de Freitas, C

<div>mann bk: de F Christy complained to U va (--> USAToday Op-ed</div><div></div><div><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Willie_Soon" style="text-decoration-line: none; font-weight: bold; outline: none;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy
</a> 6 eds resigned, incl main=oreskes:

In 2003, Soon and Baliunas published an article, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, in a small journal called Climate Research. Presenting a review of existing literature rather than new research, the two concluded “the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” They had, in effect, challenged both Mann and the IPCC, and in so doing presented global warming skeptics with a cause to rally around. Another version of the paper was quickly published with three additional authors: David Legates of the University of Delaware, and longtime skeptics Craig and Sherwood Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in Tempe, Arizona. All have ExxonMobil connections: the Idsos received $40,000 from ExxonMobil for their center in the year the study was published, while Legates is an adjunct scholar at the Dallas-based National Center for Policy Analysis (which got $205,000 between 2000 and 2003).Calling the paper “a powerful new work of science” that would “shiver the timbers of the adrift Chicken Little crowd,” Senator Inhofe devoted half of a Senate hearing to it, bringing in both Soon and Legates to testify against Mann. The day before, Hans Von Storch, the editor-in-chief of Climate Research—where the Soon and Baliunas paper originally appeared—resigned to protest deficiencies in the review process that led to its publication; two editors soon joined him. Von Storch later told the Chronicle of Higher Education that climate science skeptics “had identified Climate Research as a journal where some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.” Meanwhile, Mann and 12 other leading climate scientists wrote a blistering critique of Soon and Baliunas’ paper in the American Geophysical Union publication Eos, noting, among other flaws, that they’d used historic precipitation records to reconstruct past temperatures—an approach Mann told Congress was “fundamentally unsound.”----2003 bogus paper allowed B43 pivot?
guardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-reviewguard uk no links
...The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, as a top expert in his field, was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers criticising his work.
Here is how it worked in one case.
A key component in the story of 20th-century warming is data from sparse weather stations in Siberia. This huge area appears to have seen exceptional warming of up to 2C in the past century. But in such a remote region, actual data is sparse. So how reliable is that data, and do scientists interpret it correctly?
In March 2004, Jones wrote to Professor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, saying that he had "recently rejected two papers [one for the Journal of Geophysical Research and one for Geophysical Research Letters] from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised".
He did not specify which papers he had reviewed, nor what his grounds for rejecting them were. But the Guardian has established that one was probably from Lars Kamel a Swedish astrophysicist formerly of the University of Uppsala. It is the only paper published on the topic in the journal that year.
Kamel analysed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than Jones, despite analysing much the same data.
Kamel told the Guardian: "Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century." The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.Kamel was leaving academic science and never tried to publish it elsewhere. But the draft seen by the Guardian asserts that the difference between his findings on Siberia temperatures and that of Jones is "probably because the CRU compilation contains too little correction for urban warming." He does not, however, justify that conclusion with any data or analysis.  Kamel says he no longer has a copy of the anonymous referee judgments on the paper, so we don't know why it was rejected. The paper could be criticised for being slight and for not revealing details about its methods of analysis. A reviewer such as Jones would certainly have been aware of Kamel's views about mainstream climate research, which he had called "pseudo-science". He would also have known that its publication in a journal like GRL would have attracted the attention of professional climate sceptics. Nonetheless, the paper raised important questions about the quality of CRU's Siberian data, and was a rare example of someone trying to replicate Jones's analysis. On those grounds alone, some would have recommended its publication.
Kamel's paper admits the discrepancy "does not necessarily mean the CRU surface record for the entire globe is in error". But it argues that the result suggests it "should be checked in more regions and even globally". Jones was not able to comment on the incident.
Critics of Jones such as the prominent sceptical Stephen McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog have long accused him of preventing critical research from having an airing. McIntyre wrote on his web site in December: "CRU's policies of obstructing critical articles in the peer-reviewed literature and withholding data from critics have unfortunately placed issues into play that might otherwise have been settled long ago." He also says obstructing publication undermine claims that all is well in scientific peer review.Dr Myles Allen, a climate modeller at the University of Oxford and Professor Hans von Storch, a climate scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, in Geesthacht, Germany signed a joint column in Nature when the email hacking story broke, in which they said that "no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since it began in about 1850." But that argument is harder to make if such evidence, flawed though it might be, is actively being kept out of the journals.In another email exchange CRU scientist Dr Keith Briffa initiates what looks like an attempt to have a paper rejected. In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, Briffa emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please."Stahle is a tree-ring professor from the University of Arkansas. This request appears to subvert the convention that reviewers should be both independent and anonymous.
Cook replied later that day: "OK, today. Promise. Now, something to ask from you." The favour was to provide some data to help Cook review a paper that attacked his own tree-ring work. "If published as is, this paper could really do some damage," he said. "It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved [inverse regression] method is actually better in a practical sense."
Briffa was unable to comment. Cook told the Guardian: "These emails are from a long time ago and the details are not terribly fresh in my mind."
Jones did not restrict his harsh criticism of papers he saw as flawed to pre-publication reviews. He and Mann also had a reputation for harsh criticism of journals that published papers they disagreed with.
In March 2003, Mann discussed encouraging colleagues to "no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in" Climate Research. He was angry about that journal's publication of a series of sceptical papers "that couldn't get published in a reputable journal", according to Mann. His anger at the journal had evidently been building for some time, but was focused in 2003 on a paper published in January that year and written by the Harvard astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. The pair claimed that Mann's famous hockey stick graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years was wrong. After analysing 240 studies of past temperatures from tree rings and other sources, they said "the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1,000 years, nor is it the most extreme". It could have been warmer a thousand years before, they suggested.Harvard press-released the paper under the headline "20th century climate not so hot", which would have pleased lobbyists against the climate change consensus from the American Petroleum Institute and George C Marshall Institute, both of which had helped pay for the research. Mann told me at the time the paper was "absurd, almost laughable". He said Soon and Baliunas made no attempt in the paper to show whether the warmth they found at different places and times round the world in past eras was contemporaneous in the way current global warming is. If they were just one-off scattered warm events they did not demonstrate any kind of warm era at all. Soon did not respond to Guardian requests to discuss the paper.The emails show Mann debating with others what he should do. In March 2003, he told Jones: "I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted – the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper"But Jones told Mann: "I think the sceptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set [the field of paleoclimate research] back a number of years if it goes unchallenged." He was right. The Soon and Baliunas paper was later read into the Senate record and taken up by the Bush administration, which attempted to get it cited in a report from the Environmental Protection Agency against the wishes of the report's authors.[why object? epa ctw?]Persuaded that the paper could not be ignored, Mann assembled a group of colleagues to review it. The group included regular CRU emailers Jones, Dr Keith Briffa, Dr Tom Wigley and Dr Kevin Trenberth. They sent their findings to the journal's editorial board, arguing that Soon's study was little more than anecdote. It had cherry-picked data showing warm periods in different places over several centuries and had provided no evidence that they demonstrated any overall warming of the kind seen in the 20th century.The emails reveal that when the journal failed to disown the paper, the scientists figured a "coup" had taken place, and that one editor in particular, a New Zealander called Chris de Freitas, was fast-tracking sceptical papers on to its pages. Mann saw an irony in what had happened. "This was the danger of always criticising the sceptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal." But Mann had a solution. "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."Was this improper pressure? Bloggers responding to the leaking of these emails believe so. Mann denies wanting to "stifle legitimate sceptical views". He maintains that he merely wanted to uphold scientific standards. "Please understand the context of this," he told the Guardian after the scandal broke. "This was in response to a very specific, particularly egregious incident in which one editor of the journal was letting in a paper that clearly did not meet the standards of quality for the journal."Naturally de Freitas defends his actions during the incident. "I was never ever found to have done anything wrong, even in the rumpus over the Soon and Baliunas paper. All accusations against me were fully investigated and my performance as editor of this journal was shown to be flawless."But many on the 10-man editorial board agreed with Mann. There was a revolt. Their chief editor von Storch wrote an editorial saying the Soon paper shouldn't have appeared because of "severe methodological flaws". After their publisher Otto Kinne refused to publish the editorial, von Storch and four other board members resigned in protest. Subsequently Kinne himself admitted that publication had been an error and promised to strengthen the peer review process. Mann had won his argument.Sceptical climatologist and Cato Institute fellow Pat Michaels alleged in the Wall Street Journal in December last year that the resignations by von Storch and his colleagues were a counter-coup initiated by Mann and Jones. This is vehemently denied by von Storch. While one of the editors who resigned was a colleague of Jones at CRU, von Storch had a track record of independence. If anything, he was regarded as a moderate sceptic. Certainly, he had annoyed both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics.Also writing in the Wall Street Journal in December, he said: "I am in the pocket of neither Exxon nor Greenpeace, and for this I come under fire from both sides – the sceptics and alarmists – who have fiercely opposing views but are otherwise siblings in their methods and contempt ... I left the post [as chief editor of Climate Research] with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper – a sceptic's paper, at that."The bad blood over this paper lingered. A year later, in July 2004, Jones wrote an email to Mann about two papers recently published in Climate Research – the Soon and Baliunas paper and another he identified as by "MM". This was almost certainly a paper from the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick and Michaels that returned to an old sceptics' theme. It claimed to find urbanisation dominating global warming trends on land. Jones called it "garbage".
More damagingly, he added in an email to Mann with the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
This has, rightly, become one of the most famous of the emails. And for once, it means what it seems to mean. Jones and Trenberth, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, had recently become joint lead authors for a key chapter in the next IPCC assessment report, called AR4....... =<a href="https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/files/Pal-review-by-John-Mashey.pdf">https://www.desmog.com/wp-content/uploads/files/Pal-review-by-John-Mashey.pdf</a>no lnxChris de Freitas, Pat Michaels and their palsJohn R. Mashey,JohnMasheyAT yahoo DOT com, 11/29/11Table of Contents1 Introduction 12 Active editors, tenure by received dates 33 People X Articles & Activities, Chronological 44 People X Organizations 55 Social Network of the pals, a few hints 66 Conclusion 7A.1 – Papers from Climate Research 8A.2 –Chris de Freitas, Papers and Other Activities 15A.3 –Pat Michaels - Publications 181 IntroductionGood peer review is crucial, but not sufficient for credible scientificpublishing. It is merely an early hurdle. Even in carefully-run journals,mistakes occur, to be found later by the broader reviews followingpublication of anything interesting. In most fields, real junk is ignored. Inclimate, such junk gets widely endlessly publicized, forcing debunking.For a few years, Climate Research, a generally-credible journal, publishedsome weak or even awful articles. The journal had no Editor-in-Chief, soauthors sent manuscripts to an Associate Editor of their choice. Eachselected reviewers, handled the whole process and accepted papers with nofurther oversight. From 1990 to 1996, CR published zero papers fromany of the following, called pals hereafter: Sallie Baliunas, RobertBalling, John Christy, Robert Davis, (Chris de Freitas), David Douglass,Vincent Gray, Sherwood Idso, PJ Knappenberger, Ross McKitrick, PatMichaels, Eric Posmentier, Arthur Robinson, Willie Soon, and GerdRainer Weber.2 Chris de Freitas became an editor and then accepted 14papers from the pals 1997-2003....[much more]11/30/11Von Storch seemed the obvious choice to become Editor-in-Chief, givenhis handling of 110 papers. The identities of the reviewers used by deFreitas are (properly) unknown, but one might wonder: Did dubious papers often get reviewed by pals (or their friends)? Were there negative reviews by others and how much did they count?The table on next page shows the authors, their papers and other activities,chronologically. The varied year-widths here align this table with the next.The pals arrived with de Freitas, sent him most of their papers andessentially departed after the von Storch resignation.The papers are listed in Appendix A.1 and then briefly analyzed....People X Articles & Activities, ChronologicalThe following lists pal authors, plus Fred Singer and the George MarshallInstitute (GMI) as key connectors. Most are extracted from MAS2010pp.97-102. Activities are listed in the Index and described there in moredetail. Higher numbers show stronger involvement. Pals’ CR articles areshown in red, with relevant climate anti-science activities in black, roughlychronologically, although some activities continued over years, so thatparticipation does not imply a specific year. Singer was a close ally of theGMI founders, of whom two were on his SEPP board (Naomi Oreskes &Erik Conway, Merchants of Doubt, 2010.)Editorial tenures, by visible received dates, are shown in gray.Most are noted in www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database...4 sallie is hub?!balling. michaels4 People X OrganizationsThis lists the 15 pals plus Fred Singer, a connection for many, and MadhavKhandekar. Most are extracted from MAS2010 pp.96-102. A few werenot involved enough in the MAS2010 story to be listed there, but werefound in a more inclusive 600-person table. Higher numbers implystronger involvement, described p.96. Organizations are described in moredetail and listed in the MAS2010 Index, p.4. Some people have publishedreal science (a necessity to build any credibility and access to the researchcommunity), but all have shown persistent involvement with organizationsthat do climate anti-science, most of which also have tobacco connections.Almost everyone has been involved with CATO, (GMI) or Heartland,usually more than one. Baliunas  18 , Balling  11, Michaels  10 , Soon  9 and Singer  13 eachare listed 9+ times. Knappenberger seems the least involved, but wasMichaels‘ student and has worked for him for decades.Khandekar arrived at the end of the de Freitas era, so was not included inthe pals group, although he surely knew them well. He did not stay long.Most pals have been involved in many organizations that do climateanti-science. The same people appear again and again....6 ConclusionWhen de Freitas became editor, CR was ―open for business and it arrivedquickly from the pals, a group of people who have accumulated a longhistory of climate anti-science activities, papers and involvement withorganizations that promote anti-science, not just for climate, but often forother areas.17Some papers seemed fine, if not necessarily very important, but some verydubious papers were accepted. Michaels‘ 7 papers accounted for half ofhis entire peer-reviewed production during the period.When de Freitas left, the flow of papers from pals effectively dried up.One need know nothing about climate science to see the patterns here.It is a fine example of lax processes allowing a ―rogue editor‖ to subvertthe normal peer review process. The scientists were not only right to beworried about CR, but may well have underestimated the extent of theproblem.AcknowledgementsThanks to various reviewers and help from DeSmogBlog.Thanks to CR for giving open access to its older papers.Most all of all, I thank the legions of scientists who tirelessly do the oftenthankless task of peer review and do it well. Most of the articles in CRseemed reasonable, meaning that editors and reviewers did much work onother people‘s publications. This case seems a real outlier.=</div><div>
<div>desmog</div><div>
</div><div><div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0.38999998569488525px; line-height: 19.5px;"><div class="field-items" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div class="field-item even" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><h1 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0.5em; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 300; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Chris de Freitas</h1><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 300; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Credentials</h2><ul style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 2em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">PhD (Queensland)</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">MA (Toronto)</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">BA (Hons),</li></ul>Source: <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">[1]</a><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 300; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Background</h2>De Freitas is an Associate Professor at the School of Geography and Environmental Science, University of Auckland. He was the editor of Climate Research journal when certain questionable papers were published that led several editors to resigned in protest, pointing to the journal's flawed peer review process.According to his <a href="http://web.env.auckland.ac.nz/people_profiles/defreitas_c/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">profile at the University of Auckland</a>, “he has served as Deputy Dean of Science, Head of Science and Technology at the Tamaki campus and four years as Pro Vice Chancellor. He has been Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand and is a founding member of the Australia New Zealand Climate Forum. He is Vice President elect of the International Society of Biometeorology. For 10 years he was an editor of the international journal 'Climate Research'. Chris was an <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/whats-an-ipcc-expert-reviewer" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">expert reviewer</a> of the 1995 and the 2001 Scientific Assessment Reports of United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the UK Department of the Environment 1996 Report 'Potential Effects of Climate Change in the United Kingdom'.” <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">[1]</a><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 300; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Stance on Climate Change</h2>“'I do not dispute that the carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere is largely from the use of fossil fuels,' he tells the Herald.'No doubt rising carbon dioxide could “change the climate”. The basic physics is there to support this view. But where is the evidence that the putative change would be large or damaging?' In more extreme weather events perhaps? De Freitas doesn't accept that extreme weather events are linked to human induced climate change (global warming). 'It is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation,' he wrote in 2007. As far as he's concerned the climate has always changed - naturally. And the fact that global carbon dioxide emissions last year rose by a record amount to almost 31 billion tonnes is neither here nor there.” <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">[2]</a><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 300; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Key Quotes</h2><blockquote style="margin: 15px 30px; padding: 15px; border: 1px solid rgb(153, 153, 153); background: rgb(238, 238, 238);">“I am not a global warming sceptic. I accept that rising human-caused CO2 from fossil sources could 'change the climate'. The basic physics is there to support this view. But where is the evidence that the putative change would be large or damaging?”<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s7" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;"> [7]</a></blockquote><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 300; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Key Deeds</h2>October 1, 2010 Chris de Freitas <a href="http://www.viddler.com/explore/heartland/videos/437/" target="blank" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">spoke</a> at the Heartland Institute's “Pac-Rim Conference on Climate Change.”October 25, 2006Chris de Freitas was one of several scientists submitting amicus brief organized by Competitive Enterprise Institute on Carbon Dioxide pollution case before Supreme Court.<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">[3]</a>January, 2003As a former editor Climate Research, de Freitas was <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=3516830" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">involved</a> in a controversy surrounding a research article (<a href="http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">PDF</a>) co-authored by <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/sallie-baliunas" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Sallie Baliunas</a> and <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/willie-soon" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Willie Soon</a>. The article reviewed previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that the climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[4]</a>But 13 of the authors that had been cited in the paper by Baliunas and Soon refuted the interpretation of their work. Among the sharp criticisms of the Climate Research paper was one from Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. When von Storch, then the journal’s editor, read Mann's critique, he said he realized his journal should never have accepted the study: “If it would have been properly reviewed, it would have been rejected on the basis of methodological flaws.” Shortly after, Von Storch, along with two other members of the Climate Research editorial board <a href="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4361&method=full" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">resigned in protest</a>—“they submitted flawed research,” Von Stroch stated at the time. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s5" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">[5]</a>“And at least three scientists who were on the journal's peer-review panel–Wolfgang Cramer, Tom Wigley and Danny Harvey–have complained that de Freitas has published papers they have deemed unacceptable without notifying them.” <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s6" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">[6]</a>After the controversy a more extensive version of the research was published in Energy and Environment, operated by <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1281" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen</a>. Senator <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/james-inhofe" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">James Inhofe</a> used the article as <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/senator-inhofe/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">proof</a> that climate change is caused by natural variability rather than human activity.<a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/skeptics-prefer-pal-review-over-peer-review-chris-de-freitas-pat-michaels-and-their-pals-1997-2003" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">DeSmogBlog</a> has described how de Freitas opened the door for papers, some quite dubious, by a set of people mostly listed in this directory. They'd never published in CRbefore he arrived and they essentially disappeared after von Storch resigned.<h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 300; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Affiliations</h2><ul style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 2em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=ICECAP" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">International Climate Change Assessment Project (ICECAP)</a> — “<a href="http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Expert</a>.” <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s8" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">[8]</a></li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Climate_Research%28journal%29" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Climate Research </a>— Past Editor. <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">[1]</a></li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://66.39.128.35/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Heartland Institute</a> — “<a href="http://heartland.org/chris-de-freitas" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Expert</a>”</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=New_Zealand_Climate_Science_Coalition" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">New Zealand Climate Science Coalition</a> — “<a href="http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Adviser</a>.” <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s9" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">[9]</a></li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) </a>— “<a href="http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Science Adviser</a>.” <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/chris-de-freitas#s10" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">[10]</a></li></ul><h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 300; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Publications</h2>According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, de Freitas has published four research articles in peer-reviewed journals.A <a href="http://web.env.auckland.ac.nz/people_profiles/defreitas_c/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">full list of his publications is available at the University of Auckland</a>.<h2 style="margin: 0px 0px 0.75em; padding: 0px; line-height: 1.3em; font-weight: 300; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> Resources</h2><ol style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px 0px 0px 2em; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a name="s1" id="s1" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“</a><a href="http://web.env.auckland.ac.nz/people_profiles/defreitas_c/" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Dr Chris de Freitas</a>,” The University of Auckland. Accessed December 9, 2011.</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a name="s2" id="s2" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“</a><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10738739" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">The climate dissenter holds his ground</a>,” The New Zealand Herald, July 16, 2011.</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a name="s3" id="s3" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“</a><a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070827011511/http://www.cei.org/gencon/030,05572.cfm" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Amici Curiae Brief of Climatologists and Scientists Sallie Baliunas, John R. Christy, Chris De Freitas, David Legates, Anthony Lupo, Patrick Michaels, Joel Schwartz, and Roy W. Spencer in Support of Respondents</a>,” CEI, October 24, 2006. Archived August 27, 2007.</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a name="s4" id="s4" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“</a><a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=3516830" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Climate study just hot air say critics</a>,” New Zealand Herald. August 7, 2003.</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a name="s5" id="s5" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“</a><a href="http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4361&method=full" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Three Journal Editors Resign Over Paper by Skeptics</a>,” The Heat is Online, July 29, 2003.</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a name="s6" id="s6" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“</a><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=politics-in-peer-review" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Politics in Peer Review?</a>”, Scientific American, June 24, 2003.</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a name="s7" id="s7" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“</a><a href="http://muchachoverde.blogspot.com/2011/09/chris-de-freitas-not-skeptic.html" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Chris de Freitas not a skeptic</a>,” Heretics Corner, September 2011.</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a name="s8" id="s8" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“</a><a href="http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Experts</a>,” ICECAP. Accessed December 9, 2011.</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a name="s9" id="s9" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“</a><a href="http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">About US & Contact</a>,” The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Accessed December 9, 2011.</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a name="s10" id="s10" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“</a><a href="http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=280" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Who We Are</a>,” International Climate Science Coalition. Accessed December 9, 2011.</li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1271" target="blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">ExxonSecrets Factsheet: Chris DeFreitas</a></li><li style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">“<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Deniers:Scientists:Chris_DeFreitas" target="_blank" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Deniers: Scientists: Chris DeFreitas</a>,” ExxonSecrets Wiki.</li></ol></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-14 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-label" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: bold;">Tags: </div><div class="field-items" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div class="field-item even" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/willie-soon" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Willie Soon</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/913" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">global warming</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/939" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">climate change</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/1076" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">chris de freitas</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/1077" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">sallie baliunas</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/1078" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">climate research</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2540" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">desmogblog</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2560" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">global warming blog</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/2654" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">denial industry</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/3068" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">climate change denier</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4046" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">global warming research</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/4047" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">climate misinformation</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/5721" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">smogger</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/6886" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">climate change skeptic</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7705" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">climate denialism</a></div><div class="field-item odd" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7706" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">denial database</a></div><div class="field-item even" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/directory/vocabulary/7853" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">global warming research journal</a></div></div></div><div class="field field-name-taxonomy-vocabulary-5 field-type-taxonomy-term-reference field-label-above" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; letter-spacing: 0.39px; line-height: 19.5px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="field-label" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; font-weight: bold;">People: </div><div class="field-items" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><div class="field-item even" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px;"><a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/taxonomy/term/1702" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Willie Soon</a></div></div></div></div><div></div><div>exxon secrets</div><div>
</div><div>Associate Professor at the School of Georgraphy and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.
Deputy Dean of Science, Aukland Head of Science and Technology, Aukland Pro Vice Chancellor , Aukland Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand founding member of the Australia-New Zealand Climate Forum Executive Board of the International Society of Biometeorology from 1999-2001.

During his time at the University of Auckland, de Freitas has served as Deputy Dean of Science, Head of Science and Technology and four years as Pro Vice Chancellor. He has been Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand and is a founding member of the Australia New Zealand Climate Forum. Formerly an editor of the international journal Climate Research. From 1999-2001, he served on the Executive Board of the International Society of Biometeorology. 

Formerly one of the editors of a journal called "Climate Research," de Freitas was involved in a controversy surrounding a research article co-authored by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. The article reviewed previous scientific papers and came to the conclusion that climate hasn't changed in the last 2000 years. But 13 of the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited refuted her interpretation of their work, and several editors of Climate Research resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process which allowed the publication.

De Freitas received both his Bachelors and his Masters at the University of Toronto, Canada, after which he earned his Ph.D. as a Commonwealth Scholar from the University of Queensland, Australia. During his time at the University of Auckland, he has served as Deputy Dean of Science, Head of Science and Technology, and for four years as Pro Vice Chancellor. He is Vice President of the Meteorological Society of New Zealand and is a founding member of the Australia-New Zealand Climate Forum as well as serving on the Executive Board of the International Society of Biometeorology from 1999-2001. He has written extensively in popular media on an array of environmental and climate-related issues. The New Zealand Association of Scientists has made him a four-time recipient of their Science Communicator Award
<h3 style="padding: 10px; margin: 0px; text-transform: uppercase; background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">KEY DEEDS</h3>In early 2003, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas submitted a controversial paper to de Freitas for publication in the journal Climate Research. His decision to publish the article sparked heated debate and controversy, resulting in the resignation of half of the journal's editors. 
Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1271#src1" style="text-decoration: none;">Scientific American (2006)</a>

<h3 style="padding: 10px; margin: 0px; text-transform: uppercase; background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">DEEDS</h3>25 October, 2006
One of several scientists submiting amicus brief organized by Competitive Enterprise Institute on Carbon Dioxide pollution case before Supreme Court 
Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1271#src2" style="text-decoration: none;">Amici Curiae Brief on CO2 case</a>

<h3 style="padding: 10px; margin: 0px; text-transform: uppercase; background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">ORGANIZATIONS</h3><a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=141" style="text-decoration: none;">Climate Research Journal</a>
Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1271#src0" style="text-decoration: none;">University of Auckland Bio (2006)</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=2" style="text-decoration: none;">Competitive Enterprise Institute</a>
Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1271#src3" style="text-decoration: none;">Amicus brief written by Competitive Enterprise Institute</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41" style="text-decoration: none;">Heartland Institute</a>
Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1271#src4" style="text-decoration: none;">Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org</a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=146" style="text-decoration: none;">New Zealand Climate Science Coalition </a>
Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1271#src5" style="text-decoration: none;">NZ Climate Science Coalition website </a>

<a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=147" style="text-decoration: none;">International Climate Science Coalition</a>
Source: <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1271#src6" style="text-decoration: none;">ICSC list of who's who</a>

<h3 style="padding: 10px; margin: 0px; text-transform: uppercase; background-color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">SOURCES</h3><a name="src" style="" /><a name="src0" style="">University of Auckland Bio (2006)
</a><a href="http://www.sges.auckland.ac.nz/the_school/our_people/staff_url/cdefreitas/index.htm" style="text-decoration: none;">http://www.sges.auckland.ac.nz/the_school/our_people/staff_url/cdefreitas/index.htm</a>

<a name="src1" style="">Scientific American (2006)
</a><a href="http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000A0746-83A1-1EF7-A6B8809EC588EEDF" style="text-decoration: none;">http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000A0746-83A1-1EF7-A6B8809EC588EEDF</a>

<a name="src2" style="">Amici Curiae Brief on CO2 case
Amici Curiae Brief of Climatologists and Scientists Sallie Baliunas, John R. Christy, Chris De Freitas, David Legates, Anthony Lupo, Patrick Michaels, Joel Schwartz, and Roy W. Spencer in Support of Respondents. by CEI Staff October 24, 2006
</a><a href="http://www.cei.org/gencon/030,05572.cfm" style="text-decoration: none;">http://www.cei.org/gencon/030,05572.cfm</a>

<a name="src3" style="">Amicus brief written by Competitive Enterprise Institute
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, et al., Petitioners, v. U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, et al., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF CLIMATOLOGISTS AND SCIENTISTS SALLIE BALIUNAS, JOHN R. CHRISTY, CHRIS DE FREITAS, DAVID LEGATES, ANTHONY LUPO, PATRICK MICHAELS, JOEL SCHWARTZ, AND ROY W. SPENCER IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS SAM KAZMAN* HANS BADER CHRISTOPHER C. HORNER COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 1001 Connecticut Ave., NW, #1250 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 331-2265 *Counsel of Record
</a><a href="http://www.cei.org/pdf/5572.pdf" style="text-decoration: none;">http://www.cei.org/pdf/5572.pdf</a>

<a name="src4" style="">Heartland Institute - HeartlandGlobalWarming.org
</a><a href="http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/" style="text-decoration: none;">http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/</a>

<a name="src5" style="">NZ Climate Science Coalition website 
List of founders, co-founders and advisors. 
</a><a href="http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45" style="text-decoration: none;">http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45</a>

<a name="src6" style="">ICSC list of who's who
</a><a href="http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=28" style="text-decoration: none;">http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=15&Itemid=28</a>
</div><div></div><div><header class="article-header" style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px;"><h1 class="article-title" style="padding: 0px; margin: 5px 0px 0px; line-height: 36px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">Politics in Peer Review?</h1><h1 class="article-title" style="padding: 0px; margin: 5px 0px 0px; line-height: 36px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/politics-in-peer-review/...</h1><h1 class="article-title" style="padding: 0px; margin: 5px 0px 0px; line-height: 36px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">Mainstream climatologists perceive flaws in a paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, the two Harvard-Smithsonian researchers who produced results skeptical of human-induced global warming. Some conclude that politics drove the paper's publication in Climate Research. One of the journal's editors, Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland, has frequently editorialized in the New Zealand press against the overwhelmingly accepted conclusions of the IPCC. And at least three scientists who were on the journal's peer-review panel--Wolfgang Cramer, Tom Wigley and Danny Harvey--have complained that de Freitas has published papers they have deemed unacceptable without notifying them.</h1><h1 class="article-title" style="padding: 0px; margin: 5px 0px 0px; line-height: 36px; text-rendering: optimizeLegibility;">
Wigley says that such action is very unusual; de Freitas responds that he "was not too concerned [about Wigley's complaint] as periodically I receive diametrically opposed assessments from experts," especially, he says, "as the work in question was a critical assessment of Wigley's own work."The Soon and Baliunas paper produced political results in one respect: it seems to have emboldened the Bush administration to edit a June Environmental Protection Agency report so that it no longer represented a scientific consensus about climate change. The New York Times reported that, as a result, the EPA decided to publish much weaker statements about global warming. --David Appell  sci am</h1></header></div><div>==</div></div>

de Freitas, C

Attachments