[Lazar asks for better auditors, and propose a way to audit in a more objective way.]
Had your team chosen to audit themselves, think how sweet life could have been.
‘Stone yourself or others will stone you’ does not conjure up sweet images for me.
My problem, well one of them, with this auditing thing is… I can dig up enough dirt on almost anyone to portray them as a biased liar and a fool. I can do that to you. I can do that to me. I can do that to the auditors too. There are enough failings and blunders in probably every human life and endeavor, and enough fragments of information. Creating a biased measure of health says more about the auditor than the audited.
I hope we can agree that science is the process of building knowledge.
I hope we can agree that climate science is building knowledge prodigiously.
Raising political issues, or the fact that nonsense gets published sometimes, doesn’t change that — at all.
Here’s a challenge for the auditors. Pick a journal at random. Pick a date at random, and retrieve the previous 10 publications. Audit them all. Report every result, both positive and negative. State the good and bad points for each paper. Say for each paper whether it adds to human knowledge or not and how much, and whether it should have been published. Rinse and repeat 100 times. This way auditors may find the authority to speak to the health of science.Here’s a start. JGR Atmospheres, last few days of April 2012:
“Probabilistic projections of agro-climate indices in North America”
“Interhemispheric dynamical coupling to the southern mesosphere and lower thermosphere”
“Parameterizations of some important characteristics of turbulent fluctuations and gusty wind disturbances in the atmospheric boundary layer”
“Total water storage dynamics in response to climate variability and extremes: Inference from long-term terrestrial gravity measurement”
“Summertime formaldehyde observations in New York City: Ambient levels, sources and its contribution to HOx radicals”
“PM2.5 source apportionment in the southeastern U.S.: Spatial and seasonal variations during 2001–2005″
“Comparing results from a physical model with satellite and in situ observations to determine whether biomass burning aerosols over the Amazon brighten or burn off clouds”
“A comparison of ISCCP land surface temperature with other satellite and in situ observations”
“In situ observations of volcanic ash clouds from the FAAM aircraft during the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in 2010″
“Nitrous acid at Concordia (inland site) and Dumont d’Urville (coastal site), East Antarctica”
Flogging dead horses doesn’t cut it.
Reporting flaws doesn’t cut it.
Scientifically incurious political hacks doesn’t cut it.
Auditing is failing.
We need better auditors.