Follow Topics

20 June 2011, 6.54am EST

Climate change denial and the abuse of peer review

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Professor Stephan Lewandowsky holds “sceptics” accountable for their subversion of the peer review process. On 20 April 2010, a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and creating the largest oil spill in history. When President Obama sought to…

Author

Stephan Lewandowsky

Chair of Cognitive Psychology at University of Bristol

Disclosure Statement

Stephan Lewandowsky receives funding from the Australian Research Council and the Swiss National Science Foundation. As is standard around the world, the funding agencies expect the grant holder to produce high-quality peer-reviewed research but do not dictate or expect any particular outcome. The funds also do not affect the grant holder's personal income or financial circumstances. Merit-based public funding is essential to ensure that science can be conducted in the public's interest without regard to potential commercial interests.

Provides funding as a Founding Partner of The Conversation.
bristol.ac.uk

5840104843_f9f31ca866_o — People can get pretty riled up about hockey sticks. AAP

CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Professor Stephan Lewandowsky holds “sceptics” accountable for their subversion of the peer review process.

On 20 April 2010, a BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, killing 11 workers and creating the largest oil spill in history.

When President Obama sought to hold the corporation accountable by creating a $20B damage fund, this provoked Republican Congressman from Texas Joe Barton to issue a public apology.

An apology not to the people affected by the oil spill … but to BP.

In a peculiar inversion of ethics, Barton called the President’s measures a “shakedown”, finding it a “tragedy in the first proportion” that a corporation should be held accountable for the consequences of its actions.

What does a Congressman’s inverted morality have to do with climate denial?

Quite a bit.

In a similar inversion of normal practice, most climate deniers avoid scrutiny by sidestepping the peer-review process that is fundamental to science, instead posting their material in the internet or writing books.

Books may be impressively weighty, but remember that they are printed because a publisher thinks they can make money, not necessarily because the content has scientific value.

Fiction sells, even if dressed up as science.

During peer review, by contrast, commercial interests are removed from the publication decision because journals are often published by not-for-profit professional organizations. Even if private publishers are involved, they make their profit primarily via university subscriptions, and universities subscribe to journals based on their reputation, rather than based on individual publication decisions.

Very occasionally a contrarian paper does appear in a peer-reviewed journal, which segments of the internet and the media immediately hail as evidence against global warming or its human causes, as if a single paper somehow nullifies thousands of previous scientific findings.

What are we to make of that handful of contrarian papers? Do they make a legitimate if dissenting contribution to scientific knowledge?

In some cases, perhaps.

But in many other cases, troubling ethical questions arise from examination of the public record surrounding contrarian papers.

For example, in 2003 the reputable journal Climate Research published a paleoclimatological analysis that concluded, in flat contradiction to virtually all existing research, that the 20th century was probably not the warmest of the last millennium. This paper, partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute, attracted considerable public and political attention because it seemingly offered relief from the need to address climate change.

The paper also engendered some highly unusual fall-out.

First, three editors of Climate Research resigned in protest over its publication, including the incoming editor-in-chief who charged that “…some editors were not as rigorous in the review process as is otherwise common.”

This highly unusual mass resignation was followed by an even more unusual public statement from the publisher that acknowledged flaws in the journal’s editorial process.

Three editorial resignations and a publisher’s acknowledgement of editorial flaws are not standard scientific practice and call for further examination of the authors and the accepting editor.

The first author of this paper, Dr Willie Soon, is an astrophysicist by training. In U.S. congressional testimony, he identified his “training” in paleoclimatology as attendance at workshops, conferences, and summer schools. (The people who teach such summer schools, actual climate scientists, published a scathing rebuttal of Soon’s paper.)

Undaunted, Dr Soon has since become an expert on polar bears, publishing a paper that accused the U.S. Geological Survey of being “unscientific” in its reports about the risks faced by polar bears from climate change.

Most recently, Dr Soon has become an expert on mercury poisoning, using the Wall Street Journal as a platform to assuage fears about mercury-contaminated fish because, after all, “mercury has always existed naturally in Earth’s environment.”

Lest one wonder what links paleoclimatology, Arctic ecology, and environmental epidemiology, the answer is not any conventional area of academic expertise but ideology.

As Professor Naomi Oreskes and historian Erik Conway have shown in their insightful book, Merchants of Doubt, the hallmark of organized denial is that the same pseudo-experts emerge from the same shadowy “think” tanks over and over to rail against what they call “junk science”.

Whether it is the link between smoking and lung cancer, between mercury and water poisoning, or between carbon emissions and climate change, ideology inverts facts and ethics whenever overwhelming scientific evidence suggests the need to regulate economic activity.

So what of the editor who accepted the flawed Climate Research paper, Dr Chris de Freitas of Auckland?

Later, De Freitas co-authored a paper in 2009 that some media outlets heralded as showing that climate change was down to nature.

One of the authors, Adjunct academic Bob Carter from James Cook University, claimed that “our paper confirms what many scientists already know: which is that no scientific justification exists for emissions regulation.” Welcome news indeed, at least for the coal industry, but does the paper support this conclusion?

No.

For starters, the 2009 paper by McLean, de Freitas, and Carter did not address long-term global warming at all.

It discussed the association between ocean currents and air temperature — in particular the time lag between the warm El Niño current and the ensuing increase in temperature.

Indeed, the article does not even contain the words “climate change” except in a citation of the IPCC, and its only conceivable connection with climate change arises from the speculative phrase “ … and perhaps recent trends in global temperature …” in the final sentence.

It appears ethically troubling to derive strong statements about emissions regulations from such a tentative clause in one’s final sentence in a paper on quite a different issue.

Such statements appear even more troubling if one considers paragraph 14 of the paper, which reads, “to remove the noise, the absolute values were replaced with derivative values based on variations. Here the derivative is the 12-month running average subtracted from the same average for data 12 months later.”

What happens to data if successive annual values are subtracted from each other? This mathematically removes any linear time trend.

In other words, temperatures could have doubled every other year and it would have escaped detection by the authors.

This removal of the trend did not escape detection by the scientific community, however, and the published rebuttal of this “it’s-all-natural” paper was as swift and devastating as it was for Dr Soon’s.

To remove the linear trend from temperature data in a paper that does not address climate change, and to then claim that nature is responsible for global warming and there is no scientific basis for emissions regulations smacks of an inversion of scientific ethics and practice.

Let us return to Congressman Barton.

Before apologizing to BP, not for the nearly $3,000,000 he has received in contributions from the oil, gas, and energy industries, but for President Obama seeking accountability from the corporation, Mr Barton also sponsored a contrived investigation of the famed “hockeystick” paper by Professor Michael Mann and colleagues.

The hockeystick is the iconic graph that shows the sky-rocketing temperatures of the last few decades in comparison to the relatively constant temperatures during the preceding centuries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences affirmed the basic conclusions of Professor Mann, as have numerous other papers published during the last decade.

Mr. Barton, however, relied on a report by a certain Professor Wegman, who claimed to have identified statistical flaws in the analysis underlying the original hockeystick. (Even if correct, that criticism has no bearing on the overall conclusion of Professor Mann’s paper or on the numerous independent hockeysticks produced by other researchers.)

Professor Wegman subsequently published part of his report in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis. Although normally a peer-reviewed journal, in this instance the paper was accepted a few days after submission, in July 2007, in an especially ironic twist as the paper tried to cast doubt on the quality of peer review in climate research.

Alas, the paper’s lifetime was cut tragically short when it was officially withdrawn by the publisher a few weeks ago.

Why?

The paper by Wegman and colleagues was officially withdrawn because of substantial plagiarism. Conforming to the typical pattern of inversions, Wegman also appears to have plagiarized large parts of his initial hockeystick critique for Congressman Barton, while additionally distorting and misrepresenting many of the conclusions of the cited authors.

We have examined just the tip of an iceberg of inversion of normal standards of ethics and scientific practice.

These multiple departures from common scientific practice are not isolated incidents — on the contrary, they represent a common thread that permeates all of climate denial.

Because climate denial is just that: denial, not scepticism.

Science is inherently sceptical, and peer-review is the instrument by which scientific scepticism is pursued.

Circumventing or subverting that process does not do justice to the public’s need for scientific accountability.

At a time when Greenland is losing around 9,000 tonnes of ice every second — all of which contributes to sea level rises – it is time to hold accountable those who invert common standards of science, decency, and ethics in pursuit of their agenda to delay action on climate change.

This is the sixth part of our series Clearing up the Climate Debate. To read the other instalments, follow the links below:

Part One: Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community.
Part Two: The greenhouse effect is real: here’s why.
Part Three: Speaking science to climate policy.
Part Four: Our effect on the earth is real: how we’re geo-engineering the planet
Part Five: Who’s your expert? The difference between peer review and rhetoric
Part Seven: When scientists take to the streets it’s time to listen up
Part Eight: Australia’s contribution matters: why we can’t ignore our climate responsibilities
Part Nine: A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial
Part Ten: The chief troupier: the follies of Mr Monckton
Part Eleven: Rogues or respectable? How climate change sceptics spread doubt and denial
Part Twelve: Bob Carter’s climate counter-consensus is an alternate reality
Part Thirteen: The false, the confused and the mendacious: how the media gets it wrong on climate change

Articles also by This Author

20 May 2013 No matter how strong the evidence on climate change, deniers will keep denying

7 December 2012 The real debate on climate is happening in San Francisco

5 November 2012 A storm of stupidity? Sandy, evidence and climate change

10 August 2012 Health ministers' attacks on climate change action are just sick

19 June 2012 Rinehart’s tilt at power is bad news for public debate

You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as you follow some simple guidelines, which are summarised here:

Unless you have express permission from the author, you can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. To make material edits contact us
You have to credit our authors and partner institutions — ideally in the byline.
You have to credit The Conversation — ideally at the top of the article and include our logo — with a link back to either our home page, The Conversation, or (preferably) the specific article URL on The Conversation website.
If space is tight, you can run the first few lines of the article and then say: “Read the full article at The Conversation” with a link back to the article page on our site.
If you’re republishing online, you must use our page view counter, link to us, and include links from our story.
It’s okay to put our articles on pages with ads, but you can’t sell our material separately.
You have to confirm that you're licensed to republish images in our articles. Some sources, such as AAP, don't allow their images to be republished without permission.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Join the conversation

83 Comments sorted by

Comments on this article are now closed.

Marc Hendrickx

Geologist

You state:
"The hockeystick is the iconic graph that shows the sky-rocketing temperatures of the last few decades in comparison to the relatively constant temperatures during the preceding centuries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences affirmed the basic conclusions of Professor Mann, as have numerous other papers published during the last decade."

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. The Hockey Stick is an iconic piece of bad science. It's most latest debunking in the peer reviewed press…
Read more

You state:
"The hockeystick is the iconic graph that shows the sky-rocketing temperatures of the last few decades in comparison to the relatively constant temperatures during the preceding centuries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences affirmed the basic conclusions of Professor Mann, as have numerous other papers published during the last decade."

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. The Hockey Stick is an iconic piece of bad science. It's most latest debunking in the peer reviewed press a paper by McShane and Wyner. This just one of a suite of papers that has demonstrated it has profound flaws.
A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF MULTIPLE TEMPERATURE PROXIES: ARE RECONSTRUCTIONS OF SURFACE TEMPERATURES OVER THE LAST 1000 YEARS RELIABLE?
"On the one hand, we conclude unequivocally that the evidence for a ”long-handled” hockey stick (where the shaft of the hockey stick extends to the year 1000 AD) is lacking in the data. The fundamental problem is that there is a limited amount of proxy data which dates back to 1000 AD; what is available is weakly predictive of global annual temperature. Our backcasting methods, which track quite closely the methods applied most recently in Mann (2008) to the same data, are unable to catch the sharp run up in temperatures recorded in the 1990s, even in-sample."

Is Stephen Lewandowsky a credible judge? Let's see how many peer reviewed papers in climate science has Stephan Lewandowsky? Let's run Stephen's name through the Gold standard for collecting and collating peer-reviewed scientific information,Thomson Reuters Institute for Scientific Information, and see how many times that this climate science ‘expert’ has published on climate change in the expert literature since 1956. If he were a bone fide expert with expertise to judge the science then he would be listed in the ISI Web of Knowledge many times under papers in which he has tested his ideas with the expert scientific community. Search term author "Lewandowsky, S" and topic "climate " reveals no entries. ZERO. And this is a person the editor of The Conversation feels is credible to comment on the science of climate change?

Stephen seems a poor choice given the stated aim of the series is: "The Conversation launches a two-week series from the nation’s top minds on the science behind climate change and the efforts of “sceptics” to cloud the debate."

Next time ask Judy Curry, Steve McIntyre or Richard Lindzen what their thoughts are.

almost 2 years ago report
1. Tristan Croll
 
 logged in via Facebook
 
 In reply to Marc Hendrickx
 
 Actually, I would think a cognitive scientist would be the perfect person to ask for input on "the efforts of 'sceptics' to cloud the debate."
 
 almost 2 years ago report
2. Paul Richards
 
 Paul Richards is a Friend of The Conversation.
 
 In reply to Tristan Croll
 
 But would the sceptics qualify?
 "Cognitive bias is a general term that is used to describe many observer effects in the human mind, some of which can lead to perceptual distortion, inaccurate judgement, or illogical interpretation"
 Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454
 
 almost 2 years ago report
3. Tim Burrows
 
 logged in via Twitter
 
 In reply to Marc Hendrickx
 
 Marc, it seems to me that Stephan is simply observing what is happening in the peer reviewed literature as opposed to what is happening outside of it. He observes that papers disagreeing with AGW almost never make it through the peer-review process. Those that do are almost always refuted very quickly. He observes the interaction of the scientific community in the example of the Hockey Stick paper.
 I don't think you need to have published widely in climate science to comment on motivation and behaviour, but it might help to have studied how people think.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
4. John Mashey
 
 Semi-retired computer scientist/corporate executive
 
 In reply to Marc Hendrickx
 
 Marc Hendrickx:
 Are you wiling to stake *your* credibility on that of McShane & Wyner?
 That is, do you assure us that in your expert opinion that was a credible paper, in scholarship, science and statistics?
 
 almost 2 years ago report
5. Barry Cooper
 
 Jack of many Trades
 
 In reply to Paul Richards
 
 Yes, the Soviets locked people like that up. All you had to do to qualify as mentally ill was disagree with them.
 
 You don't see the latent Fascism--Communism, same thing--in your psychological demonization of opponents, do you?
 
 Here is my piece on the topic: http://moderatesunited.blogspot.com/2008/01/global-warming.html
 
 You can't call me ignorant.
 
 I have debated AGW fools for a long time, and it always boils down to political consensus. Always, if someone disagrees, then their pedigree is criticized, but not their data. If they agree, then they could be garbage haulers, and you would grant them their genius.
 
 I have often said, because it is true, that you reliably judge the state of mind of leftists by what they accuse others of. Here, you are calling your opponents' opinions distorted, inaccurate, and illogical.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
Douglas Cotton

B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin

It is obvious that the debate on climate change is dividing the scientific community. According to the article linked at the foot hereof the number of scientists now expressing dissent regarding man-made global warming is over 1,000 and climbing rapidly in the last two years when people are starting to notice that temperatures are actually falling since 2002. (There is now a statistically significant breakout from the IPCC projected trend between 2000 and 2011 -See my site http://earth-climate.com…
Read more

It is obvious that the debate on climate change is dividing the scientific community. According to the article linked at the foot hereof the number of scientists now expressing dissent regarding man-made global warming is over 1,000 and climbing rapidly in the last two years when people are starting to notice that temperatures are actually falling since 2002. (There is now a statistically significant breakout from the IPCC projected trend between 2000 and 2011 -See my site http://earth-climate.com for new plots and links added in the last 48 hours.)

Obviously authors will be selective of the "peers" they wish to review new material. I wonder how many pro-IPCC papers would be positively reviewed by a selection of the above thousand scientists. But then, the pro-IPCC camp would probably not recognise the anti-IPCC camp as even being peers, and vice-versa. So what qualifies one as a peer? Do you need peer approval to become an approver of peers? A little circular I suggest.

Peer reviewing will only be relatively unbiased if random selections are made of reviewers, just as are random selections of jurors for a trial - at least in theory.

Until such time it would be more helpful for science in general if discussion in forums such as this were focussed on the actual content of what is being claimed or suggested with a view to expressing genuine personal opinions and constructive criticism without resorting to generalisations and discussions as to whether, for example, previous (though different) concepts by any given author have been peer reviewed or not. Most scientists are still "inventing light bulbs" and thus likely to make mistakes, but learn from such mistakes - and perhaps come up with improved and valid theories.

If one's genuine interest is in science and the well being of mankind, then one needs to be open minded to what may be ground-breaking research or ideas - no matter the background of the author.

Any lay person should have been able to deduce that the world was not flat just by observing the curvature in the ocean horizon from a nearby high mountain. Even in this day novice "scientists" may well be capable of making cogent arguments and valid assessments of a range of perhaps contradictory research, much as a novice juror can make a decision in a court case.

Here's that link ...read what some of them say and ponder!

Perhaps the author of the next pro-IPCC paper would care to make a selection of peers from among these 1,000 scientists ???

http://climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-International-Scientists-Dissent-Over-ManMade-Global-Warming-Claims--Challenge-UN-IPCC--Gore
.

almost 2 years ago report
1. Michael J. Biercuk
  
  Senior Lecturer in the School of Physics at University of Sydney
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton
  
  It's worth pointing out that while *any* system can be improved, peer review works exceptionally well.
  
  Peer-review has successfully brought us quantum mechanics, atomic physics, semiconductor physics, materials science, modern mathematics, population dynamics, genetics, you name it...These may sound like esoteric academic subjects on their face, but just look at the applications that have come out of them - microprocessors, optical networking (the internet's backbone), crytography, new medical treatments, etc., etc. More or less all modern technology has come through a system of scientific peer-review.
  
  What evidence is there that peer-review is uniquely flawed on the topic of climate science?
  
  almost 2 years ago report
2. James Harrison
  
  Postgraduate student at Monash University
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton
  
  Credibility is an asset of great value to scientists of all disiplines.
  
  If you undertake any activity that has the potential to damage your credibility, whether this be authoring or co-authoring a paper of dubious scientific integrity, having your paper selectively reviewed as you suggest, or being the reviewer of such a paper, you stand to have your reputation and career irreversibly damaged. Thus, such activities are avoided.
  
  Furthermore, if and when you are published, you open yourself up to peer review from everyone, not just a select few.
  
  Why not submit the content of your webpage to a journal, see what happens?
  
  almost 2 years ago report
3. Grant Burfield
  
  Dr
  
  In reply to Michael J. Biercuk
  
  http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1054756929.txt
  Cook to Briffa - "It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically".
  
  http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1051190249.txt
  Tom Wigley - "Mike's idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work -- must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc."
  
  http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/1/FOIA/mail/1089318616.txt
  Phil Jones - "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !"
  
  Uniquely flawed? Don't know. Certainly shoddy.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
Kris Baum

logged in via email @krisbaum.com

Stephen,

There are numerous peer reviewed papers that present starkly different views to the IPCC's AR4. Lindzen & Choi (2011), Spencer & Broswell (2010). There are many more. These papers conclude a much lower climate sensitivity for doubling CO2. Coupled with the fact that 40% increase in emissions has only resulted in 0.7c, i see compelling reasons to take their findings seriously.

almost 2 years ago report
Douglas Cotton

B.Sc.(Physics), B.A.(Econ), Dip.Bus.Admin

My comment above was a copy of a post I wrote for the previous topic before this similar topic opened. I will now address some of your specific comments.

The use of the term "climate deniers" is nothing more than an arrogant statement that "I'm right and they're wrong." You might as well call Christians "evolution deniers" because they believe God created life, not some random process of nature. I suggest that a term like "climate cycle advocates" could be used for those who believe, as I do…
Read more

My comment above was a copy of a post I wrote for the previous topic before this similar topic opened. I will now address some of your specific comments.

The use of the term "climate deniers" is nothing more than an arrogant statement that "I'm right and they're wrong." You might as well call Christians "evolution deniers" because they believe God created life, not some random process of nature. I suggest that a term like "climate cycle advocates" could be used for those who believe, as I do, that in particular 60-year and 900-year planetary cycles explain the observed temperature patterns.

Not everyone has some monetary agenda in all this. I certainly don't stand to gain any dollars - only to spend them on an unsponsored website. But it does concern me that millions of people are not being told that long term cycles will bring temperatures down again after a likely maximum in the next 100 to 200 years. They have not been told that the 60 year cycle was ignored by the IPCC resulting in grossly overstated rates of increase between now and the year 2100. Wouldn't they be relieved to be told that the facts are that temperatures have been level since 2003 and oceans are actually cooling since about 2004 if not sooner. It would be comforting to many to know that the long term rate of temperature increase is only of the order of half a degree C per century, the steep rises 1970 to 2000 being merely an upswing of the 60 year cycle which has now headed downwards so that temperatures are actually falling below the long-term trend line.

Other so-called deniers include those who understand that nature itself dictates the vast majority of the CO2 in the atmosphere and that the whole of mankind's contribution of CO2 is only about 0.12% of total GHG. Wouldn't it be comforting to explain this to the public? Then even a lay member of the public might realistically assume there is not much the developed countries can alter in terms of total GHG.

Over 1,000 scientists are now speaking out against the IPCC. They are sick of being bullied and belittled by terms such "denier" which you continue to use, and sick of not being recognised as "peers" of equal standing. And they are sick of being referred to in arrogant terms such as those in your last paragraph which don't warrant repeating.

I have said all I want to say on this forum. My case is argued (I believe quite cogently) at http://earth-climate.com if you even bother to read it and the linked items. After all, I'm just a 65 year old who did a Physics major in the 1960's - hardly one of your peers.

almost 2 years ago report
1. Toby Dagg
  
  logged in via Facebook
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton
  
  Douglas, your post illustrates perfectly the points made by Stephan. Your claim that 1000 scientists - with the number climbing rapidly - now express dissent about man-made climate change is sourced from Climate Depot, a website run by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). The site is full of hair-curling pieces about the sinister agendas being pursued by 'warmists', including one about the Japanese developing hamburgers made from human faeces as a way of mitigating cattle industry emissions…
  Read more
  
  Douglas, your post illustrates perfectly the points made by Stephan. Your claim that 1000 scientists - with the number climbing rapidly - now express dissent about man-made climate change is sourced from Climate Depot, a website run by the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). The site is full of hair-curling pieces about the sinister agendas being pursued by 'warmists', including one about the Japanese developing hamburgers made from human faeces as a way of mitigating cattle industry emissions.
  
  But the real story behind Climate Depot and the CFACT is the generous funding which the Committee has received from Exxon Mobile Corporation which in 2005 alone was valued at
  US$90 000. Obvious, then, to see where the vested interests lie. Cue Stephan.
  
  The report penned by Climate Depot purporting to promote the views of the thousand 'dissenters' is nothing more than a series of selective quotes which mean nothing without being set in their original context. Most are simply ad hominem attacks on Al Gore. "Politically, he's a left-wing nut", rails a meteorologist on page 281. Game, set and match, apparently.
  
  Climate Depot's report 'builds' on a similar report issued in 2007 by the office of Senator James Inhofe, who is known for basing his views of climate science on the unparalleled research of author Michael Crichton. "Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science," Inhofe is quoted as saying. I couldn't agree more.
  
  By the way, I'm comfortable with calling Christians who subscribe to notions of intelligent design 'evolution deniers'. There's nothing arrogant in that, just honest.
  
  http://www.cfact.org/about/1549/About-CFACT
  
  CFACT funding: http://research.greenpeaceusa.org/?a=view&d=4387
  
  Inhofe: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/senator-inhofe/
  
  almost 2 years ago report
2. Michael J. Biercuk
  
  Senior Lecturer in the School of Physics at University of Sydney
  
  In reply to Douglas Cotton
  
  Dear Mr. Cotton,
  
  As a scientist generally I regret that you feel marginalized in this discussion. However, there is an easy fix: instead of posting links to your website, submit your work to peer-reviewed technical journals.
  
  It may seem harsh, but if one skips normal processes in scientific literature, one should not be surprised to find oneself "not being recognised as 'peers' of equal standing." Peer-review is the cornerstone of modern science - and surprising, contradictory, or even shocking ideas are welcome, so long as basic standards of scientific integrity and accuracy are met.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
James Szabadics

Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry

The author of a paper does not get to choose their reviewers. If the paper is rejected by the reviewers it wont be published.

So in light of this what point is Dr Lewandowski trying to make when he points out that Dr Soon had a paper published outside his main field of study. I guess he wants to illustrate the peer review system is not reliable to deliver a review after all otherwise the editors would not have resigned in protest? I dont think you can blame Dr Soon for the reviewers though as…
Read more

The author of a paper does not get to choose their reviewers. If the paper is rejected by the reviewers it wont be published.

So in light of this what point is Dr Lewandowski trying to make when he points out that Dr Soon had a paper published outside his main field of study. I guess he wants to illustrate the peer review system is not reliable to deliver a review after all otherwise the editors would not have resigned in protest? I dont think you can blame Dr Soon for the reviewers though as he did not choose who the journal would use to review his submission.

Lewandowsky then says "as if a single paper somehow nullifies thousands of previous scientific findings." Sometimes this is the case. History is littered with new ideas that have changed the paradigm of scientific thinking in various fields. The knowledge that the earth has a solid inner core has been around for less time than the internal combusion engine, the knowledge of fault lines and plate tectonics was initially rejected, the knowledge of einsteins theories of relativity and so forth changed the thinking and invalidated the writing of many many scientists that preceded him. The concensus can change overnight or be modified to account for new knowledge. To deny this is silly.

I would say that emissions of CO2 undoubtedly contribute to warming. But the models that assume this is the primary driver of late 20th century warming appear to be suffering a divergence problem in the most recent decade and I would not be surprised if there is another factor that needs to be accounted for in those models. Some believe it to be GCR/Cloud but its too early in the low (geomagnetic) amplitude current cycle to say for certain if they are correct, within 5 to 10 years if warming has not resumed to the rates in the models predictions we will know if something is missing. Now what proportion of the observed warming is due to CO2 increased from 0.028% to 0.039% is the real question that requires debate and study.

It is wrong of Lewandowsky to claim the peer review process cannot lead to a new paper that identifies a discovery that invalidates or modifies previous ideas and thinking, statistically it is very probable that this will occur.

Another point is that any count of the number of papers that support a theory vs the number of papers that do not is COMPLETELY meaningless. The content of each paper should stand on its own scientific merit. For example a reviewer of a new paper would never reject the submission on the basis of a count of prior papers with a dissenting conclusion exceeded the number of papers with a similar conclusion. What would we ever learn if that was the case?

almost 2 years ago report
1. Roger Jones
 
 Professorial Research Fellow at Victoria University
 
 In reply to James Szabadics
 
 In the case of the Soon and Baliunas paper, the journal had half a dozen editors, one of whom was Dr Chris de Freitas. An author could send a paper to any editor they chose. Tame reviews were sought and obtained. When the paper was published it was clear that the improper use of statistics had been used to obtain a desired result.
 The incoming editor in chief demanded reforms of the journal that brought in consistent reviewing standards, the publisher demurred, he and several other editors resigned…
 Read more
 
 In the case of the Soon and Baliunas paper, the journal had half a dozen editors, one of whom was Dr Chris de Freitas. An author could send a paper to any editor they chose. Tame reviews were sought and obtained. When the paper was published it was clear that the improper use of statistics had been used to obtain a desired result.
 The incoming editor in chief demanded reforms of the journal that brought in consistent reviewing standards, the publisher demurred, he and several other editors resigned. The publisher had to reform the journal anyway to retrieve its reputation.
 
 And single papers in themselves do not alter a theory - it is the subsequent checking and repeat and conclusion that a new theory that better explains observations and experiment has been found. This is well established in the literature on the history and philosophy of science. I think you'll find that most of the single paper efforts that directly challenge anthropogenic climate change don't last too long.
 
 If you want to know where the energy is over the past decade, it's in the ocean. The atmosphere only holds as much energy as about 3.5 m of the ocean depth. The exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean is not linear, so no-one should expect smooth curves, or close correlation of CO2 and air temperature. That said, a detailed picture of these energy flows is not yet available - there are still plenty of open questions that require further research. We know that the energy from greenhouse gas forcing is in the earth system, but where it's all going and why still needs to be followed through.
 
 The core theory still stands.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
2. James Szabadics
 
 Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry
 
 In reply to Roger Jones
 
 Re energy in the ocean - OHC to a depth of 700m looks like a flat trend since 2003. I didnt expect that the trend for OHC would flatten if AGW was the main driver of climate change because our emissions of CO2 have increased steadily since 2003. Maybe temporary pause due to natural variation but what natural variation is at play here? 7 year stretch of flat OHC is unusual you would have to admit?
 
 OHC is another area showing the same flat or flattening trend as lower troposphere and sea level. With increased CO2 since 2003 of 16ppm this would not be what we would expect.
 
 http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
 
 almost 2 years ago report
3. Andrew Glikson
 
 Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University
 
 In reply to James Szabadics
 
 James,
 
 Wish you were right and global warming would halt ...
 
 Unfortunately the basic laws of physics (Planck law, stefan-Bolzmann law) require that the current rise in greenhouse gases (accelerating above 2 ppm CO2/year) raises the energy/temperature level of the system, now at 3.1 Watt/m2 above pre-industrial levels (Hansen et al., 2011).
 
 One can't argue with the basic laws of physics.
 
 The first decade of the 21st century is the warmest measured on the instrumental record.
 
 The apparent flattening of temprature profiles you refer to are related in part to strong La-Nina phases and the low in the 11-years solar cycle.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
4. Thuong Nguyen
 
 logged in via email @gmail.com
 
 In reply to James Szabadics
 
 "The exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean is not linear, so no-one should expect smooth curves, or close correlation of CO2 and air temperature. That said, a detailed picture of these energy flows is not yet available - there are still plenty of open questions that require further research"
 
 That's what needed to be explained as many skeptics or denier often use a linear principle to dismiss climate change claim. However as long as the question is still open it is still inconclusive which…
 Read more
 
 "The exchange between the atmosphere and the ocean is not linear, so no-one should expect smooth curves, or close correlation of CO2 and air temperature. That said, a detailed picture of these energy flows is not yet available - there are still plenty of open questions that require further research"
 
 That's what needed to be explained as many skeptics or denier often use a linear principle to dismiss climate change claim. However as long as the question is still open it is still inconclusive which means the theory could still be proven wrong.
 
 For example critics would say the ocean has been cooling in the past 10 years or so. But there are so many variables to consider in nature like the amount of heat dispensed by undersea volcanoes, has it been dropping in the last ten years or not? The amount of ice that has been melting how much contribution does it do to the cooling of the ocean? The explosion in the amount of giant algae etc. how much do they help to cool down the ocean?
 
 There are so many conflicting claims on the internet. One person would say the earth's temperature has been stable in the last ten years according to the graph he studied, another would have a link to a graph by NASA which shows it' been rising. Another person would say it's been rising because of sunspot activity. How is a lay person like me is to have the time and resources to verify the claims? We now even have anti climate change network comparing themselves to Galileo as they represent the truth and call for the shift in paradigm.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
5. James Szabadics
 
 Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry
 
 In reply to Andrew Glikson
 
 Andrew, I havent challenged any laws of physics. All I note is that the trend of 3 primary indicators of global warming appears to show that the rate of change has decreased despite the increase in greenhouse gasses. In other words some *other* force has counteracted the 3.1Watts/m2 for the last 10 years that was not counteracting it for the previous 20 years. Might i be so bold to suggest that Svensmarks theory fits in nicely there.
 
 You stated that the flattening of temperature, sea level and OHC trend I refered to is due to the strong La-Nina cycles - is there peer reviewed literature that supports the theory that since 2003 ENSO cycles have completely counteracted 380ppm CO2 induced warming?
 
 A brief look at ENSO here doesnt seem to show any obvious trend
 
 http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/eln-f-pg.gif
 
 almost 2 years ago report
6. Roger Jones
 
 Professorial Research Fellow at Victoria University
 
 In reply to Thuong Nguyen
 
 A very good article is by Trenberth and can be download from here if you don't mind the science content (it requires a close read because the pathways he describes get quite complex):
 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf
 
 A lot blogs have concluded that this article says we don't know enough about human-induced climate change or even that that the theory cannot be supported. But in the article Trenberth is careful to say we have a good enough knowledge…
 Read more
 
 A very good article is by Trenberth and can be download from here if you don't mind the science content (it requires a close read because the pathways he describes get quite complex):
 http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/trenberth.papers/EnergyDiagnostics09final2.pdf
 
 A lot blogs have concluded that this article says we don't know enough about human-induced climate change or even that that the theory cannot be supported. But in the article Trenberth is careful to say we have a good enough knowledge of the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere to know the energy from human-induced greenhouse forcing is in the earth system.
 
 To use an analogy, we know there's an intruder in the house but we're not sure where that intruder is. We know some of the places where it is not (It's not in the ice box - ice formation and melt have been measured). It might be hiding in the spa bath but it's a very big spa and we haven't been measuring all of it for very long. Perhaps someone hit the switch that changed the depth of circulation. Perhaps the overhead fan was switched on for bit, mixing the water (or off).
 
 The theory of how the energy moves through the system needs to be improved. The theory of whether or not the energy is in the system due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases is in much better shape. There are many supporting lines of evidence from past climate reconstructions, observations and modelling.
 
 I'm working on non-linear warming atmospheric at the moment and think that the use of linear statistics to analyse complex system behaviour is the incorrect paradigm. That means I expect to see flat portions in time series in addition to quite rapid shifts. I'm not bothered by the current hiatus (in either ocean energy or air temp), because there was a massive upward shift in both (but not simultaneously: 1997-8 for air, 2002-3 for water) just beforehand. If you can get one type of behaviour, you can get the other.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
7. John Mashey
 
 Semi-retired computer scientist/corporate executive
 
 In reply to Roger Jones
 
 It's worse than that. See comments by another editor, <a href="http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/stormy-times-climate-research">Clare Goodess</a>, including funding oddities.
 
 In addition, de Freitas had submitted a <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030526163750/www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf">paper</a>;, to the Bulletin of the Canadian Petroleum Geology. The Editor, his brother Tim, had recused him and was having it reviewed by ... Willie Soon and Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (Editor of Energy…
 Read more
 
 It's worse than that. See comments by another editor, <a href="http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/stormy-times-climate-research">Clare Goodess</a>, including funding oddities.
 
 In addition, de Freitas had submitted a <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20030526163750/www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf">paper</a>;, to the Bulletin of the Canadian Petroleum Geology. The Editor, his brother Tim, had recused him and was having it reviewed by ... Willie Soon and Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen (Editor of Energy and Environment) ... at the same time as de Freitas was reviewing Soon&Baliunas.
 
 See <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony">CCC</a>; pp.117-118 for details, especially odd comment about Soon & Boehmer-Chrisitiansen, who were not acknowledged... funny coincidence.
 
 See CCC, p.37 for more detail besides:
 *[DEF2002] Chris de Freitas, ―Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?‖ Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology Vol 50, No 2 (June 2002), P.297-327. Received 03/28/02, Accepted 06/23/02.
 
 Then, 2 weeks later (04/11/02), Soon and Baliunas submitted their paper.
 
 Of course, they were hardly new to de Freitas, given:
 1) Soon W, Baliunas SL, Robinson AB, Robinson ZW, received 04/28/98, published 10/26/99.
 
 2) Soon W, Baliunas S, Idso SB, Kondratyev KY, Posmentier ES,
 received 9/18/00, published 11/02/01.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
8. John Mashey
 
 Semi-retired computer scientist/corporate executive
 
 In reply to John Mashey
 
 Oops, I forgot and did HTML. in previous.
 Goodess = http://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/stormy-times-climate-research
 CCC = http://www.desmogblog.com/crescendo-climategate-cacophony
 
 almost 2 years ago report
9. Thuong Nguyen
 
 logged in via email @gmail.com
 
 In reply to Roger Jones
 
 Thank you for the link professor Jones. Yeah, I am inclined to think that there may be a change in the depth of circulation since the earthquake and devastating tsunami in Asia about 7 years ago. Then it could be possible that the undersea volcanoes or tectonic cracks emit some coolant agent or water could seep down oil wells which have been drilled and cary the energy with it; nature is so immense to calculate.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
10. Thuong Nguyen
 
 logged in via email @gmail.com
 
 In reply to Thuong Nguyen
 
 I wonder though, would the sea bed have stored the energy and released it as earthquake? My imagination is really wild.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
11. James Szabadics
 
 Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry
 
 In reply to Roger Jones
 
 I would tend to dispute the notion that we have a "good" idea of the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere using measurement on a periodic basis based on satellite orbits. Transient veriables such as cloud, snow and ice all impact albedo for variable short term day and/or night time scales which may or may not be apparent at the time of the OLR satellite reading but would impact the amount of OLR read on the satellites sensor at a given pass.
 
 I dont see how you could adequately account for…
 Read more
 
 I would tend to dispute the notion that we have a "good" idea of the energy budget at the top of the atmosphere using measurement on a periodic basis based on satellite orbits. Transient veriables such as cloud, snow and ice all impact albedo for variable short term day and/or night time scales which may or may not be apparent at the time of the OLR satellite reading but would impact the amount of OLR read on the satellites sensor at a given pass.
 
 I dont see how you could adequately account for the effects of unmeasured or periodically measured variables which may have transient lifespans between measurements. The assumption that reduced OLR = warming is not sensible when in fact it could be that incident radiation was reflected by small transient changes in albedo in visible wavelengths.
 
 Trenberth also seems to ignore the work on earthshine looking at significant long term changes in albedo of earth.
 The work of E. Palle, P.R. Goode and Montanes-Rodriguez looking at earthshine over longer time spans shows that Svensmark may be onto something because the cloud albedo proxy decrease in the 90s (excepting the spike for pinatubo) and directly measured increase in the current decade from 2002 fit in reaqsonably wekk with temperature observations. Please bear in mind that Svensmarks theory about cloud doesnt contradict CO2 being a GHG but may partly explain why we see a decline in OLR and a flattening of global temperature trend in the recent decade.
 
 http://bbso.njit.edu/Research/EarthShine/literature/Palle_etal_2008_JGR.pdf
 
 almost 2 years ago report
12. Simon Arnold
 
 Mr
 
 In reply to Roger Jones
 
 Given the known bias in climate models when closure of parametrisation is forced, and the fact the Trenberth is forcing his top of the atmosphere energy budget to 0.9 Wm -2 in the article you reference (see Trenberth KE, Fasullo JT, Kiehl J: Earth’s global energy budget. Bull Amer Meteor Soc 2009, 90:311-323. for a more complete discussion), I hope your models can give a better fit.
 
 I must say it was this issue that caused me to lose a bit of respect for Trenberth. By the time you get to Trenberth, K. E., and J. T. Fasullo, 2010: Tracking Earth's energy. Science, 328, 316-317. we find that the figure has been stripped of any of its uncertainty or provenance and becomes fact.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
13. Thuong Nguyen
 
 logged in via email @gmail.com
 
 In reply to Simon Arnold
 
 Yeah I hope professor Jones' model can help stop all this dispute, it is starting to give me a headache.
 
 A wholistic model as well as long term climate cycle sounds good. I know that in the old days when people make ice-cream they add salt to the ice to make the temperature it colder so the ice-cream can form. This makes me think the salt in the sea may have cooling properties; also people say it's been the warmest on record in the last decade while the sea is cooling maybe most of the rains rained over the ocean.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
Andrew Glikson

Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University

Responsible people do not, unless fully qualified and experienced:

1. Enter a jet's cockpit to tell the pilot how to handle the plane in the midth of a storm.

2. Interfere with critical surgery telling surgeons what to do.

3. Tell people to keep smoking tobacco despite medical warning to the contary.

In all these cases lives are in stake.

As is the case with climate science where, based on the most up-to-date measurements and on the basic laws of physics and chemistry of the atmosphere, the world's premier science organizations (NASA/GISS, Colorado NSIDC, Potsdam Climate Impacts, Hadley-Met, CSIRO, BOM and so on), the world's academies of science and the bulk of the scientific peer review journals - indicate a major shift is taking place in the atmosphere/ocean/cryosphere conditions which allowed the emergence of agriculture and civilization since about 10,000 years ago.

almost 2 years ago report
Scott Cooper-Johnston

logged in via Facebook

As a passionate environmentalist, I am constantly saddened by this debate. What was once a complex series of issues facing our environment has become one unsophisticated debate. i.e. Are you a denier or an acceptor?

How insulting.

We can act now on dozens of fronts to address the damage we have caused over the last century or so. We do not require any consensus, we only require a will to begin the road to a cleaner future. Someone needs to turn the first spade full of dirt to create our new agricultural model, or our new energy model.

The argument about how and why scientists should receive their kudos for predicting climate change is the biggest threat to this planet right now. We need ideas and solutions for a smarter future, the debate over AGW is a serious time-waster and it's time we moved on.

almost 2 years ago report
Andrew Montford

Blogger

I'm not sure why Prof Lewandowsky doesn't mention McIntyre and McKitrick as the source of the statistical criticisms of the Hockey Stick. However, he at least seems to accept the NAS panel findings and we know that the NAS panel, along with Wegman, accepted the validity of the M&M criticisms.

The NAS panel also accepted McIntyre's criticism of the use of bristlecone pines in the Hockey Stick - these proxy records are widely agreed in the literature to be unsuitable for temperature reconstructions…
Read more

I'm not sure why Prof Lewandowsky doesn't mention McIntyre and McKitrick as the source of the statistical criticisms of the Hockey Stick. However, he at least seems to accept the NAS panel findings and we know that the NAS panel, along with Wegman, accepted the validity of the M&M criticisms.

The NAS panel also accepted McIntyre's criticism of the use of bristlecone pines in the Hockey Stick - these proxy records are widely agreed in the literature to be unsuitable for temperature reconstructions.

The NAS panel then went on to say that even though Mann had used inappropriate data and a biased methodology he had still got the right answer, because he had reached broadly similar conclusions to other scientists in the field.

The problem with this is that the papers they cited in support of Mann's paper is that they pretty much all used bristlecones too. One used the same biased methodology as Mann as well. (In fact some of the cited papers have very significant medieval warm periods, so the similarity to Mann's paper is debatable too).

These are simple issues. There is more in my book, the Hockey Stick Illusion if you are interested.

almost 2 years ago report
1. Brian Angliss
  
  climate/energy writer
  
  In reply to Andrew Montford
  
  Andrew, you've neglected to mention that Mann's more recent papers have essentially superseded the original hockey stick with better data, better statistical analyses, and yet still identified "hockey sticks" in the Northern Hemispheric temperature record both with and without tree ring proxies.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
2. Andrew Montford
  
  Blogger
  
  In reply to Brian Angliss
  
  Brian
  
  I do cover Mann's 2008 paper in the book. I think it's fair to say that this is a paper with almost as many problems as the Hockey Stick itself.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
3. Brian Angliss
  
  climate/energy writer
  
  In reply to Andrew Montford
  
  Such as? Reviewed papers or comments on the paper (including those by McIntyre, which I've read) are preferred, but not required. Jeff ID's claims do not count, however, as his analysis is flawed, a point I made to him last year at scholarsandrogues.com and to which he did not respond.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
4. Andrew Montford
  
  Blogger
  
  In reply to Andrew Montford
  
  I vaguely remember your Scholars & Rogues piece. Can you remind me of your case?
  
  The problems were use of contaminated lake sediments and their interpretation in the opposite orientation to the original authors. Use of old version of Tornetrask. Use of Yamal instead of the Polar Urals update. Truncation of the decline in Briffa's MXD series plus use of an infilling algorithm to replace the truncated decline with an incline. I think there were others too.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
5. Brian Angliss
  
  climate/energy writer
  
  In reply to Andrew Montford
  
  The gist of it was that Jeff's R-code showed that he was comparing proxy trends to the global temp trend in the calibration period. Mann et al's methodology was to compare proxie data to temperature trends locally (within the grid). I have no idea what effect that would produce, whether it would strengthen Jeff's point or weaken it, but he needed to revisit his analysis based on this difference regardless. After I pointed this out to him at S&R, he never responded, and while I looked a couple…
  Read more
  
  The gist of it was that Jeff's R-code showed that he was comparing proxy trends to the global temp trend in the calibration period. Mann et al's methodology was to compare proxie data to temperature trends locally (within the grid). I have no idea what effect that would produce, whether it would strengthen Jeff's point or weaken it, but he needed to revisit his analysis based on this difference regardless. After I pointed this out to him at S&R, he never responded, and while I looked a couple of times in the following weeks to see if he'd run an update on his site, I never saw one and thus stopped looking.
  
  Your points about Yamal and MXD are moot, I'm afraid, because Mann et al anticipated those criticisms and deflected them by running the analyses with and without tree rings. There was a difference between the results, but the differences still showed that modern warming was most likely in excess of MWP. I personally ran the numbers myself using Mann's data back in 2008 because I wasn't sure I trusted his analysis. My conclusions were that Mann was correct. Unfortunately, I can't find the file to post at S&R to reference (I've lost hard drives and a thumb drive since then) and so I can't prove it without recreating the analysis, something that is admittedly low on my priority list.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
Andrew Montford

Blogger

As far as Prof Lewandowsky's point about "pal review" goes, I think he has a point.

He points at de Freitas's review of Soon and Baliunas about which I can add some more detail. We know from the Climategate emails that de Freitas contacted one of the Hockey Stick authors, Ray Bradley, to review the paper. Bradley was too busy. We also know that one of the reviewers who accepted was a paleoclimatologist called Anthony Fowler, who is not AFAIK a sceptic. De Freitas has said that the others were not known sceptics either. This doesn't smack of pal review therefore, but without knowing the identities of the other reviewers it's impossible to know for sure.

That said, I'm sure this kind of thing goes on. There is plenty of evidence of pal review in the climategate emails - there are several soft reviews of papers by Jones - and if one side is at it then the other probably is too.

So we can probably agree that the peer review system is bust.

almost 2 years ago report
1. John Mashey
 
 Semi-retired computer scientist/corporate executive
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 Well, perhaps we can also agree that your book, the Hockey Stick Illusion:
 
 1) Relies on a key David Deming quote from the Journal of Scientific Exploration, in a book review of Crichton's sci-fi book. JSE publishes much ESP, UFO, reincarnaton and even dog astrology, but HSI treats it as a credible source, as do McKitrick and McIntyre, as they used it in 2005 talks.;
 
 2) Then HSI falsifies/fabricates a comment by Richard Lindzen in an attempt to ascribe a damaging quote to Jon Overpeck, for which…
 Read more
 
 Well, perhaps we can also agree that your book, the Hockey Stick Illusion:
 
 1) Relies on a key David Deming quote from the Journal of Scientific Exploration, in a book review of Crichton's sci-fi book. JSE publishes much ESP, UFO, reincarnaton and even dog astrology, but HSI treats it as a credible source, as do McKitrick and McIntyre, as they used it in 2005 talks.;
 
 2) Then HSI falsifies/fabricates a comment by Richard Lindzen in an attempt to ascribe a damaging quote to Jon Overpeck, for which the only evidence is Jon's repeated assertion is that he didn't do it, which HSI casts doubt on 400 pages later.
 
 In academe, falsification is right there with plagiarism, and in this case, who knows, maybe it will some day rise to libel, if Overpeck ever bothered.
 
 See:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&oldid=380146816#HSI_pp.23-30.2C_421_..._dog_astrology
 
 http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/11/journal-of-scientific-exploration-is.html
 http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html
 
 almost 2 years ago report
2. Andrew Montford
 
 Blogger
 
 In reply to John Mashey
 
 That is a truly absurd comment.
 
 1. In what way to I rely on Deming's quote? I mention it, and as you point out I mention that he denies saying it. In what way does it matter where his comments were published? I discovered that he also said it in testimony before the US Senate. Did that stop him saying it. Your comments are fallacious.
 
 2. Fabricates a comment by Lindzen? The citation is given. It is here http://bit.ly/18RMgK.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
3. Andrew Montford
 
 Blogger
 
 In reply to John Mashey
 
 Am I right in thinking that you are not actually disputing anything I say? You agree that Deming said the things he did about Overpeck? You agree the facts I set out about Mann and the Hockey Stick? If not, I'd like to hear them. Otherwise I think everyone will assume that you have no substantive arguments to make and have decided to engage in ad hominems.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
4. Marc Hendrickx
 
 Geologist
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 You'll find the double standards that apply in this series of articles allow such contradictions. If all else fails it appears it is also permissible for one side to just make things up.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
5. John Mashey
 
 Semi-retired computer scientist/corporate executive
 
 In reply to Marc Hendrickx
 
 Marc Hendrickx, you may have missed my earlier question:
 
 Are you wiling to stake *your* credibility on that of McShane & Wyner?
 That is, do you assure us that in your expert opinion that was a credible paper, in scholarship, science and statistics?
 
 I'll get back to HWQDAJ (He Who Quotes from Dog Astrology Journal) later.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
6. Marc Hendrickx
 
 Geologist
 
 In reply to John Mashey
 
 The McShane and Wyner paper, and any other peer reviewed paper for that matter will stand on its own merit and time will tell whether or not it passes muster.You seem to be under the illusion that once a paper has passed peer review that the story ends.
 Science does not work that way. If you are interested in the longer term performance of peer reviewed papers I suggest you obtain a copy of "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John P. A. Ioannidis
 
 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
 
 almost 2 years ago report
7. John Mashey
 
 Semi-retired computer scientist/corporate executive
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 Since Andrew Montford aka Bishop Hill, who says he isn't a Bishop and name isn't Hill, I just use the label HWQDAJ = He Who Quotes from Dog Astrology Journal.
 
 I actually *read* Lindzen's piece. HWQDAJ either didn't read it directly, or had trouble with simple English or was eager to whack Jon Overpeck. I don’t know which. As is explained:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&oldid=380146816#HSI_pp.23-30.2C_421_..._dog_astrology
 
 'HSI, p.28: has:
 "Although…
 Read more
 
 Since Andrew Montford aka Bishop Hill, who says he isn't a Bishop and name isn't Hill, I just use the label HWQDAJ = He Who Quotes from Dog Astrology Journal.
 
 I actually *read* Lindzen's piece. HWQDAJ either didn't read it directly, or had trouble with simple English or was eager to whack Jon Overpeck. I don’t know which. As is explained:
 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Hockey_Stick_Illusion&oldid=380146816#HSI_pp.23-30.2C_421_..._dog_astrology
 
 'HSI, p.28: has:
 "Although Deming himself did not identify the email's author, Richard Lindzen [23] of MIT has confirmed that the email was written by Jonathan Overpeck..."The first is true, as Deming did not name Overpeck. He might have had to prove it. But in Lindzen p.11, we find: "According to Demming, 2005, Jonathan Overpeck, in an email, remarked that one had to get rid of the medieval warm period." (Demming (sic)).
 Montford's own words correctly contradict Lindzen's "confirmation." No email, credible or otherwise, has been presented. Maybe the dogs ate it.'
 
 So, Lindzen wrote an untruth about the contents of Deming's article (also misspelling his name), and HWQDAJ then wrote another untruth to try to make Lindzen confirm Deming's naming of Overpeck, which Deming did neither in his article nor for Inhofe testimony. He might have had to prove it, and while he is a controversial figure, even he seems not to have gone that far.
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Deming
 
 Now, in some cases it takes work to distinguish between FF (falsification/fabrication) and serious incompetence:
 http://www.desmogblog.com/wegman-report-not-just-plagiarism-misrepresentation
 Deming never presented evidence for his claim, and given his other views, it would take strong evidence, not just cherry-picked words missing context. Lindzen wrote a clear untruth, and then so did HWQDAJ about what Lindzen wrote, but as usual, the choice between FF and serious incompetence is unclear.
 People do make mistakes, but the theme of “climate scientists conspire to hide the MWP by promoting the hockey stick” pervades the book, and this Deming quote/Overpeck business was a strong subtheme early in the book to set this up. One would expect a competent author to check simple, important things.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
8. John Mashey
 
 Semi-retired computer scientist/corporate executive
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 "Look! A Squirrel!" defense.
 Deming wrote his quote for JSE. He did not name Overrpeck there or for Inhofe. Lindzen named Overpeck, but offered no evidence beyond Deming's paper, which didn't. HWQDAJ doesn't seem to want to address this simple case, which takes no knowledge of science, just English, then goes into "Look! A Squirrel" defense mode. As seen in Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report:
 http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/
 it can take many more pages…
 Read more
 
 "Look! A Squirrel!" defense.
 Deming wrote his quote for JSE. He did not name Overrpeck there or for Inhofe. Lindzen named Overpeck, but offered no evidence beyond Deming's paper, which didn't. HWQDAJ doesn't seem to want to address this simple case, which takes no knowledge of science, just English, then goes into "Look! A Squirrel" defense mode. As seen in Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report:
 http://deepclimate.org/2010/09/26/strange-scholarship-wegman-report/
 it can take many more pages to explain the errors in a massively error-filled document, and I found enough in a few pages of HSI not to need to spend similar time. Just because I point out problem X does not mean I accept everything else in the book, and there is serious work elsewhere to do.
 
 HWQDAJ doesnt' seem to understand ad hominems, either. All this is based on the words in his book, Lindzen, and Deming.
 
 In the real world, not blogfantasy-land, credibility of sources actually matters. JSE is not Science, although McIntyre&McKitrick tried to make it so, introducing the change from McK's 2005 APEC talk (which correctly cited JSE) to McI+McK's May 11, 2005 talk for George Marshall Institute, i.e., the very likey roadmap and prime source for the Wegman Report.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
9. John Mashey
 
 Semi-retired computer scientist/corporate executive
 
 In reply to Marc Hendrickx
 
 We seem to be in "Look! A Squirrel" mode today.
 No, I am not under that illusion, and I've written about it various times, as per:
 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/john_mashey_on_how_to_learn_ab.php
 
 I've read Ioannidis and of course have heard of him since he works at Stanford, where I visit often.
 
 So, I'm not asking what the long-term verdict on it will be, I am asking:
 Are you wiling to stake *your* credibility on that of McShane & Wyner?
 That is, do you assure us that in your expert opinion…
 Read more
 
 We seem to be in "Look! A Squirrel" mode today.
 No, I am not under that illusion, and I've written about it various times, as per:
 http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/john_mashey_on_how_to_learn_ab.php
 
 I've read Ioannidis and of course have heard of him since he works at Stanford, where I visit often.
 
 So, I'm not asking what the long-term verdict on it will be, I am asking:
 Are you wiling to stake *your* credibility on that of McShane & Wyner?
 That is, do you assure us that in your expert opinion that was a credible paper, in scholarship, science and statistics?
 
 You wrote:
 "It's most latest debunking in the peer reviewed press a paper by McShane and Wyner."
 
 So, in *your* opinion, was that credible or not? You introduced it in support of your arguments. You did not write "I really don't know this paper or its background very well, but I've heard it debunks the hockey stick. Does anyone know anything about it?"
 
 So, you mentioned McShane-Wyner. Do you want to stand behind it as credible (not whether it lasts forever) or back away from it?
 
 almost 2 years ago report
10. Eli Rabett
 
 In reply to John Mashey
 
 JSE, not JSE, <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/06/ask-for-it-under-counter-in-plain-brown.html">the science journal you ask for</a> under the counter in a plain brown bag? The one that William the Sane described as
 ---------------------------------
 Oh, come on. It's impossible to pick a best paper from JSE. It has everything: resurrection, homeopathy, zero-point energy, William Tiller.
 
 If I have to choose one, I pick this one . This guy weighed sheep while he was suffocating them with a plastic bag. He concluded...there's no way to tell what he concluded.
 -----------------------------------------
 
 Not that JSE. Please. . .
 
 almost 2 years ago report
11. Eli Rabett
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 Before we agree to the catholic proposition that the peer review system is bust let us ask where. Clearly there are editors of scientific journals that have political standards. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen and Benny Peiser spring to mind. It would be difficult to defend the proposition that they are not editing with their political standards in mind. This, of course, emphasizes the important role of the editor, not the reviewer
 
 What we have learned from the Eurojournal open review process is that legitimacy of peer review is enhanced by open review, a lesson jammed home by the reviews of Lindzen and Choi II as submitted to PNAS released recently by Richard Lindzen where the care that the referees took with the submission is clear, although their recommendation was not to publish.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
12. Eli Rabett
 
 In reply to John Mashey
 
 Baliunas was paid $52,000 by the George Marshall Institute before her paper with Soon was mailed to millions by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM). Since one of the founders and then director of the Marshall Institute, Fred Seitz signed a letter included in the OISM package, the tracks in the snow are tracks
 
 http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/07/who-paid-for-that-one-of-things-you.html
 
 almost 2 years ago report
13. Grant Burfield
 
 Dr
 
 In reply to John Mashey
 
 HWQDAJ = He Who Quotes from Dog Astrology Journal.
 
 A credit to you. Science at its finest.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
14. Andrew Montford
 
 Blogger
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 Actually you are wrong - you have made an unwarranted assumption. But I'm not sure you are actually interested.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
Simon Arnold

Mr

The thesis here is that peer review is essentially value free, uncorrupted by commercial and political concerns.

But maybe climate science is a little different.

I had a look for Prof Lewandowsky's contributions in the area of climate science, and only "Popular Consensus: Climate Change Set to Continue" Psychological Science 22, 460-463 seemed obvious.

The study involves showing 200 Perth pedestrians the GISS anomalies 1880-2009 half described as share prices of SuperWidget and the other as…
Read more

The thesis here is that peer review is essentially value free, uncorrupted by commercial and political concerns.

But maybe climate science is a little different.

I had a look for Prof Lewandowsky's contributions in the area of climate science, and only "Popular Consensus: Climate Change Set to Continue" Psychological Science 22, 460-463 seemed obvious.

The study involves showing 200 Perth pedestrians the GISS anomalies 1880-2009 half described as share prices of SuperWidget and the other as temperatures. They were asked to forecast the next 3 years in the series (not double blind as far as I can see).

In both cases on average the respondents picked an upward trend, although this trend is reported as not significant (95%) for the share price group.

This is perhaps an interesting if somewhat limited result relating to forecasting skill and beliefs. However the really interesting point from the view of peer review is the conclusion of the paper that is picked up to be highlighted in the abstract:

"This finding ... suggests that presentation of climate data can counteract contrarian claims about global warming having stopped."

This is surely a statement more appropriate for a marketing psychologist peddling the next brand campaign.

One has to rather wonder what those disinterested reviewers at Psychological Science were thinking as they ticked that off.

Or perhaps being a contrarian has been recently been added to DSM-IV.

almost 2 years ago report
1. Alistair McDhui
 
 Retired engineer
 
 In reply to Simon Arnold
 
 According to Wikipedia, 'Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary scientific study of minds as information processors. It includes research on how information is processed (in faculties such as perception, language, reasoning, and emotion), represented, and transformed in a (human or other animal) nervous system or machine (e.g., computer). Cognitive science consists of multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology…
 Read more
 
 According to Wikipedia, 'Cognitive science is the interdisciplinary scientific study of minds as information processors. It includes research on how information is processed (in faculties such as perception, language, reasoning, and emotion), represented, and transformed in a (human or other animal) nervous system or machine (e.g., computer). Cognitive science consists of multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and education.[1] It spans many levels of analysis, from low-level learning and decision mechanisms to high-level logic and planning; from neural circuitry to modular brain organization. The term cognitive science was coined by Christopher Longuet-Higgins in his 1973 commentary on the Lighthill report, which concerned the then-current state of Artificial Intelligence research.[2] In the same decade, the journal Cognitive Science and the Cognitive Science Society were founded.[3]'
 
 Don't see any reference to heat transfer physics, aerosol optical physics, atmospheric physics, palaeo-science etc.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
Alistair McDhui

Retired engineer

The crisis is 'climate science' is entirely of its own making. If it wants to continue to be accepted as a science it must accept that when well-qualified individuals work out where it went badly wrong, that's the way science works. It comes with the territory.

When the CAGW hypothesis was devised by Sagan, it was entirely plausible because high feedback CO2-AGW was the only known way at the time you could explain palaeo-climate. However, when Hansen teamed up with Gore and published apocalyptic…
Read more

The crisis is 'climate science' is entirely of its own making. If it wants to continue to be accepted as a science it must accept that when well-qualified individuals work out where it went badly wrong, that's the way science works. It comes with the territory.

When the CAGW hypothesis was devised by Sagan, it was entirely plausible because high feedback CO2-AGW was the only known way at the time you could explain palaeo-climate. However, when Hansen teamed up with Gore and published apocalyptic claims, it was a hostage to fortune.

23 years’ later, all the climate models are broken. If ‘back radiation’ existed, you could alter it by changing the balance between convective and radiative heat transport at the earth’s surface: that’s impossible. It’s an error by Arthur Milne in 1922. There may be a heating effect in clouds due to increased IR optical path length interacting with water droplets which have gettered CO2, but it’s different physics.

Also imaginary is the major part of ‘global dimming’, that from thicker clouds, an error in Sagan’s physics. Correct it and aerosols cause such clouds to pass more energy, another AGW which probably explains much recent heating and, because CO2-AGW is now very small, even perhaps negative, palaeo-climate has another explanation.

Recent work shows the heating that triggers the end of an ice age is in the deep oceans, c. 1000 years before any change in air temperature. With palaeo-climate gone, continued fiddling of temperatures and other data for political reasons, also biased peer review, will inevitably fail.

almost 2 years ago report
1. Andrew Glikson
  
  Earth and paleo-climate scientist at Australian National University
  
  In reply to Alistair McDhui
  
  Alistaire,
  
  You write: "Recent work shows the heating that triggers the end of an ice age is in the deep oceans, c. 1000 years before any change in air temperature."
  
  The argument that temeprature rise has preceded CO2 rise during glacial terminations is being repeated ad-infinitum by those who do not accept the evidence of climate and paleoclimate science.
  
  We do not live at a glacial termination but following a cooling trend of the Holocene interglacial, which started some 8000 years ago, a cooling…
  Read more
  
  Alistaire,
  
  You write: "Recent work shows the heating that triggers the end of an ice age is in the deep oceans, c. 1000 years before any change in air temperature."
  
  The argument that temeprature rise has preceded CO2 rise during glacial terminations is being repeated ad-infinitum by those who do not accept the evidence of climate and paleoclimate science.
  
  We do not live at a glacial termination but following a cooling trend of the Holocene interglacial, which started some 8000 years ago, a cooling trend which was abruptly terminated in the 18th century due to emission of over 330 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere, raising CO2 from 280 to 393 ppm or 460 ppm when combined with the forcing effect of methane.
  
  As distinct from the glacial terminations, when the following sequence of events pertained:
  
  1. Milankovic cycle solar pulsation of 40 - 60 Watt/m2 at mid-northern latitude triggering extensive ice melt of the Greenland, Fennoscandia and Larentia ice sheets.
  
  2. Self-amplification of ice melt due to the "albedo flip" - i.e. reduced reflection of the melting ice sheets and increased absorption of infrared by opening water surfaces.
  
  3. Consequent warming of ocean water and of vegetation, resulting in the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, lagging about 800 years following the orbital solar pulse.
  
  Andrew Glikson
  Earth and paleoclimate science
  Australian National University
  
  almost 2 years ago report
Peter J Scott

Retired English professor

One hopes that Professor Lewandowsky, as a psychologist, could see the need for a study on those who base their analysis of denial on the assumption that CO2 theory is proven, and hence is undeniable.

almost 2 years ago report
1. John Mashey
  
  Semi-retired computer scientist/corporate executive
  
  In reply to Peter J Scott
  
  One hopes that retired English professors would have the time to study basic physics, i.e., like sophomore level 40 years ago, probably earlier now.
  if you want to learn, try David Archer's The LongThaw, or for math/physics, the book he uses to teach non-science majors: Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast or watch his lectures:
  http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html
  
  For CO2 not to be a greenhouse gas and cause warming, one would have to repeal Conservation of Energy and much quantum mechanics ...i.e., both of which are involved in running computers and sending data across the net to enable posts on a website.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
2. Peter J Scott
  
  Retired English professor
  
  In reply to John Mashey
  
  John,
  Thank you for your advice. I am aware of CO2 theory as it pertains to experiments in the laboratory. My problem is how this theory has transmorphed from the laboratory into the atmosphere, where it has become the theoretical basis for the warming of the planet. This would appear to be a vast leap, particularly as serious questions concerning positive feedback remain unresolved.
  Surely, even a semi-retired computer scientist /corporate executive such as yourself might see that, at least for some of us more inquisitive, unaccepting souls, that this can be a stumbling block (which can lead to the discovery of other significant issues that similarly lack resolution).
  I have no objection to moving to renewable energy. However I do object to being told that it is mandatory on the basis of such unconvincing scientific evidence.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
3. John Mashey
  
  Semi-retired computer scientist/corporate executive
  
  In reply to Peter J Scott
  
  Peter: I have recommended a general-audience book and a slightly more mathematical one for non-science college majors ... among the vast array of peer-reviewed evidence. You might also try Spencer Weart's fine history, "The Discovery of Global Warming" to be useful to understand what has been known, when. It is usefully online:
  http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
  is the section you might want, but the whole history is good. (Spencer is a retired physicist is hosted at American Institute…
  Read more
  
  Peter: I have recommended a general-audience book and a slightly more mathematical one for non-science college majors ... among the vast array of peer-reviewed evidence. You might also try Spencer Weart's fine history, "The Discovery of Global Warming" to be useful to understand what has been known, when. It is usefully online:
  http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
  is the section you might want, but the whole history is good. (Spencer is a retired physicist is hosted at American Institute of Physics.)
  
  "Argument from personal incredulity" really don't get very far, and unlike in the humanities and social sciences, where there is often legitimate room for long-running arguments, in physics, there are always arguments, but some things get settled well enough for decision-making, within adequate confidence intervals.
  
  Now, simple labels may be misleading. You may have seriously studied math, physics, etc, before switching to English. You may have spent many years in research labs, know many climate scientists personally, attend conferences, etc, and hence can argue credibly about these issues. But maybe not.
  
  You might try calibrating yourself on the following:
  http://i32.tinypic.com/n3qn0z.png
  
  You seem to believe that the professional in this field (K7-K10) are clueless. Why? You also might try to the following and see if any fit:
  http://i46.tinypic.com/204j13.jpg
  
  Anyway, *please* go read at least the first Archer book and that section of Weart. There's no reason an educated adult cannot easily reach K2 on that scale in a few days of reading and be able to have opinions based on science, not anti-science. There is plenty of room for arguing about policy, but especially if you live in a vulnerable place (like Australia) you might want to be informed enough to participate. While some of us strongly prefer effective minimal-bureaucracy approaches, people have fought those to the death in many places, and even in places that generally try, policies can have unintended consequences.
  
  Of course, those of us in the baby boomer generation, if we have no children or younger relatives we care about, or places we care about, mostly won't live long enough to see the bad effects, so can just happily ignore most of this and can just party on. I've visited Oz a dozen times, and always enjoyed the beaches (Bondi, Whitsundays, Surfer's Paradise, the ones near Perth) as I do those here in California. While this is trivial in comparison with other effects, it's too bad that many of both will be gone or greatly diminished by 2100AD. A 1-meter sea-level-rise tends to do that. Again trivial but the already-threatened Oz skiing will encourage even more skiers to go to the Remarkables in NZ, or as many do already, come to British Columbia.
  
  Laws of physics are brutally unforgiving. They don't get changed by legislatures, they don't get changed by lobbying/PR or people's opinions.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
Kip Hansen

Retired IT Professional, Humanitarian Missionary

Apparently, this is going to be a one-sided 'conversation' about Climate Change. The author of this piece must be an understudy of the mud-slinging professional political-operative Joe Romm in the United States. The titled accuses skeptics of 'abuse of peer-review', then gives no examples. The author, Professor Stephan Lewandowsky, apparently had his eyes closed during the entire Climategate affair or has somehow 'inverted' the players - it was the Hockey Stick Team that was subverting the peer-review process, by their own admission, attempting to prevent contrarian papers from being published by pressuring editors and acting as reviewers of critics of their own work. Professor Stephan Lewandowsky should stick to cognitive science, as he apparently has yet to to actually read a paper related to climate science or to acquaint himself with even the most basics aspects of the controversies involved -- even his efforts at ad hom mud-slinging are amateurish.

almost 2 years ago report
1. Brian Angliss
 
 climate/energy writer
 
 In reply to Kip Hansen
 
 Kip, clearly you've failed to read the entire Independent Climate Change Email Review, but specifically those portions that investigated the "manipulation of peer review" claims you're repeating here. Here's what the ICCER found, summarized from my reporting on the investigation report.
 
 With respect to the "redefine peer review" email from Jones: "[McKitrick and Michaels 2004] 'can be readily shown to be scientifically flawed' for two reasons. Jones’ first reason is that 'if the CRUTEM3 trend is…
 Read more
 
 Kip, clearly you've failed to read the entire Independent Climate Change Email Review, but specifically those portions that investigated the "manipulation of peer review" claims you're repeating here. Here's what the ICCER found, summarized from my reporting on the investigation report.
 
 With respect to the "redefine peer review" email from Jones: "[McKitrick and Michaels 2004] 'can be readily shown to be scientifically flawed' for two reasons. Jones’ first reason is that 'if the CRUTEM3 trend is reduced by the factor claimed by MM2004, the land-based record then becomes incompatible with the ocean and the satellite record.' Jones’ second reason is that the MM2004 failed to account for changes in atmospheric circulation, and that the statistical test demanded by MM2004 author McKitrick didn’t make sense until the circulation changes were included."
 
 With respect to the rejected claim that Climate Research was pressured as a result of Soon and Baliunas, the ICCER wrote: "The journal‘s publisher admitted that the journal should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication. The Editor in Chief resigned on being refused permission by the publisher to write an editorial about what he regarded as a failure of the peer review system."
 
 With respect to Boehmer-Christiansen's rejected accusation that Jones had tried to get her fired: "the report says that Boehmer-Christiansen provided no evidence to support of her claim that Jones attempted to manipulate peer review. Second, while Jones did contact the University of Hull, he did so in response to accusations of fraud initially made by Boehmer-Christiansen herself [against Jones]. In addition, Jones was quoted as saying in one of the CRU emails 'I have vented my frustration and have had a considered reply from you.'"
 
 With regard to the rejected accusation that Keith Briffa tried to get a reviewer to reject a paper when he was a journal editor: "the ICCER found that the published CRU email record lacked sufficient context to justify the allegation. Briffa provided copies of the complete email chain from his personal records to the panel and the result was a very different picture. The complete email chain showed that Briffa had apologized for the delay in sending the reviewers’ comments to the manuscript’s authors and offered to 'fast-track publication' of the manuscript if the authors revised it as recommended by the the reviewers."
 
 almost 2 years ago report
2. Andrew Montford
 
 Blogger
 
 In reply to Brian Angliss
 
 Brian
 
 You've raised many points there -
 
 1. Jones defence on the "redefine peer review" incident is not a defence of the allegation made. Jones (and/or his coauthors) put a sentence in the IPCC report saying that M&M's results were not statistically significant. McKitrick has said that this was a fabrication. For Jones to say he didn't like the paper for other reasons does not represent a defence against the charge of fabrication. (McKitrick has also said that Jones' new arguments are equally without…
 Read more
 
 Brian
 
 You've raised many points there -
 
 1. Jones defence on the "redefine peer review" incident is not a defence of the allegation made. Jones (and/or his coauthors) put a sentence in the IPCC report saying that M&M's results were not statistically significant. McKitrick has said that this was a fabrication. For Jones to say he didn't like the paper for other reasons does not represent a defence against the charge of fabrication. (McKitrick has also said that Jones' new arguments are equally without foundation in the literature).
 
 2. The Soon and Baliunas affair was well documented long before Climategate. The question at issue was whether Jones and other CRU staff made inappropriate approaches to the journal. The resignation of von Storch and the comments of Otto Kinne do not mean that inappropriate approaches were not made. The ICCE review failed even to ask Jones if he had contacted the journal. Until we know, there is a possibility that Jones overstepped the line.
 
 3. You note correctly that the Boehmer-Christiansen affair was nothing to do with peer review.
 
 4. The Briffa affair I have still to study in detail.
 
 The ICCE panel failed to investigate any of the allegations regarding the peer review of the M&M papers - the submission to Nature, the sidelining of Saiers at GRL. Likewise none of the aspects of pal review were looked at either.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
3. Eli Rabett
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 Andrew, perhaps you might have some residual interest and comment on the fact that<a href="http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/07/who-paid-for-that-one-of-things-you.html">; Baliunas was paid by the Marshall Institute</a> and that Soon and Baliunas were supported by Exxon, the Koch boys and the American Petroleum Institute. Afterward you may resume breathing heavily.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
4. Brian Angliss
 
 climate/energy writer
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 Again, with respect to Jones, the ICCER found that there was no fabrication as alleged by McKitrick. McKitrick alleged that Jones wrote a paragraph that Jones did not write and that only a recalculated p-value would provide proof, but Jones said "Before undertaking the kind of analysis in MM2004, it is essential to account for known signals (i.e. the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and possibly others) and then examine the residuals. It does not make sense…
 Read more
 
 Again, with respect to Jones, the ICCER found that there was no fabrication as alleged by McKitrick. McKitrick alleged that Jones wrote a paragraph that Jones did not write and that only a recalculated p-value would provide proof, but Jones said "Before undertaking the kind of analysis in MM2004, it is essential to account for known signals (i.e. the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and possibly others) and then examine the residuals. It does not make sense to calculate the p-value without allowing first for the atmospheric effects and their spatial autocorrelation in that calculation. (ICCER p74)"
 
 Frustration vented in a presumably private email does not equal a serious attempt to prevent access, especially when the paper in question has apparently serious analytical issues and when the paper was ultimately included in the IPCC WG1 report. In the findings, the ICCER found "They initially rejected inclusion of reference to MM2004, and in the final draft included a commentary on it explaining why they disagreed with its conclusions. It may be that the conclusions of MM2004 conflicted so strongly with a generally held view among climate scientists that rejection was made too easily; but in the absence of better evidence, this is mere speculation. (ICCER p76)" and that "we do not find that he was biased, that there was any improper exclusion of material or that the comments on the MM2004 paper in the final draft were invented given the (continuing) nature of the scientific debate on this issue. (ICCER p77)"
 
 As for Soon and Baliunas is concerned, you're treating Jones as "guilty until proven innocent" and engaging in speculation, nothing more.
 
 To the best of my knowledge, the other peer review allegations you mention were not generated as a result of the emails except in a "Hey, if they might have been manipulating peer review with these journals, what about other journals?" way. And so the ICCER would not have been tasked with investigating them, appropriately in my opinion. A review panel without strict limits on its terms of review risks becoming a witch hunt.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
5. Andrew Montford
 
 Blogger
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 Hi Brian
 
 Re Jones, you are repeating the point without really addressing the one I made. The statement that McKitrick's results were statistically insignificant can only be the result of a statistical significance test. Jones cannot produce it. If his argument was that McKitrick didn't account for ENSO then why didn't he say so? And again, where is his citation to support this new argument? Russell's conclusions are inconsistent with the evidence (or lack of it).
 
 I agree with your point about frustration…
 Read more
 
 Hi Brian
 
 Re Jones, you are repeating the point without really addressing the one I made. The statement that McKitrick's results were statistically insignificant can only be the result of a statistical significance test. Jones cannot produce it. If his argument was that McKitrick didn't account for ENSO then why didn't he say so? And again, where is his citation to support this new argument? Russell's conclusions are inconsistent with the evidence (or lack of it).
 
 I agree with your point about frustration vented in an email. The message in question is suggestive of Jones' intentions though.
 
 Re Soon & Baliunas, I am not treating Jones as guilty. I am fully aware that no approaches may have been made by CRU scientists at all. My point is that we don't know because the Russell panel didn't ask the question.
 
 The Saiers affair was probably the most important allegation because it related directly to the Hockey Stick. It is straight out of the emails - we see the scientists discussing the possibilit of going through official AGU panels to get Saiers ousted.
 
 There are multiple allegations of "pal review", again straight out of the emails. These should have been investigated too.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
6. Brian Angliss
 
 climate/energy writer
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 Given how many people say things that would be misinterpreted when they're angry and frustrated, I disagree that "redefine peer review" suggests anything beyond anger and frustration. Ultimately, the fact that MM2004 was specifically mentioned in the IPCC is the final
 
 And I disagree that a p-value calculation is always required - when something is clearly erroneous, all that's required is to point out the reasons why it's erroneous. If I were to say that the sky were pink, for example, you wouldn…
 Read more
 
 Given how many people say things that would be misinterpreted when they're angry and frustrated, I disagree that "redefine peer review" suggests anything beyond anger and frustration. Ultimately, the fact that MM2004 was specifically mentioned in the IPCC is the final
 
 And I disagree that a p-value calculation is always required - when something is clearly erroneous, all that's required is to point out the reasons why it's erroneous. If I were to say that the sky were pink, for example, you wouldn't need to produce a spectral analysis of the color of the sky to disprove my statement. It's clear that the lack of inclusion of ENSO and corrections for spatial autocorrelation in MM2004 were considered by Jones and other IPCC authors to be obvious and major flaws of a magnitude that did not require an independent p-value calculation. You and McKitrick are, of course, free to disagree, but to say that the ICCER didn't even consider this point is incorrect.
 
 What would you hope to find out if Jones was asked about his possible contact with Climate Research regarding Soon and Baliunas? Even if he did, the ICCER pointed out that "the strong reaction to [S&B} was understandable, and did not amount to undue pressure on Climate Research." In other words, experts in peer review testified that sometimes scientists attack each other and journals but that it's a normal, if unfortunate, part of the peer review process. Given this, simply knowing whether Jones did or did not approach the editors of Climate Research doesn't matter. If Jones did approach the editors, then it's not a problem because the paper was so bad that four editors including the Editor in Chief resigned over the paper. And obviously, if Jones didn't approach them, then there was no attempt to influence the journal.
 
 It's interesting - in the heat of the controversy back in 2010, I never read Saiers' name, only Soon & Baliunas, Briffa, and Boehmer-Christensen (with respect to peer review, anyway). In fact, I hadn't heard it until you mentioned it. That indicates to me that Saiers was a lower profile peer review allegation compared to the others, and so the high profile allegations were examined while the low profile ones were not. And all of the high profile allegations were found to be without merit by the ICCER. So claiming now that the Saiers allegation was the most important strikes me as a bit of historical revisionism.
 
 As for pal review, really, who cares? It's a known issue in academia in general, not just in climate science, and eventually all examples of pal review where the science doesn't stand up get exposed, just as all examples of poor or insufficient scientific analysis get discovered and corrected. Pal review happens (just witness Lindzen's latest bruhaha at PNAS) and journals should do everything that they can to minimize it. But science is self-correcting, so it really shouldn't be a major concern.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
7. Andrew Montford
 
 Blogger
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 Surely a p-value is required for a statement about statistical significance? As I said, if he had a different objection to McKitrick's paper, he should have said so, not said it was statistically insignificant. And he should have provided a citation too.
 
 Re S&B, the panel had a single expert on peer review. Richard Horton of the Lancet. Horton indeed said that peer review can be heated. He also said that there is a line that can be crossed. Russell exonerated Jones without investigating if that…
 Read more
 
 Surely a p-value is required for a statement about statistical significance? As I said, if he had a different objection to McKitrick's paper, he should have said so, not said it was statistically insignificant. And he should have provided a citation too.
 
 Re S&B, the panel had a single expert on peer review. Richard Horton of the Lancet. Horton indeed said that peer review can be heated. He also said that there is a line that can be crossed. Russell exonerated Jones without investigating if that line had been crossed. The only evidence presented was (a) Horton's statement and (b) Jones word that he had done nothing wrong.
 
 If you think the Saiers affair was not prominent then I would say you haven't been following very closely. Googling the quote re "going through official AGU channels" turns up 15,000 odd responses.
 
 I don't think you can accuse me of historical revisionism when the allegations are discussed at length in my book, both in the chapter on MM2005 and in the Climategate chapter!
 
 almost 2 years ago report
8. Brian Angliss
 
 climate/energy writer
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 First, I apologize - I have not read your book, so I was not aware you had discussed Saiers there.
 
 That said, Googling the Jones quote "redefine what the peer-review literature is" turns up ~87,000 responses. Googling "Phil Jones" and "Sonja Boehmer-Christensen" turns up only about 2700 links. As for the Briffa email quote "extensive case for rejecting" I get about 5700 links. So I'll grant that the Boehmer-Christensen and Briffa issues might not have been as high profile but rather considered…
 Read more
 
 First, I apologize - I have not read your book, so I was not aware you had discussed Saiers there.
 
 That said, Googling the Jones quote "redefine what the peer-review literature is" turns up ~87,000 responses. Googling "Phil Jones" and "Sonja Boehmer-Christensen" turns up only about 2700 links. As for the Briffa email quote "extensive case for rejecting" I get about 5700 links. So I'll grant that the Boehmer-Christensen and Briffa issues might not have been as high profile but rather considered higher profile due to their brief mention in the UK Parliament report and/or by the MSM.
 
 As I mentioned, a p-value would be required IF the errors were not considered obvious and major. Clearly the IPCC authors who wrote the paragraph in question felt that the errors in MM2004 were obvious and major. References to other sections (which have their own citations) of the IPCC WG1 report were included as support for the observation that MM2004 did not match observed warming patterns. Remember that the IPCC does not do original science, they review and collect the state of the science at the time of writing, and at the time that the IPCC WG1 report was being written, reviewed, and edited, MM2004 was considered and rejected by the expert authors. You don't have to like or agree with the rejection, but that doesn't mean Jones improperly influenced the process.
 
 In fact, given how strongly Jones disliked MM2004, the fact that it was included in the WG1 report explicitly shows that Jones' influence was not excessive or improper - had it been, MM2004 wouldn't have been included.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
9. Andrew Montford
 
 Blogger
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 I don't think the IPCC authors are allowed to take a view on the paper. They are meant to be summarising what is in the peer reviewed literature. They can't subsititute their own opinions for those of the peer reviewers of the paper. No refutation in literature means they have to report it. This kind of thing is why so many sceptics think the IPCC is broken beyond repair.
 
 Re Hockey Stick Illusion, I would encourage you to take a look. It's important, I would say (and a good read too).
 
 almost 2 years ago report
10. John Mashey
 
 Semi-retired computer scientist/corporate executive
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 I still want to hear from HWQDAJ was doing falsification or just unable to read English. "Actually you are wrong - you have made an unwarranted assumption. But I'm not sure you are actually interested." wasn't much of answer, although perhaps not up to '"Neither Dr. Wegman nor Dr. Said has ever engaged in plagiarism," says their attorney, Milton Johns, '
 
 almost 2 years ago report
11. TREVOR RIDGWAY
 
 MR ( I am retired now )
 
 In reply to John Mashey
 
 Good grief ! ( to quote Charlie Brown )
 I've just struggled through this entire blog and despite the enormous number of spelling errors & failure to complete an explanation or convey an idea (without prejudice ) I have arrived at at least one conclusion !
 I now understand why Thomas Edison 'feigned deafness' and preferred to work alone !
 His output is evidence of his success !
 Wish there were more like him !
 
 almost 2 years ago report
12. Michael Hodson
 
 health professional
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 Andrew,
 
 Of ocurse they are. That's the whole idea - to assess the literature and summarise the best evidence. It's this kind of misunderstanding amongst the 'skeptics', forming the basis for their hyperbolic assertions, that makes many people think it's rather pointless to engage with them.
 
 And having suffered partway through the HSI - it's an awful load of tripe.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
13. Andrew Montford
 
 Blogger
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 Michael
 
 If you read a bit further, you will come across reference number 222, which shows that authors are meant to represent differences of opinion in the report.
 
 Do you have a source that suggests something different?
 
 almost 2 years ago report
14. Andrew Montford
 
 Blogger
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 BTW Michael
 
 I'm not sure if your objections to HSI are factual or literary. If you have factual objections do let me know.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
15. Michael Hodson
 
 health professional
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 But that doesn't mean that every single paper of any degree of quality is included. Otherwise there is no need for expert review, just a typist.
 
 The whole idea of a systematic review is to summarise the best evidence and to filter out the dregs to save everyone else the trouble of wasting their time reading them.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
16. Andrew Montford
 
 Blogger
 
 In reply to Andrew Montford
 
 The guidance is quite clear - they have to summarise and include the dissenting views too. Your characterisation is not a reflection of the actual guidance.
 
 almost 2 years ago report
John Dodds

Retired Engineer

Yes lets talk about the abuse of Peer Review.
There is article by Svante Arrhenius dated 1896 that claims that in the greenhouse effect, where an energy photon is absorbed by a greenhouse gas, to result in more warming.

The conclusion was "if the quantity of carbonic acid (CO2-a greenhouse gas) increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression."
This finding has evolved onto the IPCC mantra (AR4, WG1, CH1, p116) that "more GHGs…
Read more

Yes lets talk about the abuse of Peer Review.
There is article by Svante Arrhenius dated 1896 that claims that in the greenhouse effect, where an energy photon is absorbed by a greenhouse gas, to result in more warming.

The conclusion was "if the quantity of carbonic acid (CO2-a greenhouse gas) increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression."
This finding has evolved onto the IPCC mantra (AR4, WG1, CH1, p116) that "more GHGs means more warming"

Now every day we observe that more sunlight energy results in morning warming, and every nightly decrease in energy results in cooling . So how did the peers allow Arrhenius to suddenly conclude that more GHGs causes the warming instead of the extremely obvious and historically accurate observation that it is the added energy from photons that causes the warming?
And just how did the peers miss this? And how did it evolve to the IPCC conclusion? Do these peer scientists not look at the paper and apply common sense? Do they just blindly accept an absurd conclusion that more CO2 can cause more warming, when basic physics and the Laws of Mother Nature dictate that you can not create enegy but must transfer it in.?

This absurd Arrhenius conclusion has resulted in the blaming of CO2 for global warming. and teh equally absurb idea that by reducing teh number of CO2 molecules we can reduce teh temperature. Everyone knows that reducing the CO2 does not reduce the excess amounts in the air and ocean. Common sense says to look for a variation in the amount of energy to blame for the warming. Now the amount of Solar insolation may not have changed in the last 50 years, but the amount of energy from gravity certainly has since the force and energy from gravity varies with the distance between two masses, at least according to someone named Newton. So if the eccentricity of the Earth varies, doesn't the force and energy from gravity? and how about the smaller gravity due to the planets, such as Jupiter. Isn't it strange that the peaks in Earth temperatures happen at the same time as when Jupiter in its 12 year orbit and the Jupiter/Saturn 60 year resonance orbit co-incide with the closest approaches and maximum force and energy of gravity of these planets (1880, 1940, 1998...)? See the paper "Gravity causes Climate Change" available at www.scribd.com.
And we believe the peers? If they had gotten it right and blamed teh increasing energy we would not have wasted billions on phoney reseach using computer codes that incorrectly programmed "More CO2 means more warming" instead of "More energy means more warming"

almost 2 years ago report
1. Michael Hodson
  
  health professional
  
  In reply to John Dodds
  
  Is this a joke?
  
  almost 2 years ago report
2. John Dodds
  
  Retired Engineer
  
  In reply to Michael Hodson
  
  NO, IT IS VERY SERIOUS.. I am accusing the peer reviewers & IPCC of making a mistake that has had enormous costly consequences.
  The Arrhenius 1896 paper claims that more GHGs means more warming, as adopted by IPCC. In reality it is NOT the added GHGs but the added energy photons that cause the warming. (doesn't the sun warm in the morning with added photons of solar insolation and cool in the evening when the number of photons decreases? ) I think Arrhenius drew his conclusion in order to adopt…
  Read more
  
  NO, IT IS VERY SERIOUS.. I am accusing the peer reviewers & IPCC of making a mistake that has had enormous costly consequences.
  The Arrhenius 1896 paper claims that more GHGs means more warming, as adopted by IPCC. In reality it is NOT the added GHGs but the added energy photons that cause the warming. (doesn't the sun warm in the morning with added photons of solar insolation and cool in the evening when the number of photons decreases? ) I think Arrhenius drew his conclusion in order to adopt the position of emminent scientists at the time, that Man can control the climate by controlling the number of GHGs
  The paper was I believe peer reviewed. The reviewers BLEW it, big time.. They could not see the obvious that the added energy from the photons caused the warming, OR the observation that every night the temperature goes DOWN contradicting Arrhenius,when there is more added CO2 of GHGs,, OR the known fact that there is an excess of GHGs in the air and ocean so adding more just adds to the excess. The Arrhenius conclusion means that the added GHGs HAVE to create energy to warm the world, OR that there is an unlimited supply - there isn't! the energy is limited to 1366 Watts/M^2. or energy per seond coming into the Earth. Last I heard it was a "peer reviewed" conclusion that there is a Law of Conservation of Energy and you can NOT create energy, you borrow it from somewhere else like the sun, which borrows it by fusion from the hydrogen and helium where Mother Nature has stored it.. More GHGs can not unilaterally create more energy to cause global warming. More GHGs/CO2 just adds to the excess of GHGs in the world. Just like there is an excess of the GHG Water, and when the humidity increases when it rains, the temperature does not increase (because there is no extra available energy photon to be absorbed to cause warming. They are all already in use.)
  
  Arrhenius SHOULD have concluded that in the Greenhouse Effect,where a photon is absorbed by a GHG, it is the added energy photon, not the GHG which causes the warming.
  AND the peer reviewers missed this.
  If he had changed his conclusion, his science would be valid, Man would have gone searching for other energy sources (eg "Gravity causes Climate Change" paper at www.scribd.com) instead of blindly adopting "More GHGS means more warming" and blaming the innocent CO2 for warming, AND spending a fortune for reductions which will only reduce the excess & do absolutely nothing to the temperature.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
3. Michael Hodson
  
  health professional
  
  In reply to John Dodds
  
  So you kind of accept the fact that CO2 is an IR absorber which leads to warming, but you argue that we should ignore CO2 in this equation, because the energy originally came from the sun ??
  
  I was really hoping this was a joke.
  
  almost 2 years ago report
4. Alistair McDhui
  
  Retired engineer
  
  In reply to Michael Hodson
  
  You are correct, but the intrinsic warming due to CO2 which Arrhenius assumed is actually a mistake in Tyndall's original experiment. It was done at constant volume so most of the warming was from the pressure rise. You can prove this by slackening the cap in the modern PET bottle experiment.
  
  But there's more! The residual warming may be from the thermalisation at the walls of the container [caused by IR scattering]. The next argument is that direct thermalisation is zero because at the same…
  Read more
  
  You are correct, but the intrinsic warming due to CO2 which Arrhenius assumed is actually a mistake in Tyndall's original experiment. It was done at constant volume so most of the warming was from the pressure rise. You can prove this by slackening the cap in the modern PET bottle experiment.
  
  But there's more! The residual warming may be from the thermalisation at the walls of the container [caused by IR scattering]. The next argument is that direct thermalisation is zero because at the same time as a photon is absorbed by a GHG, another one is ejected in a random direction. Thus the GHG is a heat transfer medium, a [bidirectional] cascade from/to the earth's surface to/from mostly cloud droplets. Go a bit further in the reasoning and if true it may explain Miskolczi.
  
  By now I usually get unbridled hostility from 'climate scientists' and cries of 'You're taking the bread out of the mouths of my children'. To which I reply 'Hard luck, should have thought out the science better and you wouldn't have been caught out by the planet cooling: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-102.png
  
  The IPCC has a lot to answer for in its insistence on fantasy physics.
  
  about 1 year ago report
Barry Cooper

Jack of many Trades

Here is your fundamental fallacy on this topic: "commercial interests are removed from the publication decision because journals are often published by not-for-profit professional organization."

Are you so dense as to be suggesting that people working in the AGW field are not paid? That they don't get grants, some of which fund their salaries? That they get paid to give speeches, and write articles?

Would you at a minimum concede that those who have dedicated careers to this "field" would be…
Read more

Here is your fundamental fallacy on this topic: "commercial interests are removed from the publication decision because journals are often published by not-for-profit professional organization."

Are you so dense as to be suggesting that people working in the AGW field are not paid? That they don't get grants, some of which fund their salaries? That they get paid to give speeches, and write articles?

Would you at a minimum concede that those who have dedicated careers to this "field" would be out of work if the whole thing turned out to BS, which it will eventually? Further: that everyone who draws a check to work in this "field" has EVERY personal interest in seeing it continued, and ZERO interest in considering claims which might vitiate it at its very heart?

A comparison I might offer is that of the ascendancy of the low-fat idea. There is NO evidence that fat, per se, contributes to obesity; nor was there when C. Everett Koop, American public health czar under Reagan, issued what amounted to an Imperial Proclamation that "the science was settled" back in the 80's. Early adopters went low fat in the mid 80's, and late adopters perhaps the mid-90's. What was the result? A massive increase in obesity. How to explain this? Simple: the "science" was and remains BS. Problem is, for long periods of time you couldn't work in the nutritional field without towing the line. Who was the intermediary of the the BS? Our government. The AGW cult relies on the same support of unelected bureaucrats whose own political interests coincide with those who play ball with them.

On nutrition, read "Good Calories, Bad Calories", by Gary Taubes. There is YouTube video of one of his lectures, that has most of the data. Substitute James Hanson for Ancel Keys and you have a perfect match. Money talks and BS walks.

As far as CO2, I see so many people feeling knowledgable to the point of being smug misunderstanding BASIC elements even of the thesis, much less the objections to it.

The GHG's in effect act as one-way filters. Self evidently energy gets IN to greenhouses, as light. It converts to heat, and doesn't leave. The energy changes frequency profile.

I deal with this on my post on the topic, here: http://moderatesunited.blogspot.com/2008/01/global-warming.html

This thing is only perhaps 5 pages typed, but I deal with most of the major topics in plain language. I could add more--I've learned more, and of course the IPCC got caught being scientifically malignant--but this is certainly a starting point. To be a "skeptic" is synonymous with actually understanding the naked farce that is being attempted here.

almost 2 years ago report
Alistair McDhui

Retired engineer

You're having a laugh. The World is cooling fast, e.g.: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-102.png

Once you correct the four major scientific mistakes in the IPCC models, this is perfectly explicable in terms of a biofeedback process increasing the albedo of low level clouds, with the 1990's heating being a combination of decreased cloud albedo and the heating part of ENSO.

Net CO2-AGW may well be zero. The trouble is that too few people nowadays are capable of original science so have latched onto the mental crutch of computer modelling, Hansen has argued that to account for no warming of the atmosphere, aerosol cooling exactly counters AGW. This is bunkum: no null hypothesis. Time to end this farrago.

about 1 year ago report

Articles also by This Author

Want to follow The Conversation?

Republish

Join the conversation

Community

Company

Contact

Subscribe to our Newsletter