Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4
Discussion
zygalski said:
I review various papers. Every Sunday. I can also copy & paste.
However, I am gainfully employed & cannot spend 14 hours a day on the N,P & E forums.
Alas, I will never become a self-proclaimed Climate Change expert.
Yeh, but it hasn't stopped you being an utter trolling tHowever, I am gainfully employed & cannot spend 14 hours a day on the N,P & E forums.
Alas, I will never become a self-proclaimed Climate Change expert.
t though.GFY.
turbobloke said:
We may wish to assume that the peer review process isn't broken and is operating as well as it can. However this assumption is simply not valid in the field of climate science as shown by two pieces of evidence: firstly, admissions from several of the so-called leading players in their personal communications; secondly the poor quality of some of the papers emerging from peer-review, especially on one side of the two polarised positions.
Ultimately, it may not be possible to say with any degree of confidence because, contrary to standard scientific practice and indeed contrary to the highest standards of peer review, aspects of both raw data and methodology may not be fully revealed by the author(s). This may emerge later due to forensic investigation, unintended revelation, and so on.
As a result, even where a published paper is peer-reviewed, the science within it may not hold as much merit as some grey lit which isn't peer reviewed but nevertheless follows standard scientific methods and practices. This ought not to be the case, clearly.
Nothing at the level of research findings should be considered as an established fact, whether it's peer-reviewed or grey lit, since the way science operates is (with effort and some good fortune) to advance contingent truth, not absolute truth.
Very interesting - thanks for your time spent in replying - appreciated.Ultimately, it may not be possible to say with any degree of confidence because, contrary to standard scientific practice and indeed contrary to the highest standards of peer review, aspects of both raw data and methodology may not be fully revealed by the author(s). This may emerge later due to forensic investigation, unintended revelation, and so on.
As a result, even where a published paper is peer-reviewed, the science within it may not hold as much merit as some grey lit which isn't peer reviewed but nevertheless follows standard scientific methods and practices. This ought not to be the case, clearly.
Nothing at the level of research findings should be considered as an established fact, whether it's peer-reviewed or grey lit, since the way science operates is (with effort and some good fortune) to advance contingent truth, not absolute truth.
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
We may wish to assume that the peer review process isn't broken and is operating as well as it can. However this assumption is simply not valid in the field of climate science as shown by two pieces of evidence: firstly, admissions from several of the so-called leading players in their personal communications; secondly the poor quality of some of the papers emerging from peer-review, especially on one side of the two polarised positions.
In your opinion, which doesn't seem to be very widely held.Broken peer review in climate science has been known about for many years and in many ways.
As mentioned on PH climate threads many times: an IPCC report chapter has been described by former President of the American Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, as the worst abuse of the peer review process he's seen. Back in 2009 and earlier I pointed out an open letter to the UN IPCC from Profs Singer and Seitz and three other signatories to the effect that the IPCC had assigned the role of convening lead author to Ben Santer, who went on to base conclusions of an IPCC Report (Ch8) on two of his own papers that had not yet appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Eight of Santer's co-authors were also listed as Ch8 contributors. Authors cannot be seen to be impartial critics of their own work. See my earlier reply detailing the nature of peer review.
Other aspects of the peer review process that were broken include confidentiality. Climategate emails show a reviewer identifying themselves to The Team and asking for assistance in demolishing a paper from a Korean guy and somebody from Berkely. Ed Cook's email refers to a paper he has been invited to peer review "that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc...If published as is, this paper could really do some damage...It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically...I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review. Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting (it)."
IPCC reports have never been about balanced peer-reviewed lit assembly, they are pure advocacy. One email from Phil Jones said "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!" while Jones is infamour for his refusal to provide raw data pertaining to peer-reviewed science as per this reply to a request from Warwick Hughes "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it" also see my earlier outline of how peer review should operate in terms of disclosure of data and methodology.
Disinterested peer review has fallen by the wayside also. We have the recent whistelblower from NOAA confirming that the Karl et al analysis and resulting rentapaper was rushed through without following due process, in order to get publicity in time for the Paris climate boondoggle, while an earlier paper from Douglass et al received maltreatment from The Team collaborating to ramp The Cause. An email from Jones to The Team discusses 'options' aka ways of manipulating due process in their favour, to beat the same authorship team into print in future. An e-mail from Osborn and response by Santer sets out their publication strategy as agreed by Santer, Jones, Osborn, and a Journal editor! As an aside another comment from Santer states that he does "NOT" want to "show the most recent radiosonde [balloon] results" in print i.e. withholding data that does not support his/their case.
The Team are seen whining to each other about a paper from Soon and Baliunas that went through peer-view and was published in the journal Climate Research (abreviated to CR in the emails). Collusion revealed in one Climategate message goes like this "I might well alert these other colleagues to the crap science CR continues to publish because of de Freitas and see whether a collective mass resignation is appropriate. Phil Jones, I believe, is already boycotting reviews for that journal" which develops into an attempt to put pressure on a journal editor. However the endgame is all about how to "get offending (journal) editors removed" and a letter which was drafted and sent in order to get Prof de Freitas sacked from his university role.
For the avoidance of any doubt, none of the above is any part of orthodox peer review.
durbster said:
Do you have any evidence that scientists have a problem citing AGW research or data in their work? Even the scientists you refer to regularly reference AGW science in their work.
Not sure what your point is. Scientists cite the work of other scientists as a matter of choice, not sure why there should be a problem at that stage. The problems include e.g. IPCC reports citing only papers that support The Team and The Cause.durbster said:
It sounds like yet another baseless assertion.
Clearly it doesn't.
turbobloke said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
We may wish to assume that the peer review process isn't broken and is operating as well as it can. However this assumption is simply not valid in the field of climate science as shown by two pieces of evidence: firstly, admissions from several of the so-called leading players in their personal communications; secondly the poor quality of some of the papers emerging from peer-review, especially on one side of the two polarised positions.
In your opinion, which doesn't seem to be very widely held.Broken peer review in climate science has been known about for many years and in many ways.
As mentioned on PH climate threads many times: an IPCC report chapter has been described by former President of the American Academy of Sciences, Frederick Seitz, as the worst abuse of the peer review process he's seen. Back in 2009 and earlier I pointed out an open letter to the UN IPCC from Profs Singer and Seitz and three other signatories to the effect that the IPCC had assigned the role of convening lead author to Ben Santer, who went on to base conclusions of an IPCC Report (Ch8) on two of his own papers that had not yet appeared in peer-reviewed journals. Eight of Santer's co-authors were also listed as Ch8 contributors. Authors cannot be seen to be impartial critics of their own work. See my earlier reply detailing the nature of peer review.
Other aspects of the peer review process that were broken include confidentiality. Climategate emails show a reviewer identifying themselves to The Team and asking for assistance in demolishing a paper from a Korean guy and somebody from Berkely. Ed Cook's email refers to a paper he has been invited to peer review "that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc...If published as is, this paper could really do some damage...It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically...I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review. Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting (it)."
IPCC reports have never been about balanced peer-reviewed lit assembly, they are pure advocacy. One email from Phil Jones said "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!" while Jones is infamour for his refusal to provide raw data pertaining to peer-reviewed science as per this reply to a request from Warwick Hughes "We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it" also see my earlier outline of how peer review should operate in terms of disclosure of data and methodology.
Disinterested peer review has fallen by the wayside also. We have the recent whistelblower from NOAA confirming that the Karl et al analysis and resulting rentapaper was rushed through without following due process, in order to get publicity in time for the Paris climate boondoggle, while an earlier paper from Douglass et al received maltreatment from The Team collaborating to ramp The Cause. An email from Jones to The Team discusses 'options' aka ways of manipulating due process in their favour, to beat the same authorship team into print in future. An e-mail from Osborn and response by Santer sets out their publication strategy as agreed by Santer, Jones, Osborn, and a Journal editor! As an aside another comment from Santer states that he does "NOT" want to "show the most recent radiosonde [balloon] results" in print i.e. withholding data that does not support his/their case.
The Team are seen whining to each other about a paper from Soon and Baliunas that went through peer-view and was published in the journal Climate Research (abreviated to CR in the emails). Collusion revealed in one Climategate message goes like this "I might well alert these other colleagues to the crap science CR continues to publish because of de Freitas and see whether a collective mass resignation is appropriate. Phil Jones, I believe, is already boycotting reviews for that journal" which develops into an attempt to put pressure on a journal editor. However the endgame is all about how to "get offending (journal) editors removed" and a letter which was drafted and sent in order to get Prof de Freitas sacked from his university role.
For the avoidance of any doubt, none of the above is any part of orthodox peer review.
durbster said:
Do you have any evidence that scientists have a problem citing AGW research or data in their work? Even the scientists you refer to regularly reference AGW science in their work.
Not sure what your point is. Scientists cite the work of other scientists as a matter of choice, not sure why there should be a problem at that stage. The problems include e.g. IPCC reports citing only papers that support The Team and The Cause.durbster said:
It sounds like yet another baseless assertion.
Clearly it doesn't.this lead onto a few climate change papers relating to ocean acidification (another non issue, genuine pollution issues are where the money should be going) and the effects of a warming world on fish movements and behaviour, all based on models of course. so actually reading agw papers relating to a subject that i had some knowledge of lead to my current position.
Beeb CC story for today:-
Controversial gas from Peruvian Amazon arrives in UK
"A tanker docking in the UK is transporting a controversial cargo of gas from the Peruvian Amazon.
It is thought to be the first shipment to the UK from the Camisea project in rainforest 60 miles from Machu Picchu.
Supporters of fracking say the UK should frack its own gas, rather than importing from sensitive regions like the Amazon.
But opponents of fracking say the practice creates disturbance and pollution and fuels climate change.
The tanker Gallina, owned by Shell, is scheduled to arrive at the Isle of Grain in Kent.
The gas project at Camisea field has been hugely contentious."
Controversial gas from Peruvian Amazon arrives in UK
"A tanker docking in the UK is transporting a controversial cargo of gas from the Peruvian Amazon.
It is thought to be the first shipment to the UK from the Camisea project in rainforest 60 miles from Machu Picchu.
Supporters of fracking say the UK should frack its own gas, rather than importing from sensitive regions like the Amazon.
But opponents of fracking say the practice creates disturbance and pollution and fuels climate change.
The tanker Gallina, owned by Shell, is scheduled to arrive at the Isle of Grain in Kent.
The gas project at Camisea field has been hugely contentious."
Trump Orders EPA To Zero Out Global Warming Programs
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/02/trump-orders-epa...
Team Trump's budget plan sent from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to EPA leadership calls for eliminating dozens of programmes, including at least 16 that have to do with global warming and implementing former President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. Excellent news, here's hoping they waste no time.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/02/trump-orders-epa...
Team Trump's budget plan sent from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to EPA leadership calls for eliminating dozens of programmes, including at least 16 that have to do with global warming and implementing former President Barack Obama’s climate agenda. Excellent news, here's hoping they waste no time.
Greenpeace Claims Immunity from Lawsuits Because Its Claims Are ‘Hyperbole’
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/03/dr-patrick-...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/03/dr-patrick-...
Thanks for the heads-up, steveT350C.
Something isn't right with the link, this one works:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/03/dr-patrick-...
ETA my version has now reverted to page not found...try searching on the headline which is Dr. Patrick Moore was right: @Greenpeace IS full of sh*t unless the strange behaviour of the links isn't universal.
Something isn't right with the link, this one works:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/03/dr-patrick-...
AW said:
I’ve never had a headline like this, but Greenpeace deserves it for their mind-bending defense in a defamation lawsuit: basically their defense is “we publish hyperbole, therefore it isn’t actionable because it isn’t factual”.
ETA my version has now reverted to page not found...try searching on the headline which is Dr. Patrick Moore was right: @Greenpeace IS full of sh*t unless the strange behaviour of the links isn't universal.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 5th March 17:33
turbobloke said:
Thanks for the heads-up, steveT350C.
Something isn't right with the link, this one works:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/03/dr-patrick-...
ETA my version has now reverted to page not found...try searching on the headline which is Dr. Patrick Moore was right: @Greenpeace IS full of sh*t unless the strange behaviour of the links isn't universal.
The article can be found at the WUWT site but I suspect the link, which contains a "bad" word commonly used by many people every day, is going to be broken by site auto-censors.Something isn't right with the link, this one works:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/03/dr-patrick-...
AW said:
I’ve never had a headline like this, but Greenpeace deserves it for their mind-bending defense in a defamation lawsuit: basically their defense is “we publish hyperbole, therefore it isn’t actionable because it isn’t factual”.
ETA my version has now reverted to page not found...try searching on the headline which is Dr. Patrick Moore was right: @Greenpeace IS full of sh*t unless the strange behaviour of the links isn't universal.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 5th March 17:33
More Fake News from the sceptic US websites that feeds this thread
Look at this -
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...
Shame the graph quoted doesn't exist as published in the original paper....
It originally looked like this
Yeah, just chop bits out, rotate it, change the x axis and add your own labels
Who needs scientists when you have a blogger? Ironically from a blog called NoTricksZone ? Shurely shum irony ....
Look at this -
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...
Shame the graph quoted doesn't exist as published in the original paper....
It originally looked like this
Yeah, just chop bits out, rotate it, change the x axis and add your own labels
Who needs scientists when you have a blogger? Ironically from a blog called NoTricksZone ? Shurely shum irony ....
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 5th March 18:12
steveT350C said:
Greenpeace Claims Immunity from Lawsuits Because Its Claims Are ‘Hyperbole’
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/03/dr-patrick-...
From now on I think they should be referred to as "so called" Green Peace. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/03/dr-patrick-...
Doubt if it catches on at the BBC though!
Gandahar said:
More Fake News from the sceptic US websites that feeds this thread
Look at this -
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...
Shame the graph quoted doesn't exist as published in the original paper....
It originally looked like this
Yeah, just chop bits out, rotate it, change the x axis and add your own labels
Who needs scientists when you have a blogger? Ironically from a blog called NoTricksZone ? Shurely shum irony ....
so did notrickzone falsify the data?Look at this -
http://notrickszone.com/2017/03/02/new-paper-indic...
Shame the graph quoted doesn't exist as published in the original paper....
It originally looked like this
Yeah, just chop bits out, rotate it, change the x axis and add your own labels
Who needs scientists when you have a blogger? Ironically from a blog called NoTricksZone ? Shurely shum irony ....
Edited by Gandahar on Sunday 5th March 18:12
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff