Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ellen Flees To The UK
- HUD Climate Advisor
- Causes Of Increased Storminess
- Scientist Kamala Harris
- The End Of Polar Bears
- Cats And Hamsters Cause Hurricanes
- Democrats’ Campaign Of Joy
- New BBC Climate Expert
- 21st Century Toddlers Discuss Climate Change
- “the United States has suffered a “precipitous increase” in hurricane strikes”
- Thing Of The Past Returns
- “Impossible Heatwaves”
- Billion Dollar Electric Chargers
- “Not A Mandate”
- Up Is Down
- The Clean Energy Boom
- Climate Change In Spain
- The Clock Is Ticking
- “hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- “Peace, Relief, And Recovery”
- “Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000 years”
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Michael Mann Hurricane Update
- Making Themselves Irrelevant
- Michael Mann Predicts The Demise Of X
Recent Comments
- Peter Carroll on Causes Of Increased Storminess
- arn on HUD Climate Advisor
- spren on HUD Climate Advisor
- conrad ziefle on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Tel on Ellen Flees To The UK
- Petit_Barde on Ellen Flees To The UK
- dm on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Gamecock on Scientist Kamala Harris
- Richard E Fritz on The End Of Polar Bears
- Richard E Fritz on Scientist Kamala Harris
http://biocab.org/holocene.html
If we look back in time, the current warming if it is even occuring, is no warmer then the past and should not be a problem….
If you look past the “record” 1850-2010 time period. It’s like saying that mountain will not erupt, because its not a volcano as it has not erupted in the last 150 years…..
I’m sure he’ll have plenty of reminders of this goof when the summer of 2013 ends..
what the navy will have is justification for one more carrier group…which i am sure congress be building them while we all continue to freeze
I googled the dear Professor and found his e-mail address.
http://research.nps.navy.mil/cgi-bin/vita.cgi?p=display_vita&id=1023568034
Let’s ask him how much was paid for spreading this hog wash.
Maybe the dear Professor urgently needs to justify the Navy’s 450 dollar per gallon bio fuel project?
well,
one good thing has come out of deniosphere. Maybe we will actually cut down military spending since they are part of the conspiracy too. Funny how the military JUST discovered it can make money off alarmism!
The good professor has about as much to do with the military as you do with comedy, Tony.
By the way Tony.
I keep meaning to ask but why the endorsement from ” The President of the Society for International Development”?
Would not the showbiz editor of Jugglers Weekly have meant more?
the Society for International Development is a front group for global warming extremists, so they are part of the conspiracy supporting me.
Jugglers Weekly is a den of libertarians who know that I am a paid shill for Geenpeace.
TonyD:
This article came out of the Deniosphere in 2007! It is ancient history along with their 450$ gallon fuel project. The realists are just discussing that it does not consider natural climate variation or take into account wind patterns that caused the ice to be pushed out of the Arctic which happens even at -50C.
The realists understand there are many factors that determine the extent of sea ice around the globe and of those CO2 concentrations are probably not statistically significant. Temperature in the region may account for 34 to 40% ofthe ice loss!
Mike,
You really need to tell these climate scientists about your news that it is more than temperature that effects sea ice.
Of course by saying that CO2 is ANY part of the effect you are walking on thin ice around here!
TonyD:
In spite of your beliefs, the scientists already know it. it does not fit the agenda so is left out of the equation.
Which, being so obvious, is even more proof of a worldwide conspiracy of scientists to commit massive fraud.
If everyone knows what is being done it is not a conspiracy. Fear sells and they promote the extremes to get more funding even when it is known there is little to no chance of the extremes occurring. Some are gullible enough to be concerned about “What ifs”. Those same people tend to ignore the when situations that are staring them in the face because the obvious is not being promoted on the illusions.
and everyone in the entire peer review process collectively ignores this. Mike, you forget I actually know and have talked to real climate scientists. Your characterization bears no relation to what I know about them, or what I see in their writings.
You can keep asserting this all you want however
yes tony and 1 billion people believe the pope are infallable.
well they SHOULD believe the Pope is infallible. There are countless peer reviewed studies that show he has never been wrong!
very funny but hope you get my point!
It always helps to pick your data with your conclusion already determined. Picking 1979 to 2004 takes advantage of only one half of the PDO cycle. Everyone in climate science knows what the effects of the PDO are and how long the cycle lasts.
This paper is total BS.
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”” — J. Göbbels
Amazing how the entire scientific community around the world harrassed the NAZIS for years to believe jews were inferior. Of course the NAZIS then resisted the most vocal scientists who wanted to actually DO something about the imminent threat that jews posed to the world.
somewhere the analogy loses some of it’s force.
Of course, it does kind of sound prophetic regarding the Iraq war doesn’t it?
WOW Tony:
You sure now how to twist a quote into something it is not. Of course that thought process is evident in the Environmental movements of today. You just showed you are also guilty of using the big enough and often enough that someone might believe you method.
Mike,
I am not twisting the quote, just showing how the analogy is actually twisting reality. As I showed how the Continental drift analogy had flaws.
NAZI propaganda was invented by politicians and then propagated through distorted “science. This is absolutely not the case with climate science.
I am constantly amazed and amused by how some people here can characterize something as being disingenuous by ignoring the actual content of what they are characterizing.
Same thin with continental drift. I pointed out numerous way that it had no bearing on the question of ACC, and no one ever addressed the actual points i made, and yet still contended the analogy was totally appropriate.
the devil is in the details.
And in this case the quote from Goebbels has very little to do with the situation regarding the science of climate change.
TonyD:
The IPCC is a political body with a mission top find evidence that humans are responsible for climate change. The money being spent on climate change research is ear marked to find possible connections between human activities and climate change.
You are wrong if you think that the science behind ACC was not driven by political desire.
Most of the papers seen in what were once reputable science magazines are now advancing an agenda and detrimental to science. That is not only in the field of climate science.
Mike,
I have no doubt that political factors are involved in the science of climate change. I do not doubt that scientists even want results that fit their ideological agendas/ I don’t doubt that many probably most climate scientists have leftist political leanings .
I do doubt that they are engaged in the massive constant unmitigated fraud that many here say is happening.
However if you are right, then it will all come tumbling donw very soon, because history has shown repeatedly that attempts to distort reality to this level fail quite completely, once there is clear evidence of a better alternative explanation. And in this case the change MUST happen soon because the mistake is conscious fraud, exactly as BOTH you and I state because it impacts many disciplines and honest scientists cannot afford to have that happen.
Sorry, I know I responded to what you actually wrote. hard habit to break. Keep reminding me if it gets too irritating.
It very possible that the Arctic had no ice in the past. However, the Roman’s are not around anymore to tell us.
My prediction: this summer the ice will melt, with lots left.
In the fall, it will freeze again. Just like it did when I work up in the High Arctic.
These doomers need a reality check.
Perhaps Tony Duncan should explain why every alarmist article gets accepted in every journal like crap passing through a goose, but authors considered as threats to the Team (IPCC et al) get obstructed at every turn. The most recent example is O’Donnel 2010
http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/02/odonnell-et-al-2010-refutes-steig-et-al-2009/
The pretty beet red picture of the Antarctic on the cover of the most prestigious “science” magazine Nature turned out to be junk science, but Nature made sure it made their cover and world headlines. Let’s see if they retract it.
The same obstructionist tactics were used against McIntyre and McKitrick which completely debunked Santer 05 claiming climate models were validated, but stopped their data at 1999. More junk science passed through for the sake of saving the planet.
Roy Spencer was also run out of Dodge by hostile “reviewers”. His work based on observational evidence, shows that negative feedbacks dominate nature. Wow, what a concept, as if it were something new. But we mustn’t have Roy Spencer upset the apple cart by applying the scientific method to climate science.
This all started with the Holy Relic of AGW, the Hockey Stick, killed and buried but like a zombie kept coming back to life. The history of that is well established, so no need for detail.
Oh, and Tony, Eugenics was not created in Germany. Several states in the U.S. already had forced sterilization laws in place from which Nazi scientists fashioned theirs from, and did have international support. Later on they had “relocation centers”, then death camps. Today we call them “reproductive health centers”. You may wish to connect the dots.
Can it assumed then that you think Eugenics is good science perverted by Nazi politicians?
Slimething,
So much to reply to.
Firstly, you are documenting very obvious and specific acts of conscious premeditated fraud. The article you linked to on climate audit is a perfect example. Since there are no possible counter arguments, any honest scientist will have to see the obvious fraud.
then there is McIntyre and Mckitrick. Again there must be no counter arguments, so any honest scientist will see the obvious fraud.
the same with Spencer. Since there are no valid counter arguments to his views, any honest scientist will see obvious fraud. The peer review process is so obviously corrupted that thousands of honest scientists must see it and the end of this huge conspiracy must be near. After all Obama can’t put EVERY scientist on the trillion dollar climate change payroll.
And the hockey stick fraud is so well known, that even more thousands of honest scientists see the conspiracy.
The end of ACC must be at hand because any competent scientist has seen too much not to understand the blatant corruption of the worst scientific scandal in history.
As for eugenics. You obviously are right. the analogy is almost exactly the same with Cliamte science as with eugenics. The state governments wanted to kill jews, so they manipulated the science to show jews were inferior. After years of study the entire scientific establishment only allowed research that showed jews were inferior and morally reprehensible. They then convinced the Nazi’s to use this information, which was not politically feasibly in the US, so that they could actually exterminate jews, and other inferior races, meanwhile keeping any researcher from publishing any papers that would question the jews mental, social and moral inferiority.
How could anyone not see it is the same thing?
tony, did you read through the climategate documents? they evidence just about everything you are allways saying does not happen.
that was the crack in my acceptance of the CAGW narrative.
Yes Peter,
I read most of the emails. I even read their interpretations from people like this
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/.
Clearly their are bad things in the emails. things that I don’t approve of. But there is NOTHING in them that invalidates any peer reviewed papers. What they show is scientists who are convinced there is a nefarious band of unscrupulous people who will do anything to distort the real science. They see an anemy that is not interested in the truth, and they see politics and some of them are willing to entertain and sometimes do things that are not in the best tradition of the scientific enterprise. There is nothing in them that is worse than other things that have gone on before in almost every science, but there has rarely been a committed group of people whose purpose was to disprove what is published in peer reviewed science. Except maybe creationists in the US and Lysenkoism in The Soviet sphere.
Of course if one has a naive idealized view of how science operates one would think that these were horrible breaches of science. I certainly felt that way when I studied anthropology so long ago. I hate to ruin your utopian view, but science and the people in it are often not very pretty.
well the climategate revelations may not impute specific literature, however they do reveal a host of shenanigans which are the antithesis of science. not just their behaviour, but their science.
they demonstrate manufacturing data, hiding data, manipulating data, obstructing data, and obstructing science in general. not to mention gross hypocrisy.
having read through that stuff all i could say is, “that is not science”
and that got me asking questions.
what i see from reading the above posts is that you apologize for their a priori excuse in manipulating empirical evidence and procedure, while as far as i am concerned doctoring the evidence undermines their a priori claims
Peter,
Where am I apologizing for anyone? I CLEARLY wrote that they did thing I don’t approve of. things that should NOT be done or said by scientists. I Also said that these things are NOT unusual, except that there is no precedent for a scientific theory being so vilified by one ideological segment of society. except for evolution by creationists, and darwinism by stalinists.
You say climate-gate might not impute specific literature as if that is a minor point. it is the ENTIRE point. If you ignore the clear fact that there were people specifically targeting these scientists that they considered enemies, then you appraisal makes some sense. That is also The problem with people like Judith Curry, who have a naive view of the political polarization of this issue. If you ignore the context you can make a decision that is not based on reality.
So what was the manipulated, hidden and obstructed data? give me specifics. Maybe I missed something when I read through all those emails or the commentaries from people like the link I sent you above (you’re welcome by the way).
You mention CAGW. I myself am by no means convinced of CAGW, if by that you mean a 5 meter rise in sea level, a 5°C global mean temp increase and total ecological and societal devastation in 100 years. of course NONE of that is in the science that was done at East Anglia. there is a very wide range of beliefs about the degree and nature of ACC.
Where in the emails does anyone admit that they think this is all garbage, but they know they have to pretend otherwise. Where in the emails does anyone say, “We have to make sure that the result is exactly this so that it will conform to the other manufactured results out colleagues in BLANK produced” Where in the emails does anyone say, “We need to keep pounding away at those truth tellers, because they will prevent our socialist utopia from being created.”
Where in ANY of the emails does ANYONE say “we have to watch out for scientist BLANK, because he is starting to get close to the truth, and that will bring this whole thing down on our heads.” Where in ANY of the emails does anyone say, “Listen there are all these intelligent people that aren’t climate scientists that have figured out that CO2 can’t possibly be warming the planet the way our carefully constructed sham says?”
Where in any of the emails does anyone say, “Well we have Nature, Science and these other journals in our pocket, they will only publish what we want them to; the payoffs to the executive bodies of all the major international scientific journals have been made, so we don’t have to worry about any uncomfortable questions from them. it is just these bloggers asking the right questions, so we have to make sure the media and other honest scientists don’t believe anything they are saying”.
these are private emails form TEN years surely there should be something like that in them. What they do include is typical banter between scientists about questions and problems and successes that they are having. AND discussions about how to keep those creeps that keep distorting the research from misusing our results. these guys HATE Singer, and Moncton, And Pilmer, and a host of others that they feel, rightly or wrongly, have no interest in the truth, just in their ideological agenda. that is the reality and that is what the emails showed
Tony, I know you’re talking specifically to Peter, but the implications of the e-mails (and the code comments) are pretty clear. Sorry to impose, but, if you really wish, I can dredge the e-mails up that imply very similar thoughts and statements to the questions you’ve just asked. Unless someone interprets these things with the preposterous translations I’ve seen in defense of such nastiness. (such as “trick” being a mathematical cleverness) Yes, this was a 10 year time span, but there is nothing that suggests the person(s) who released the e-mails had them in their entirety. FOI stated that it was a random release, and there is nothing that suggests that it was otherwise. I would point your attention to many of the very uninteresting e-mails released that had no bearing on anything. It was seemingly a sampling rather than the full set.
All that aside, as you stated, “…these guys HATE…”. Rightly or wrongly. What this means, clearly, is that if they ever had any objectivity, they lost it years ago. Dispassionate intellectual curiosity has been a hallmark of scientific discovery for centuries. The “team”(as they described themselves in the e-mails) are not engaged in such an endeavor. One only has to look at Dr. Steig for the most recent example of their “scientific” capacity. They aren’t scientists, they are advocates.
tony
well what you posted was certaintly an ‘apology’ in the philosophical sense.
BTW you repeatedly employ the ‘fallacy of association’….ordinarily a fine polemical tactic. but it don’t work on me. I have a congenital immunity to brainwashing/social programming. 😉
i am not about to look up every reference to prove my point (or rebut yours) but i will maintain the veracity of all my claims regarding the climategate documents. it’s all in there. (and i forgot conspiracy) that’s what kicked me in the ass in the first place!
so the salient point would be your acceptance of ‘peer reviewed literature.’ So, which papers show unequivocal evidence that CO2 is capable of adding more than a few tenths of a degree of warming?
what it comes down to…once i woke up and actually looked at empirical evidence, every piece of evidence i have seen shows that the CAGW narrative is not only wrong, but IMPOSSIBLE!
SUYTS
I agree the fact that they HATE these guys totally destroys their objectivity regarding those people. it is unscientific. But whether it has caused them to perpetrate fraud is a very different thing.
And the ONE thing you bring up is exactly a “mathematical trick”.
it was clearly a mistake, considering the thousands of people that wrongly now believe that scientists knew the temperature has been falling and invented something to “hide the decline”.
Show me anywhere in the peer reviewed literature where a scientist ignored the “divergence” problem or anywhere in the emails that said we have to make sure no one finds out about the divergence problem. THAT would be indication fo fraud and would make perfect sense with your interpretation of the motivations of these scientists. If the paper had been trying to do something fraudulent they would have just made the tree ring data go up with the rest. or just not include it. Why wasn’t briffa instructed to make the teee ring data correspond with the temp data. That is how fraud works. You ahve to cover your tracks. In the real worldT there has been NO attempt at ignoring the divergence problem. The graph was really a question of ease or laziness. they didn;t want to have to explain that one piece, partly because deniers would be claiming that this proved ACC was wrong Which clearly was a mistake because the people these scientists HATE take it out of context and make it sound like this was a proof of fraud, when it was really nothing of any importance.
WHY would you bring up the ONE issue in climate gate that is the most well known and one of the least indicative of any fraud? That is quite bizarre.
Again if it was just a random release of over a THOUSAND emails, statistically there should be some that indicate real fraud, comparable to what I described above. Yet you give no examples, just assert that there are many.
And it was a sampling that included some very unflattering depictions of vindictiveness and ways to thwart climate change deniers. So it certainly wasn’t selective to make them look good. Therefore why would someone release so much info yet not include any of the smoking gun scenario’s that I suggested?
Are they holding the really bad ones for some special occasion?
And , excuse me for being rude. Give me a break about “Dispassionate intellectual curiosity has been a hallmark of scientific discovery for centuries.” Scientists have hated each other and done extremely mean unprofessional and unscientific things to colleagues and those who disagree since before there was real science. Trying to undermine a competitors research so that you get there first appears to be a time honored tradition in many scientific disciplines. Scientists have ben hating each other and opponents in almost every field of science. Yet science has managed to progress in absolutely amazing ways, in spite of this. Do you want examples? But then I hate to ruin your idyllic view of that once noble enterprise before these climate socialists ruined it all.
peter,
What I posted was in NO WAY an apology. Even if they were absolutely correct in their view of the people they feel are attacking them, it is totally unacceptable to respond in the way that many of them did. is that clear enough for you?
There is a difference, between explaining relevant details of a phenomenon, and an apology, philosophical or not.
What fallacy of association? Why is it so hard for people to be specific on this blog and reference actual concrete specifics. I presented my view for what would constitute fraudulent scientific evidence. And you reply with you aren’t going to waste your time.
I didn’t ask you to provide every reference to prove your claim. I want you to provide ONE. I even HANDED you a email by email analysis by a Ph.D. who is a denier and he found at least a hundred that prove fraud. As I said I have read the emails and the worst possible interpretation of them, and I maintain that my analysis of the content is more realistic than Costella’s.
I have read many articles that show the effect of CO2 on the energy balance of the planet. The vast majority of physicists agree with the science that says CO2 is a factor. Obviously you believe none of these things constitute proof. I am not about to learn all the necessary physics to determine for myself that I know better than all these other scientists. But all you need to do is find physics students who have not yet been brainwashed, teach them the truth and then they will set things right.
then you finish with this doozy
“what it comes down to…once I woke up and actually looked at empirical evidence, every piece of evidence i have seen shows that the CAGW narrative is not only wrong, but IMPOSSIBLE!”
there we have it , if you , who I guess are not a professional physicist, can so easily tell that ACC is impossible then EVERY physicist that looks at the evidence MUST be part of the conspiracy. If it was so obvious then I would guess that a large fraction of the climate-gate emails would have been obsessed with how to keep people from discovering this obvious truth.
My why oh why does no one here actually respond to what I write?
¿Posible si escribo en español, tenia mejor suceso?
Tony, thanks for getting back to me. It’s appreciated. You’ve written a rather lengthy response, and I’m a bit slowed from some beer consumed, so please excuse any inadvertent ramblings and slow responses.
First, I’d like to say, while it may be a bit thinned skin of me, I take exception to the “denier” label. No one denies that the climate changes. Its a misnomer and pejorative and equivalent to an ‘ad hom’ fallacy.
Secondly, addressing your first paragraph, your interpretation of the ‘hide the decline’ debacle is curious. The only people that moved the ‘pea under the hat’ were the warmist. Any skeptic I’m aware of knows they were hiding the divergence (decline) of the tree ring data from the actual temps. BTW, I’m sure you’re familiar with the definition of hide. The argument that they didn’t want to be bothered by explaining the divergence is incredulous. Especially seeing that they haven’t a credible explanation. “No counts” in the last 60 years is an explanation? What? Yeh, go with that. That, in itself, on its own merits, shows a great degree of malicious intent and a disingenuous effort. These trees aren’t from London for heaven’s sake! We’ve only 150 years of credible N.H. thermometer records! And in some of those places, less than that! Yamal? ………
You said,“Why wasn’t briffa instructed to make the teee ring data correspond with the temp data.[?]”
Well, he was, or he did on his own with the knowledge(either before or aft) of others. I would refer you to Climate Audit, but I’m sure you are already aware of the site and how to navigate the site. BTW, the graph was an intentional misrepresentation of how tree rings correspond, or rather don’t correspond to actual temps, else they’d shown it with a dotted line or some such, as is accepted practice. Instead, they chose to hide the divergence.
Specifically selected tree rings from specifically selected series, used only because they corresponded real observed temps. The other tree rings were thrown out because they didn’t correspond with real temps. I’ll refer you to Briffa et al for proof of this assertion. (This is the reason the statisticians are all up in arms about tree ring studies.)
The quality of the tree rings that Briffa used were well known. It isn’t as if he could simply make stuff up about them. Even before Mann, tree rings had been studied, so it was about how certain trees of the various series were interpreted. Which ones to select, and which ones to discard. They were selected with an intentional outcome. I’ll refer you to either M&M(pick which flavor) or MacShane&Weiner. While neither specifically state this occurred, by the unchallenged statements in the studies, it can be easily inferred. (Goes back to advocates vs scientists.) I refer to all 3 studies(we can throw in Wegman, too) because Briffa essentially doesn’t do anything more than Mann. He basically says, “yeh, what he said!”. And it was likewise dispatched in the same manner.
Your second paragraph……why? Because it was to ascertain what level of knowledge you have about the e-mails, and your interpretations. My assessment is that you have a good amount of knowledge, but a party line interpretation/talking points. Although, you may be a little less inclined to march in the same line as many of the others. But that’s just an impression.
Your 3rd paragraph……..no, that’s not correct. 1000 e-mails over a 10 year period of time with how many people? Obviously, the e-mails came from EA, so, guessing access to 5-8 people. That’s less than 20 e-mails/yr. What do you bet that you and I generate 20 in a week. I know I do from my office. More, even the ones that don’t matter make it clear that others are missing. There were several that piqued my interest only not to have the reply that we know would have occurred. While others had replies to avenues I thought would be interesting but turned out to be nothing. Read them all. Even the ones that don’t speak of anything pertinent, then you can get a grasp of how random it was.
You last paragraph. Perhaps I chose some poor words. Of course, you’re correct, throughout history, scientists have been passionate about their interpretations of evidence. Historical readings of various correspondence shows us this. But in this case, the CAGW hypothesis, there is a distinction. Historically, the appeal was to their peers. The scientific community. And, regardless of whether the findings were correct or not, the scientific discovery didn’t come about with a premise first and correlation second. It usually worked as a scientist discovering a correlation and worked a premise from there, either to be proved or, as more often than not, disproved later. This is not the case today in regards to the CAGW hypothesis. In fact, it can’t really be called a hypothesis, because it can’t be articulated, much less have a disprovable statement.
Tony, I know that was akin to fingernails on a chalkboard for you. I don’t wish it to be so, but there it is. It isn’t my intention to inflame but rather, engage in discourse. The e-mails are damning. We/I can bring them up, one at a time if you wish but if we can’t decide on the meaning of hide, we might as well have a conversation on the meaning of is.
Lastly, some e-mail content regarding your precious “peer review”………
Danny Harvey and I refereed a paper by skeptic Pat Michaels and coworkers and said it should be rejected. We questioned the editor (de Freitas again!) and he responded, saying:
The manuscript was reviewed initially by five referees. … The other three referees, all reputable atmospheric scientists, agreed it should be published subject to minor revision. Even then I used a sixth person to help me decide. I took his advice and that of the three other referees and sent the manuscript back for revision. It was later accepted for publication. The refereeing process was more rigorous than usual.
On the surface this looks to be above board—although, as referees who advised rejection, it is clear that Danny and I should have been kept in the loop and seen how our criticisms were responded to.
I suspect that de Freitas deliberately chose other referees who are members of the skeptics camp. I also suspect that he has done this on other occasions. How to deal with this is unclear, since there are a number of individuals with genuine scientific credentials who could be used by an unscrupulous editor to ensure that “anti-greenhouse” science can get through the peer review process (Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Baliunas, Soon, and so on). The peer review process is being abused, but proving this would be difficult.
Another….
On the C[limate] R[esearch] issue … I wonder if a review of the refereeing policy is in order. The only way I can think of would be for all papers to go through two Editors rather than one, the former to have overall responsibility, the latter to provide a second opinion on a paper and reviewers’ comments prior to publication. A General Editor would be needed to adjudicate in the event of disagreement. Of course, this could then slow down the review process enormously. However, without an editorial board to vote someone off, how can suspect Editors be removed except by the Publisher.
Re C R, I do not know the best way to handle the specifics of the editoring. Hans von Storch is partly to blame—he encourages the publication of crap science “in order to stimulate debate”. One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that their journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I use the word “perceived” here, since whether it is true or not is not what the publishers care about—it is how the journal is seen by the community that counts.
This might all seem laughable, if it weren’t the case that they’ve gotten the (Bush) White House Office of Science & Technology taking it as a serious matter (fortunately, Dave Halpern is in charge of this project, and he is likely to handle this appropriately, but not without some external pressure). Here, I tend to concur at least in spirit … that other approaches may be necessary. I would emphasize that there are indeed, as Tom notes, some unique aspects of this latest assault by the skeptics which are cause for special concern. This latest assault uses a compromised peer-review process as a vehicle for launching a scientific disinformation campaign (often viscious and personal) under the guise of apparently legitimately reviewed science, allowing them to make use of the “Harvard” moniker in the process.
Fortunately, the mainstream media never touched the story (mostly it has appeared in papers owned by Murdoch and his crowd, and dubious fringe on-line outlets). Much like a server which has been compromised as a launching point for computer viruses, I fear that Climate Research has become a hopelessly compromised vehicle in the skeptics’ (can we find a better word?) disinformation campaign, and some of the discussion that I’ve seen (e.g. a potential threat of mass resignation among the legitimate members of the Climate Research editorial board) seems, in my opinion, to have some potential merit.
This should be justified not on the basis of the publication of science we may not like, of course, but based on the evidence (e.g. as provided by Tom and Danny Harvey, and I’m sure there is much more) that a legitimate peer-review process has not been followed by at least one particular editor.
Tony, as you know, there’s much more. Some notes……the peer-review process is suppose to be confidential. An editor did lose his job. This shows a conspiracy to circumvent the process in place. It also shows correspondence occurred that wasn’t released by FOI. Presumably by e-mail, but they could have corresponded in numerous other ways. I would refer you to when Mann was writing about Tom but to Tom. “as Tom notes..” and “(e.g. as provided by Tom and Danny Harvey, and I’m sure there is much more)”.
SUYTS,
thank you for the long and reasonable and very specific response.
I do not mean to cause offense with the word “denier”. I do not consider “skeptic” applicable, because I see virtually no skepticism of any ideas that are opposed to ACC here. But I would be happy to find another label that you find less derogatory.
As in past comments, you make reasonable assertions and draw reasonable conclusions. I disagree with most of them but not all, and some things I do not know enough about to question your analysis. I will try to get to specifics today. I was not going to respond at all until I had time to fully answer, but I do not want you to think I am avoiding responding when I have gone overboard in complaining about it here!
lol, cool Tony, it took me a while to find the thread we’d posted this in anyway…..dang beer does that to me!
Tony, it may be beneficial to discuss one point at a time. Last night, (beer again) I found myself having to scroll up to remember to context we were discussing. If you wish to respond to all points in my post, feel free, but I’m afraid if we continue as such our posts will become volumes and veer from the topic at hand. For now, if you wish, we can constrain ourselves to the e-mails, because this is what I was getting at to begin with. Just a suggestion, up to you.
SUYTS,
Yes, let’ stick to climate gate and your particular responses. Though I am very pleased that others have responded with specific instances as well.
I do not know nearly enough to determine how accurate your assessment of the tree ring data facts is. I do know that there was no attempt, among climate scientists to ignore the divergence problem. There was no discussion that I know of among climate scientists to keep this information from being discussed among scientists. And as far as I know no intention to keep anyone else from finding out about it. There is certainly nothing in the emails where Briffa and Mann are figuring out HOW to make sure noone ever finds out about the divergence problem. This email seems to be twisted to make it look look there was. The things you state, if they are true are clear cases of fraud. The fact that they HAVE no credible explanation in my view lends credence to the idea that there was no fraud perpetrated. My understanding is that the problem is only with certain latitudes. But again that is irrelevant. I think it is obvious that your suggestion of dotted lines or some other indication of flagging the data is quite reasonable and much more accurate. But this was NOT a graph that the IPCC was copying and sending out to media outlets around the world to make them think ALL proxy data supported warming in the exact same way over all periods of time.
The explanation that this particular data was clearly wrong and they just ignored it “for that time period” makes perfect sense to me. Your assertion of clear malicious intent and disingenuous effort sounds bizarre to me. that is in fact how scientists treat data that is anomalous to existing theory. that is why we have dark matter in physics. You acknowledge that the specific issue was not ignored, and as the scientists involved say, this was a known issue that was not ignored in the peer reviewed literature. it was also not something that any one ever denied or lied about.
You can make the assertion that because of that anomaly, that using this data at all is suspect, but apparently there are others that assert the data IS robust for very technical reasons that I don’t have time to follow. Your saying the explanation is incredulous is just an assertion. It is NOT something that they made up AFTER the fact that doesn’t hold water. it is totally consistent with the facts.
The specifics you bring up about the usefulness and the manipulation of the data are EXACTLY the type of thing that is worked out in peer reviewed journals, NOT on weblogs, even if they are Climate Audit. If your explanation is true then every scientist that understands tree ring data should be presenting peer reviewed papers that show it is totally wrong and fraudulent as you say it was a totally intentional. I have not heard of this happening. Haven’t there been independent investigations of just this issue? What do they say?
Modeling conclusions built over 25 years of data.
Meanwhile the low remains in year 2007,that was mainly caused by “unusual winds” and warm north Atlantic inflow.Since then there is a recurring trend in increase in ice the cover
I am not impressed.