Why Climate Science Peer Review Is Worthless

Climate science has no system of checks and balances.  The people who write climate models are the same ones who evaluate themselves, and then journalists parrot what the modelers say, and refuse to print any other opinions.

In-depth: Scientists discuss how to improve climate models | Carbon Brief

Modelers like James Hansen and Gavin Schmidt are also are the people who alter the temperature data when it doesn’t match their models.

Twenty years ago, NASA’s James Hansen was upset that the US was cooling – even as CO2 increased. It didn’t match his expectations.

How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature?

in the U.S. there has been little temperature change in the past 50 years, the time of rapidly increasing greenhouse gases — in fact, there was a slight cooling throughout much of the country

NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Whither U.S. Climate?

So he fixed this by removing the removed the heat of the 1930s, rather than fixing the climate models.

NASA 1999    NASA 2019

These massive adjustments were made to produce the desired results.

Spreadsheet         Data

The graph below shows the magnitude of the adjustments.

When plotted against atmospheric CO2 below, you can see that NOAA altered the data to precisely match the theory.

Hansen called it a “sociological matter.”

NASA 1998

The National Climate Assessment data shows that the US was much hotter during the 1930s than it is now, yet NOAA’s alterations fly through peer review without being questioned.

Temperature Changes in the United States – Climate Science Special Report

The EPA also shows that US summers used to be much hotter.

Climate Change Indicators: High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change Indicators in the United States | US EPA

Climate Change Indicators: High and Low Temperatures | Climate Change Indicators in the United States | US EPA

Then the press reports the exact opposite and refuses to talk to anyone who questions the assertions of the climate modelers.

It’s Not Your Imagination. Summers Are Getting Hotter. – The New York Times

The New York Times failed to interview the thousands of people who died in past heatwaves.

The Bulletin – Google News Archive Search

1896 Heatwave

New York Times writers also don’t bother to read their paper’s own history.

TimesMachine: July 4, 1911 – NYTimes.com

TimesMachine: July 4, 1911 – NYTimes.com

1896

TimesMachine: August 18, 1896

The 1911 heatwave killed thousands of people in New England and across the country.

Forty-five years ago, climate scientists knew that earth was cooling, and blamed every imaginable form of bad weather on it.

18 Jul 1974, 5 – Calgary Herald at Newspapers.com

https://www.sciencenews.org/sites/default/files/8983

The National Geographic Archive | November 1976 | page 1

Reality destroyed global warming theory, so the world’s leading climate scientists plotted to alter reality.

di2.nu/foia/1254108338.txt

They erased the post-1940’s cooling.

Thirty years ago, Tom Karl (longtime head of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center) said most global warming occurred before 1919, and that Earth cooled from 1921 to 1979.

07 Dec 1989, Page 14 – Santa Cruz Sentinel at Newspapers.com

NASA now shows about 0.4C warming from 1921 to 1979.

NASA is continuously cooling the past and warming the present by tampering with data.

Data.GISS: GISTEMP HISTORY

They claim that they are adjusting temperatures to reduce warming, but this is just another trick.

Explainer: How data adjustments affect global temperature records | Carbon Brief

Land temperatures are being adjusted to increase warming.

JCLI-D-18-0094.1

Much of the land data is too sparse to be of any use, and this has been known for decades.

https://www.nytimes.com/1978/01/05/archives/international-team-of-specialists-finds-no-end-in-sight-to-30year.html

Outside of the US, western Europe, Japan and parts of Australia, the global temperature record lacks enough quality data to construct a meaningful temperature graph.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/figures/station-counts-1891-1920-temp.png

The ocean data is also fake.

di2.nu/foia/foia2011/mail/2729.txt

NOAA makes up record heat in places where they have no data.

Global Climate Report – June 2017 | State of the Climate | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)

They don’t actually have any thermometer readings in South Sudan and the Central African Republic. “Gray areas represent missing data.” And never mind their actual thermometer readings in Eurasia showed a significant percentage of below normal temperatures.

201706.gif (990×765)

The trick they use to claim they are adjusting the cooling trend down, is to make up an inflated fake trend, and then claim to discount it.  The same psychological trick which people who sell jewelry use.

NASA not only adjusts the trend upwards, but they also hide warm temperatures from before 1880.

Spreadsheet     Data

The 1974 NCAR graph made sense.

But in the current NASA graph, Ice melts at low temperatures, and forms at high temperatures. This makes no sense and shows us that the graph is bogus.

Tom Karl and Phil Jones had previously reported that the global trend was heavily impacted by UHI effects. This is now ignored.

1520-0477(1989)070<0265:UBIAAS>2.0.CO;2

Going back 1,000 years, long term cooling trends have also been erased.

ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_07.pdf

IPCC Third Assessment Report – Climate Change 2001

The Extinction Rebellion is based on misinformation and superstition. Life has thrived at much higher CO2 levels.

image277.gif (660×417)

The expansion of life on earth peaked when CO2 was at its maximum 540 million years ago.

When life exploded | Science News for Students

I made my reputation in microprocessor design as a verification engineer. My job was to find all the faults in the design, and I was rewarded for doing so.. Climate science has no such system of checks and balances.  Everyone benefits financially from fraudulent work by other scientists, so there is no motivation to expose error or fraud.

Who Is Tony Heller? | Real Climate Science

Climate scientists refuse to debate me, and make the most absurd excuses for doing so.

But the real agenda is clear for everyone to see, and it has nothing to do with climate.

26 Jan 1989 – Call for anti-greenhouse action – Trove

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Why Climate Science Peer Review Is Worthless

  1. arn says:

    Climate Models will always do a good job(they don’t)
    and will never be perfect(even if they are).

    They always have to pretend do a good job,to justify their jobs and to keep the money flowing.
    They must never reach perfection as a perfect model would only need a handful of scientists to run the show.
    The rest of models and scientists would become useless.

  2. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    Touché, Tony! You are on a roll.
    Keep up the good work, setting the record straight.

  3. Gator says:

    One of your best so far Tony! Anyone who isn’t able to connect the dots on this post needs a hands free roadmap to find their own arse.

    Edit note: So he fixed this by removing the removed the heat of the 1930s…

    #Ibelievethermometers

  4. Norilsk says:

    From that climategate email that Tony has posted several times we learn that since they couldn’t account for the lack of warming, they blamed it on bad data.

    “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
    travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” Treberth to Mann Oct. 12, 2009

    They couldn’t face the fact that their theory was wrong.

  5. Norilsk says:

    The peer-review system is worthless since they claim to have the power to change its definition to fit their theory.

    “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!” Jones to Mann July 8, 2004

  6. ChrisC says:

    “But this is a never-ending quest for greater precision.”

    Perhaps they would do well to focus less on *precision* and more on *accuracy*. Those are often conflated but are most definitely not the same thing.

    • czechlist says:

      Yep. One can be precisely (repeatedly) inaccurate.
      I was assigned management responsibility for the Metrology/Calibration operations at a major defense company. I was ill prepared and made many basic measurement terminology mistakes. Most of the CalTechs had military PMEL education and experience and educated me. I lost a lot of sleep learning esoteric terminology, MIL/ANSI/ISO standards, revisiting statistics and learning measurement accuracy budgets. After half a decade the Corporation named me a subject matter expert in the field. I made many presentations to senior Corporate management and was “confidently” insecure until retirement.
      After a decade of retirement I have happily forgotten most of it. I now learn all of the amazing grandkid’s stuff like Minecraft. I am a “Basic Learner” again.

    • Louis J Hooffstetter says:

      “Carbon Brief asked a range of climate scientists what they think the main priorities are for improving climate models…”

      Not a single one of these witch doctors answered anything remotely akin to “Making them accurate…” or “Making them match reality…”

      As commenter RAH has stated before on this website:
      “Climate model projections are fantasies that climatologists wish were happening in the real world. They’re not reality, they’re climate porn.”

  7. richard burcik says:

    The world-famous philosopher of science, Karl Popper, insisted that to be a valid scientific theory any hypothesis must be falsifiable. This includes the widely held conjecture of anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change. In short, a single set of scholarly findings that is not explained by the premise of man-made global warming which is attributable to the burning of fossil fuels can falsify this entire body of scientific speculation and this has recently occurred. Last summer the third of three peer-reviewed scientific papers that were conducted by three separate groups of expert investigators from three different universities and which have been published in eminent peer-reviewed scholarly journals have found no evidence to support the assertion regarding human-induced climate change. Instead, all three groups independently found that the warming that has happened was almost entirely attributable to galactic cosmic rays that affect the quantity of the Earth’s low hanging clouds. These expert investigators call this canopy or blanket the “umbrella effect”. The bottom line is that the entire climate change hysteria has now been falsified and is untrue. These three experimental results have conclusively shown that the IPCC and its computer simulation models (GCMs) are not valid.

  8. Disillusioned says:

    Tony, you are hitting them where it hurts.

    If Hayhoe actually wanted to debate Tony, she would be openly inviting a match, rather than making disparaging remarks about him, after he politely asked her questions, and which he cannot reply to because she cowardly blocked him on Tweeter. Her actions show that she is NOT confident in the AGW hyped-pothesis; she is running from debate. She is running scared. The Intergovernmental shill is scared of Tony and others. Just like Mann, she is walling herself off.

    She is afraid of her gravy train running off the rails and afraid of being exposed for pushing the anti-science voodoo of CAGW from imaginary forcing. But Katharine has already been exposed. CAGW as a hypothesis has collapsed. As Mother Nature continues winning this ‘debate,’ her exposure will only become more intense. She can run, but there is nowhere to hide.

  9. G W Smith says:

    Great one, Tony! You couldn’t make this farce any more clear! They simply refuse to look at the evidence. The old adage is timeless: You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink. Without a doubt I’d trust a horse to tell me future climate change long before I’d trust any of these clowns.

  10. Haymaker says:

    If you focus on the U.S., you could be even more convincing. It’s as if America is a perfect climate island. Nice cool breezes from the North. Record rainfall, with lakes filled to the brim nationwide. Near record low wildfires. Read NOAA’s next national climate report for October. The climate fakers can no longer hide the truth. Should be on the front page of every newspaper with the heading “According to NOAA, America is having a record breaking B E A U T I F U L climate”. It was a bummer not to have a spring or fall this year in Boulder. Winter, Summer, Winter. We hiked to the “growing” Isabelle Glacier in late August just outside of Boulder. The Columbine had just started to bloom.

    The Lorax would be proud of our climate………

  11. MG says:

    Is it the responsibility of the journal publishing the paper to determine if the peer review was a quality review or not, or does the author pick the peer reviewers? And, do peers always have to be of the same discipline? For example, could someone from a physics background qualify as a peer for a climate article?

    • Dr. Larry Woodward says:

      In most academic disciplines the top researchers all know each other, all see each other at conferences and know perfectly well who is trying to publish papers on the various topics. These academics are also then on the review boards of the academic journals. Thus when a paper comes up for review ( supposedly a blind review) the reviewers are not told who the author is but they know who the author is because they heard the paper already at a conference. The blind review process is a total sham. Another great game the academics do is to cite published papers from the people they hope will be reviewing the paper. Citations of published papers enhance the reputation of the published authors thus increasing the probability of their paper being accepted. This is just the tip of the iceberg that is called “peer review.”

    • Scissor says:

      Journals have editors that help with quality, mostly in form and style. Authors can suggest reviewers but this does not mean they are accepted. Editors also select reviewers. Usually, the reviewers will be others that have published in the field. The reviewers make comments to the editor and sometimes to the authors, supposed to be anonymous, and provide a rating and recommendation for publishing or not or whether revisions should be made. The editor has the final say on publication.

  12. Eric Simpson says:

    Global Temps were Probably Hotter in the ’30s than Now!

    NASA’s 1999 data showed clearly that the US was hotter in the 1930s than then. They later tried to adjust that fact away, but there are scores of other proofs that the ’30s in the US was in fact hotter than today. And since 1999 there’s been little or no global warming.

    A critical point: there is A LOT of issues with the global temperature data in the 1930s and beyond.

    With the US, by far!, having the most extensive and reliable set of thermometer stations you can infer that it’s quite likely that .. in reality .. the world temperature history is more likely to reflect the US data than the spotty and manipulated global data. That sounds odd but it makes sense if you think about it.

    The 1999 NASA data showing the 1930s in the US being hotter than today is indisputable, and so is this straightforward 1999 quote (see link! before they delete it!!) from the then Chief Scientist at NASA:

    “In the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s.”-James Hansen, NASA, 1999https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/

  13. Brian says:

    November 2, 2019 Climate ‘Science,’ ‘Socialism’ Or ‘Eco-Fascism?’

    They achieve this state of absolute certainty largely by propagating constant scare stories, while ignoring and suppressing contradictory evidence and viewpoints.

    https://principia-scientific.org/climate-science-socialism-or-eco-fascism/

  14. anothermaninthemirror says:

    Tony, again thank you for all your work.

    I have read hundreds of articles exposing this Alarmist Catastrophic Climate Change Fraud and has struggled to define how this fraud gained so much traction.
    I made notes of articles and this is a summary of those notes…………. it is a bit lengthy but I can feel more at peace with myself as I can explain how and why this fraud continues….. some of your readers may benefit from this summary….bear with me..
    __________________________________________________________
    Why and how has the Alarmist Catastrophic Climate Change Cult, gained so much traction in the Western World?

    Is the rise of this present conundrum due to an opportunist “Perfect storm?” The answers maybe found in a summary of these facts which taken together might explain this “Perfect Storm scenario: this Url is worth a read…

    See; https://principia-scientific.org/the-elite-machine-behind-greta-thunberg/

    1. Human nature, reveals that the best way to obtain control and submission is based on spreading fear, panic, and urgency to create a fearful and panicky population.
    2. Mass media programming is particularly effective on those who did not develop an acute sense of critical thinking – notably young people.
    3. Mass media is used to shape and mold opinions by “agenda-setting,” the creation of public awareness and concern of salient issues by the news media by establishing a hierarchy of news prevalence.
    4. The press and the media do not reflect reality; they filter and shape it.
    5. Media concentration on a few issues and subjects leads the public to perceive those issues as more important than other issues.” It is about how this issue is “sold” through a specific lens.
    6. The most powerful media outlets are owned by only five (5) mega-corporations, making it very easy for the Elite to saturate the world with a specific message able to create massive movements out of nothing.
    7. This “agenda setting” sells more newspapers, fuels advertising to the other mass media outlets and is “good for business” for these five media mega corporations.
    8. Other corporations began to buy into the propaganda of climate change, so as to receive Government subsidies to fuel the “startup” of companies to establish a new green economy.
    9. These Green Economy Corporations continue to support and push alarmist catastrophic climate change propaganda, as Government subsidies are good for their businesses.
    10. Scientists looking for Government research grants, then buy into the ‘Global Warming” propaganda which they suggest is changed to Climate Change, to keep Government research grants coming.
    11. The Inter-Nations Panel on Climate Change becomes a huge bureaucracy and is corrupted by these Government subsidized scientists who now derive their livelihood from Government grants.
    12. A generation of children riddled with anxiety and depression is created, demanding that Governments “do something.”
    13. This gives the elite carte blanche to demand drastic measures, to advance Socialism in the World on the way to the creation of a single world government, ruled by the world Elite … to combat climate change, of course. This is also the main goal of the elite organizations behind Greta,

    So, at its base IT IS THE MEDIA BARONS WHO ARE TO BLAME as this would explain why this Alarmist Catastrophic Climate Change fraud has got such traction and this is a good reason as to why this Climate Change Cult has emerged against all reason and seems to be thriving.

    So, until the mass media find another cause as profitable as alarmist catastrophic climate change, there is no end in sight for this present saturation of the World Media with their “agenda setting message” and therefore it will continue.

    The sophisticated skeptical blog sites like this one, are the only balancing influence and must continue to hammer away at exposing this fraud. It is the only hope to unearth the truth, in the foreseeable future.

    Thank you Tony once again

    • KevinPaul says:

      I had not associated Greta with the illuminati before, very interesting. The instilling of fear and panic in children is indeed a Luciferian machination. Quora interpretation of the sole eye pose,
      “It is essentially a symbol of the Illuminati, who practices Luciferian doctrine and worships Satan. … These techniques and the imagery of the “one eye” symbolism are evidence of what the artists represent and are willing to represent publically as a means of conveying their support of the Illuminati and their agenda.”
      This is the very same source that has been undermining Christian faith and values so that they, the Antichrist, is seen as the only hope left for mankind.

  15. Bill says:

    Terrific post, Tony. I wish I had this kind of information when I established myself as a dunce in the early 2000’s, when, alone among my liberal academic friends, I declared myself a skeptic of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (much more honest than “climate change”).

    One of my best friends was a PhD statistician, a very astute guy, who designed medical studies. He was endlessly critical of slipshod work in scientific studies, particularly in medicine, since that was his area of expertise.

    I pointed out that climate scientists were a relatively small group, trained in the same small number of university programs, used the same data sets, and checked each other’s work, thought the same way, and had every possible financial incentive to agree with each other. I opined that this was a poor system to rely on, especially since they wanted untold trillions of dollars of economic change.

    He countered by saying that the climate scientists were the known experts in their field, and under what circumstances could you disagree with them? By definition, they were the experts, this is how we do science, and nobody on the outside had the credentials to gainsay them. In other words, this was the best humanity could do, and, well, there it is.

    I think you’ve gathered plenty of reasons to be critical of climate science, and of all the people who believe we need to sacrifice our secure energy infrastructure for some sort of massive planet-wide kickstarter project to replace it.

  16. MGJ says:

    Climate science peer review’s worth depends, of course, on your desired outcome.

    If your desired outcome is to censor and denigrate anybody daring to produce evidence you don’t like while applying a false lustre of respectability to your own output then it is very valuable.

  17. Kenan Meyer says:

    Mars’ atmosphere consists 96% of CO2. That’s why it is glowing red hot, right!? I just learned that if I was up there, the temperature drop from feed to head would be about 15 degrees. Where’s the heat retention?

  18. TimC says:

    Reproducibility, not peer review, has always been the final measure of quality in published scientific research. All sorts of garbage has always passed through peer review. Once published, bad science gets discovered only when other researchers in the field attempt to reproduce the results reported in the garbage paper, and find that they can’t.

    One of the ways that climate alarmism is propagating is by exploiting the fact that climate researchers rarely even try to reproduce each others’ model results. Models are very complex, so methods are rarely described in enough detail for outsiders to attempt to reproduce them, even if they want to try, which they don’t. This gives the modelers free reign to generate almost any result they want, knowing that no one will ever independently test their methods. In effect, there is no final test of quality for climate models.

    Compare climate science to a hard science field, like chemistry: If I publish a paper reporting a single-pot method for synthesizing DNA from inorganic reactants, the chemistry world would be astonished. My paper would make headlines, and for a while I would be a big star, attracting lots of grant money. However, if other chemists went into their labs and found that they could not reproduce my results, I would be disgraced, and the grant money would disappear. But in climate science, researchers can report astonishing results, get the headlines and the grant money, and know that their methods and results will likely never be independently tested. This is a bad situation that encourages bad science. The incentive to generate sensational, alarming results is great, while the risk of invalid methods being found out is small.

  19. John Shotsky says:

    As long as climate models use CO2 to project temperatures, they will all remain wrong. Climate changes first. CO2 follows. No one notices.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.