from GEC dropping me from the GEC Board. It contains several untruths: (1) about the notion of "rotate members at regular intervals" and (2) an expression of "appreciation" for my work. Upon receiving the letter, I knew that (1) was false, as I have shown. (I have since learned the falseness of (2)).
I believe your analysis shows that the sentence emphasized was an untruth.
***
Here's what our honest broker concludes about untruths:
> If you tell people untruths you should expect that they will wonder about the truth.
I believe that this conclusion has merit, although I doubt we should extend it to (2), which looks like polite sentence taken from a boilerplate. This seems to have the power to make the world of diplomacy collapse. Politeness matters more than honest brokers might believe:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politeness_theory
Willard, I will quote my words from a recent comment on Pielke's blog:
"More substantively, it is perfectly consistent to be both thankful for the voluntary contribution of a person, while believing that that persons contribution is well below that by other equivalent volunteers. This is not a situation where Pielke is being paid. Ergo, below par performance is no skin of Elsevier's nose. It does, however, constitute a significant reason to ask Pielke to step down, given that policy mandated that they ask some editorial board members to step down.
On this point I disagree with Albatross. It is not clear at all that Pielke did a lousy job. In his first four years on the board (2007-2010) he was only slightly below average in reviews undertaken, and he contributed an editorial. Elsevier had every reason to appreciate that work; and every right (indeed, an obligation) to say so. It is just that after 2010 he went missing in action. And given that, and a policy requiring that a "... journal’s Board generally undergoes a complete revision every two or three years, and this will involve removing some individuals, inviting others, and renewing some existing members for another term", its a no brainer to remove an individual who has contributed nothing over the last two years.
So, Elsevier had a policy of periodically refreshing editorial board membership; Pielke was asked to step down as part of that policy; he (rather than some other of the editors) was among the five asked to step down because of his low (effectively zero) contribution after 2010; but his low contribution after 2010 in no way diminished Elsevier's appreciation of his real contribution from March 2006-Dec 2010. There is no contradiction in this, and no reason to suspect any falsehood in the communications by Elsevier and the GEC editors with Pielke."
I do agree that it is quite possible that the expression of appreciation was mere boilerplate. If boilerplate, it does not follow that they are true or false, merely that their truth, or falsity had no causative role in their utterance. However, it is also possible that they expressions of appreciation were made because Elsevier, or the editors did in fact appreciate Pielke's contributions. The most I can say about (2) is that I don't know that it was false; and that if we adopt any sort of principle of charity we must assume it to be true. Pielke is in no position to say anything more than that either.
Tom,
You're right that the editors have an obligation to thank our honest broker for the work he did for the journal. In that sense, the boilerplate sentence might very well show sincere gratitude, a gratitude our honest broker depreciates by throwing a tantrum, if I may borrow your expression (with my emphasis):
> The complete lack of communication -- especially in the preceding 12 months when changes to the Board were determined but not shared -- invites speculation when decisions are announced but not explained. This is especially the case when a gracious form letter notifying me of being dropped is followed up with a post-hoc litany of concerns from the editor. Had I not noted publicly the odd timing of my being dropped fro the Board, I suspect that I never would have known the reasons behind your decisions that only now you see fit to share.
(The first sentence contains an untruth, by the way: the changes were determined in november 2012.)
I'm not sure why the reasons Adger evoked should be interpreted as a litany. Why would they wish more performance from our honest broker? He's not an employee. He gives what he can.
Since 2010, our honest broker refused two reviews for the journal. That we know. Why does our honest broker would sound that surprised to be asked to step down? Why does he diminishes his own responsibility in maintaining the communications open?
As if the one who says "no" had no responsibility to propose counter-offers. As if being an editor was some kind of sinecure. As if his replacement should be justified by some grudge.
Our honest broker is sure making sure that there is some, now.
***
In any case, is it true that our honest broker did nothing for the journal since 2010? He does seem to open up that possibility when he says:
> Of course being an editorial board member involves more than reviewing, it also carries an expectation of recruiting high quality authors, submitting your own best work, helping to identify peer reviewers off the board, all of which I have actively done (your suggestion that performing reviews is the basis for board performance reflects a lack of understanding of academia).
Do we have public accessible records showing that our honest broker did any of this for the journal?
Do we have public accessible records showing that our honest broker did any of this for the journal since the end of 2010?
***
If this bland story can generate so many interesting lines of inquiry, what a ball climate auditors have.
Bernard J You really signed your name to that? Thanks for introducing me to a new word for tumour. Your use of this in both a pseudo-intellectual, and a pusillanimous way, is so familiar to me from the practice of climate hate ;)
Even so, yours does seem a more honest example of the subsumed dehumanising hatred that may be an explanation for a lot of the febrile unhinged thinking here? ;)
I’m not complaining keep it up! ;)
Again Willard runs interference when pointing out to you some developments in communication since the pony express ;)
Let’s see there’s Willard helping Bernard, Willard helping Tom with suggested alternatives, Willard pointing out to overzealous grammarians they have missed the way.
Willard, when you said you were going to keep at bay from me a hoard of flaming rabbits did you really mean me that you are struggling to herd the floppy bunnies in the right direction? ;)
Denis Healey and Geoffrey Howe come to mind ;)
I like this new concept of "boiler plate" – the Schrodinger’s cat of truth I gather? The closest some here get I guess?
Maybe it’s true maybe not – let’s imprint your favourite interpretation and not look too closely? ;)
Anonymous number 1, Danger Mouse (name check), Grammar expert. Tell me, is this passive from Tom Curtis?
"It is possible that that assumption was mistaken."
I guess you could say it refers to an assumption in the previous sentence that owned the assumption?
Shame the idea couldn't make to the same sentence though eh? ;)
I need no help with the rest from Tom, it is certainly is his usual self-confusing knot tying.
You still have a problem with time inside your Gordian mess Tom. RPJ’s Update 2 was Feb 21
What on earth do you mean by this? (my emphasis):
"If the second [listing was changed on the 22nd], [Pielke's claim in his second update] is now demonstrably false from the public record, but was only partially falsifiable from the public record at the time he made the claim. "
Willard, we can at least show that "submitting your own best work" is rather contentious. We know Roger has published in the last 5 years, but his last paper in GEC is from 2007 and was a criticism of the Stern report ("best work"?). It is of course possible GEC rejected all his best work...
The other stuff will be more problematic to find out, but considering his apparent overinflation on the submission issue, one wonders how much truth there is in the rest.
Note, it is fully possible Roger *thinks* he did all of this to the extent that can be expected of an Editorial Board member. For example, he may think proposing alternative reviewers when he declines to review is "helping to identify peer reviewers off the board". In that case I have been doing Editorial Board work without being on the Editorial Board for many journals. I have also on many occasions suggested journals for the work of my colleagues. Again without being part of these Editorial Boards.
Dear TLITB,
Please acknowledge the points I made earlier.
Also, please consider this:
> It is interesting timing to be sure. Perhaps it is an odd coincidence. Perhaps not.
Would this qualify as a Schrodinger's cat of truth?
Many thanks!
HiTom,
RE from waaay back up thread @23/2/13 7:17 PM. Thanks for your analysis. Intriguing stuff.
Plenty of good and valid questions being raised here by Willard and others. Another question arises from this kerfuffle by Roger.
One has to wonder whether or not GEC approached Pielke Junior to review Brysse et al per chance and he declined? If that did happen, then they would have sent Roger a copy of the manuscript to assist him in making his decision. Just wondering.
I don't regard TLITB as more worthy of response than the Chinese knockoff handbag comments.
Albatross, while I do not know how GEC functions, I know of only one journal for which I review that provides the whole manuscript when inviting for review. The other journals only sent me an abstract, often, but not always, along with the name of the authors.
Marco
Hi Marco,
Thanks. In my line of research they usually provide a link to the PDF of the paper in question.
So we'd have to first figure out what GEC does, otherwise it may be a moot question.
Alpha,
While TLITB might not have earned any response, playing along might be useful for the diligence due to this episode of this Peer Review Survivor.
Take for instance this claim by our honest broker:
> I have never received a mid-term request to step down from any journal.
Considering TLIBT's interpretations of Tom's comments, how should we interpret this claim?
It could be interpreted as true: our honest broker never received such request.
It could be interpreted as an untruth: our honest broker just received such request.
Instead of solving this Schrodinger's cat of truth, perhaps we may write some attempts at humour, and make sure it should be taken as such by inserting appropriate emoticons for nearly every single sentences we write.
***
That we respond to TLITB or not does not matter much. That we respond to TLITB in a respectful manner does not matter either, contrary to his latest innuendo. Who would I be to tone troll anyone!
What matters is that the topic does not become TLITB, nor Tom, nor me, nor anyone nor anything else than our honest broker's victim playing.
Please let us play the ball.
Tom,
If you need access to the copies GEC before 2005, you can contact me via Eli or with the email on my tumblog.
Yet another peer-review inkblot:
> A small correction ... that 2007 GEC of mine was a peer-reviewed paper: [...]
I believe this is suppose to respond to this:
> Far from opposing such critiques, GEC has actually published a critique by Pielke of the Stern review as an editorial in 2007.
Let it be noted that our honest broker's article is indeed listed as an editorial:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09593780/17
An untruth?
Perhaps. Perhaps not.
You be the judge.
willard --- How many times do I have to tell you not to pet Schrodinger's cat. It messes up the entanglement...
Willard, in this case it's likely not an untruth. Considering the fact that a revision was made, there has likely been peer review.
Marco
Marco,
The untruth is that our honest broker corrected Tom.
Nothing in Tom's claim needed correction.
In editing terms, he offered an addendum, not a corrigendum.
All things come to those who wait.
In this case, google has slowly updated its cache of the Editorial Board of Global Environmental Change. Consequently I can say definitively that as of 15:17 GMT, Feb 21st (08:17 MST), the new board composition was a matter of public record. That is, at most half an hour after his Pielke's third update, it was a matter of public record that Pielke:
1) Falsely claimed to be dismissed mid term; and
2) Falsely claimed that Elsevier in general, and GEC in particular did not have a policy of periodically rotating out editors in order to bring in new blood.
Instead of retracting those allegations, Pielke strengthened them, twice alleging that Elsevier had lied when they informed him of the policy and asked him to step aside.These allegations occurred 24 hours, and 26 hours after it could without question be established as a matter of public record that they were telling the truth.
Of course, it is not likely that the google cache of the page, which apparently updates every five to six days, should update just minutes after the page itself was updated. It is probable that the page was updated when the effected members of the editorial board were first advised that they were being asked to step down. That is, it was probably a matter of public record that his allegations were false before Pielke ever published them. But I cannot establish that as a matter of certainty.
Post a Comment