Climate morons keep telling me to write a “peer-reviewed” paper about my temperature findings.
Who would review it? I’m not doing climate science, I am doing computer science. I am examining history and faults in the processing of large data sets. That is my area of expertise.
The Internet allows review by billions of people. Go for it. Stop whining about your inability to control the dialogue. Stop hiding behind your corrupt peer-review process.
Climate Gate showed us “peer reviewed”….
” I am examining history and faults in the processing of large data sets. That is my area of expertise.” …… and an expert you are. Keep up the good work.
+1
I’ll second that as well.
Trouble with AGW climate science peer review is that the basic assumption that CO2 is a climate driver is never questioned. I think they just spell and grammar check. Maybe they also run the review by one of the science communication experts as well.
“I think they just spell and grammar check.”
Unless it’s a paper they don’t like. Then they “go to town” on them, like the two papers Phil Jones proudly told Michael E. Mann he’d rejected, saying, “Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully.”
From Climategate email 1080742144.txt
I think it’s spell check only. They’ve got to twist grammar in a pretty good sized knot to “explain” their way around what the real world is actually doing.
<< presses "like" button.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=WUhT46kx2XU
Awesome! I so want an Aussie version.
We know that the processing of large data sets is not the climate scientists’ expertise.
They’ve developed some data fudging skills, though, and they are expert grant application writers.
Grant Application Writer: Career and Salary Facts
It is easy to have a peer reviewed consensus among people who are receiving grants to parrott or promote a pretermined conclusion, that catastrophic warming is occurring and worse than we thought. That we urgently need much bigger grants for further study and mitigation.
On the other hand, if catastrophic warming is not taking place, the grant money will shrivel and die. Could one say there is a vested interest in promoting the predetermined conclusion?
Willis Eschenbach has just posted a review two papers that made it through the peer-review process. They found that greater output by small volcanoes has caused the pause. They provided no evidence for greater outputs while there is plenty to refute that there is more activity from smaller volcanoes. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/volcanoes-once-again-again.
Like an essay in school, you get an A for utter drivel if it says what the teacher wants to hear. You’ll get a D if you upset the teacher regardless of how good it is.
that IS odd in that seismologists ought to be able to pinpoint volcanism and local observers provide testimony on visual clouds of particulate matter. I know there are some sorts of air measurement studies regularly checking for aerosols and dust. All that could be put into such a study to verify the activity or not.
But then what do I know? I don’t have a ‘climate’ degree. /snark
Connections have been found between volanoes & earthquakesand solar minimums (Not that the ClimAstrologist will tell you that.)
Possible correlation between solar and volcanic activity in a long-term scale (Full paper)
adsabs(DOT)harvard.edu/full/2003ESASP.535..393S
The Role of Explosive Volcanism During the Cool Maunder Minimum
adsabs(DOT)harvard.edu/abs/2002AGUFMPP61A0298A
Sun / dust correlations and volcanic interference (includes list of other papers)
(wwwDOT)mendeley.com/research/sun-dust-correlations-volcanic-interference/
Study of Dust in Ice Cores Shows Volcanic Eruptions Interfere with the Effect of Sunspots on Global Climate
(wwwDOT)buffalo.edu/news/releases/2002/06/5735.html
Possible correlation between solar and volcanic activity in a long-term scale
Authors: St?eštik, J.
Another good paper (in full not just abstract):
NASA: Sun’s Activity Linked to Largest Earthquakes and Volcanoes
http://cafe368.daum.net/_c21_/bbs_search_read?grpid=1FBty&fldid=N0WJ&datanum=1898&contentval=&docid=1FBtyN0WJ189820100616141523
“They provided no evidence for greater outputs”. Its pretty obvious that large volcanoes will cool the surface but the claim was that the pause was caused by smaller volcanoes emitting more SO2 this century than in the last. They needed to provide evidence of this or at least more eruptions.
what you are doing is exactly what was needed – forensic statistical analysis of the data, not arguing about scary (incompetent) models. I too have a CS degree. I’ve often thought that a public denouement of the bent data was overdue. It does NOT take a ‘climate’ degree or any other weather related degree to unravel these charlatans. They use that to ‘Alinsky’ the opposition. David Suzuki uses it all the time.
I’ve seen a couple good presentations from Thermodynamics mavens that support the put-down of the ‘burning Earth’ scare mongers. Apparently 3 degrees of our present global temperature is derived from CO2 at (then) 380ppm. It would have to double to 760 to add three more degrees. I’m not putting my money on that happening in the next hundred years.
Those who say, “get your work peer reviewed to be believable” truly don’t have an understanding of what peer review is. Finding errors in a peer reviewed study is called critique. Such critique should be submitted to the authors and / or the journal. Finding errors in datasets falls under O&M type work. Writing about one’s opinions about other people’s work is Op Ed.
All of the above provide a valuable service to science and society but it doesn’t fall into the domain of work that needs to be peer reviewed to be credible. Anyone who claims it does is simply throwing up a smoke screen for their inability to grasp the subject at hand.
Actually it is throwing up a smoke screen to disguise how crappy their pee-reviewed science is. The biggest smoke screen was The Dog ate the data and The Goat ate the data alternate link
Of note from Meteorological Motor Mouth
……………..
To Warwick Hughes
“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” ~ Phil Jones
A long list of back and forth correspondence between Willis Eschenbach and the ‘Team’ at the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) over where the data is.
An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU
That letter exposed some hard truths about Phil Jones and CRU. I have never for one second understood how the head of a department tasked with collating such important data could admit they were unable to provide that data, and still keep his job. He should have been fired on the back of that failure.
The idiot couldn’t even use an Excel Spread sheet!!!!
CRU’s Dr. Phil Jones, world renowned climatologist, can’t even plot a trend in Excel
Phil Jones demonstrates that math is hard
And we are supposed to trust his CLIMATE MODELS and completely trash our economy based on them?
http://queenprocrastinator.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/banging-head-against-wall-11.jpg
The earliest and best known use of “peer” was in the Magna Carta usually explained by the establishment as a right to jury trial given to Barons that somehow these murdering thugs who took over England then gave to the peasantry.
I strongly suspect the reality is that Jury Trial was common in England before William the Bastard (aka Al Capone type gangster) and his henchmen took over.
And what we actually seeing in Magna Carta is the rare example of William’s henchmen finding that they have a choice as French/Norse henchmen of either going before a very hostile Jury of English commoners … or going to the king (who as the chief gangster makes up his own laws).
And what can be more democratic than “jury trial/review by the commoners” as here … compared to the undemocratic elitist “trial only by their own kind” that academia insists upon.
OUCH! Although I do have to agree. History is full of Thugs on horseback.
Today they’re on Gulfstreams and in limo’s with government plates… that we’re paying for.
The predators and their parasitic hangers-on have always found it is easier to enslave producers than it is to work for a living. The predators have never gone away they have just found different methods to climb to the top. Although murder and intimidation has never gone out of style. They just hide it better. http://etherzone.com/body.html
Pretty much. If you are outside of the “team”, you have no peers. Fortunately, the internet is a “jury of your peers”, as you point out, on a truly democratic scale. The team is a jury of piers.
Peer review is to keep out things that a journal or publication doesn’t want to see published. This is usually stuff that goes against the core interests of the editors. Some people actually think peer review is designed to check the validity of “arguments”/findings. It is not. It’s not even meant to find errors though if they see it, they will point it out, but only so that it doesn’t make their publication look bad, not for the sake of having better papers published. If they could get away with it, they’d never correct anything, and for a great deal of things, they don’t.
Your peers are not found in mainstream academia.
“Academia is a breeding house for parrots.”
-Christopher Langan
You could still be a pain in the @@@ to the AGW crowd and publish some of your work in a CS journal
Indian Science Conference: Fears Man Made Global Warming Exaggerated: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/fears-of-man-made-global-warming-exaggerated/articleshow/45786412.cms
Cheap oil is bankrupting green energy projects all over the world and slowly but surely people are waking up to the hoax.
but… but… PEAK OIL!!
[that one always did make me laugh, you just knew someone would come up with a ‘fix’ for it]
Time to move to Mars: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2902981/Time-Mars-Temperatures-red-planet-warmer-Thursday-fourteen-states-Washington-Maine.html
Don’t let yourself be distracted by the opposition.
IMHO it makes no sense to publish your findings in a corrupted peer review process. It’s just a waste of time.
This site is an incredible success and it’s only a matter of time before the general message is adopted by the public.
You’ve become a structural pain in the ass for the establishment and the warmists.
Keep up the great work.
Never change a winning concept.
In Climate “Science,” Peer Review = Pal Review.
It’s bullsh|t.
What ClimAstrologist Peer Review actually means:
http://i344.photobucket.com/albums/p323/krimpetanne/Suckadrankthekoolaid.jpg
Besides that you have Mother Nature on your side.
She managed to expose Al Gore as the lying bastard he really by stalking him with cold blasts, snow and ice events wherever he went.
The current state of the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice Masses is just the cherry on the cake.
The data and the correlations you presents trumps tonnes of papers full with explanations. Your results must be known to those who should know. The responsible can’t be blind. If in doubt an email to the responsible in National Climatic Data Center or National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration should be sufficient.
It might not have been the intention of the majority of climate scientist but the total result is very clear. There is near perfect linear correlation between adjustments from raw to final temperatures for USHCN and the rise of the CO2 content in the atmosphere. As you show in in several post e.g.
“NCDC Breaks Their Own Record For Data Tampering In 2014”:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/ncdc-breaks-their-own-record-for-data-tampering-in-2014/
To real scientists, that kind of correlation should be very telling. The duck test is sufficient.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.
Scientific minds with any scientific integrity left should feel urged, by your brilliant little test, to stop telling how fabulous the adjustments are, and start asking critical questions themselves: How can it be, what is the hidden cause, where is the culprit?
The peer review process is one of the most repressive and counterproductive aspects of western science. All it accomplishes is to certify that a paper’s author’s bright ideas haven’t offended any of the movers and shakers in his field. Any idea that isn’t mainstream automatically gets guillotined by the peer review process. The AAAS should really be called the AASS: The American Association for the Suppression of Science.
http://blog.remixjobs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/thumbs-up.jpg
If I remember right, some of those SciGen papers were peer reviewed:
http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/03/more-computer-generated-nonsense-papers-pulled-science-journals/358735/