Science/Environment How climate scientist conspired to subvert the peer review process

[simpleton]

A long read but worth it: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

Jeff Id from the Air Vent summarises it well:
"This may be the best illustration of the conspiracy (presented to date) to block and minimize papers which don’t support the consensus on the internet. It’s written by Douglass and Christy and puts a long string of the Climategate emails into context. The papers in question are absolutely central to the climate change debate, as they call into question the validity of climate models."

 

[bit_pattern]

Here's a much better read, that actually puts the issue in question into context. Peer review is supposed to keep faulty papers out of journals, the process worked exactly as it should, even if it did take the resignation of half the editorial stuff for the publisher to finally respect the review process.

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/deja_vu_all_over_again/

 

[HarryTiger]

More proof you lack the mental cohesiveness to participate in a debate.

The OP posted an article where the subject was a paper published in 2007 and a follow-up counter from another group published the following year.

Your first contribution to the thread is to post an article dated September 13, 2004

 

[bit_pattern]

So it is... I'm a busy man, we all make mistakes, but at any rate; same shit different bucket. Here is a write up on the issue to put Christy and Douglass' whinging into context

The bottom line is that we obtained results strikingly different from those of Douglass et al. The “robust statistical test” that they used to compare models and observations had at least one serious flaw – its failure to account for any uncertainty in the “signal component” of observed temperature trends (see QUESTION 7). This flaw led them to reach incorrect conclusions. We showed this by applying their test to randomly generated data with the same statistical properties as the observed temperature data, but without any underlying “signal trend”. In this “synthetic data” case, we knew that significant differences in temperature trends could occur by chance only, and thus would happen infrequently. When we applied the Douglass et al. test, however, we found that even randomly generated data showed statistically significant trend differences much more frequently than we would expect on the basis of chance alone. A test that fails to behave properly when used with random data – when one knows in advance what rresults to expect – cannot be expected to perform reliably when applied to real observational and model data.

 

[HarryTiger]

Both parties refute each other, they're arguing as scientists often do. And both are writing about things most of us wouldn't understand, but I have to say, I find the below passage much easier to read than the one you posted.

(and on that point I don't think that alone makes anyone less intelligent than them, sometimes it's just that you just haven't been following, don't have the years of background. they wouldn't understand things we do.)

At question are the practices behind the scenes, in particular the preferential treatment that the RC affiliated team received, the string pulling at the journal, and in some cases stark violation of policy.

Read the article the OP has linked to and come back and tell us you don't feel that indiscretions have taken place.

The is where Douglas responds to Salter's paper,

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climate_conspiracy_appendix_a.html

Another way to think of this is that S08 [Salter et al, the counter paper] compared observational upper air trends against upper air trends of the entire spread of model results which themselves were associated with a wide range of surface trends. The models' surface trends ranged from +0.03 to +0.31 °C/decade, while the three observational surface datasets all showed values very close to +0.125 °C/decade. Why would we want to compare the upper air trends from models, that were associated with surface trends as little as +0.03 or as high as +0.31 °C/decade, with observations associated with a surface trend of +0.125 C/decade? This would be comparing apples to oranges. This is why we claim S08 have set out a false premise and should not have been published without at least the opportunity for direct response to show their fundamental misunderstanding of DCPS. While the models had a range of trends that might be interpreted as a range associated with natural variability, the key here is that the relationship between surface and upper air in the models has very little variability over multi-decadal time periods. To DCPS, using such a wide range of model trends invalidated the intent of the basic question we posed as it ignored the fundamental condition "IF the models and observations had the same surface trends ..."

 

[bit_pattern]

Both parties refute each other, they're arguing as scientists often do. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climate_conspiracy_appendix_a.html

Except one group of scientists want to make their side a cause célèbre by appealing to American Thinker readers and not their peers, that smacks of cheap and grubby populism, not good science.

 

[Relativity]

A long read but worth it: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

Jeff Id from the Air Vent summarises it well:
"This may be the best illustration of the conspiracy (presented to date) to block and minimize papers which don’t support the consensus on the internet. It’s written by Douglass and Christy and puts a long string of the Climategate emails into context. The papers in question are absolutely central to the climate change debate, as they call into question the validity of climate models."

This really is a disturbing revelation of process. There is a total lack of objectivity by the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor and this band of GW scientists. Regardless of your views on CO2 induced warming if this is the way scientific research is being conducted and recognised then there can be little confidence in their results.

 

[bit_pattern]

[YOUTUBE]eJFZ88EH6i4[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Hawkamania!]

^ Another attempt to use a greenman vid. I believe we covered his biased views in a previous thread.

From his youtube bio:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

30 years of writing and activism in the areas of energy and environment, including extended study in Nashville with Al Gore

 

[medusala]

I believe we covered his biased views in a previous thread.

Talking of biased views.

Marxist Professors Are Gift to Climate Skeptics

Dec. 21 (Bloomberg)

The public’s skepticism toward the scientists is part of a bigger problem, one that threatens the fabric of our culture.

A 2007 survey of more than 1,400 professors by sociologists Neil Gross of Harvard University and Solon Simmons of George Mason University is as damning an indictment of an organization as you are ever likely to see.

Across all fields, 44 percent identified themselves as liberal or very liberal, while 9.2 percent identified themselves as conservative or very conservative.

Strikingly, the data were even more tilted in the physical and biological sciences. There, 45.2 percent of professors identified themselves as liberal, while only 8 percent said they were conservative.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ So 'liberal' equals 'Marxist' now, does it?

But, yeah, so what? As has been commonly pointed out, reality has a liberal bias and science isn't something where you can give equal weight to crackpots who don' believe in reality simply to appear unbiased. Science is full of biases, either something works or it doesn't, there is no middle ground, species didn't just half evolve and half were created, smoking doesn't only half cause cancer, AIDS can't be stopped with either retrovirals or garlic. Middle ground rarely exists in science because the physical world doesn't adhere to the left, right paradigms we create in our brains, whether a scientists political views should really have no bearing on the work they do, science isn't politics.

^ Another attempt to use a greenman vid. I believe we covered his biased views in a previous thread.

From his youtube bio:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

Nooo, you made accusations of being 'biased' because you had no other argumen except, 'hur hur hur, Al Gore!'. In your mind, anything that defends the science is 'biased', but you never look at your own biases, which are so twisted that you would argue black and blue for the Oregon petitions legitimatacy, or that the 'MXD corrected' code was ever actually used for anything, etc, despite all evidence to the contrary. You are the very definition of biased. So much so I just bet you didn't even watch the clip because it was ideologically unclean. You will just dismiss evidence because it has some vague connection in your mind with real climate or Al Gore therefore a part of the conspiracy, your attempts at discrediting Tim Lambert because he holds mainstream opinions that are common with RC was woefully pathetic, entirely laughable and quite typical of the moronic approach I've come to expect from you. It's just a convenient excuse for you to willfully ignore any evidence that calls into question your blind and slavish adherence to the idea that GW science is just a part of a New World Order conspiracy. Arguing with you is like arguing with an eleven year old, it inevitably regresses to a 'I know you, but what am I? Nyar nyar nyar' whenever you get pinned down on something

 

[Relativity]

[youtube]eJFZ88EH6i4[/youtube]

A series of ad hominem attacks does not excuse attempts to suppress contrary argument. If they are confident in the science of CO2 GW then they should use it to counter the sceptical argument. Suppression is bad process and leaves the impression of lack of substance.

 

[medusala]

So 'liberal' equals 'Marxist' now, does it?

Includes (didnt want to post too much, mod rules and all that...)

"The authors dug deeper than many previous studies and established some startling findings.
In the social sciences, 24 percent of professors identified themselves as liberal “radicals” and 18 percent as Marxists.
Only 4.9 percent of social scientists identified themselves as “conservative.” So there are almost five times as many self-identified liberal radicals on our faculties, and more than three times as many Marxists as there are conservatives"

But, yeah, so what? As has been commonly pointed out, reality has a liberal bias and science isn't something where you can give equal weight to crackpots who don' believe in reality simply to appear unbiased.

Please. What utter nonsense. As if reality has a Marxist basis. Further "liberals" of the US sort are utopiast muppets, delusional as to reality.

Middle ground rarely exists in science because the physical world doesn't adhere to the left, right paradigms we create in our brains, whether a scientists political views should really have no bearing on the work they do, science isn't politics.

An odd thing for someone whose every third word is "consensus" to say.

Also odd that Marxism doesnt seem to matter but anyone who has anything to do with a free market think tank is not allowed to have an opinion.

 

[bit_pattern]

A series of ad hominem attacks does not excuse attempts to suppress contrary argument. If they are confident in the science of CO2 GW then they should use it to counter the sceptical argument. Suppression is bad process and leaves the impression of lack of substance.

It was rejected on the grounds of being flawed, that's what the review proces is meant to do, it happens all the time. The authors can take the criticism to heart and go on a PR campaign in the popular press in an attempt to undermine the process and cast doubt on GW at a critical time (these authors M.O's, down to a tee) OR they can take a look at where their work went wrong, fix it, then resubmit for publication - and if they don't like the response from Nature, then submit it to different journal. That's if they want to give an impression of substance themselves, that is.

 

[bit_pattern]

Here's what the actual study had to say about you Marxist "scientists"

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~ngross/lounsbery_9-25.pdf

The table indicates that self-identified Marxists are rare in academe today.
The highest proportion of Marxist academics can be found in the social sciences, and there they represent less than 18 percent of all professors (among the social science fields for which we can issue discipline-specific estimates, sociology contains the most Marxists, at 25.5 percent).

(...)

Contrary to expectations of a clear institutional status gradient in professorial radicalism, we find that community colleges and liberal arts schools house the highest percentage of radicals (14.4 percent and 21.5 percent, respectively) and activists (22.6 and 21.3 percent, respectively), while it is liberal arts colleges that are home to the highest proportion of Marxists (12.0 percent, as compared to 3.0 percent in community colleges, 5.2 percent in other BA granting schools, 3.1 percent at non-elite, PhD granting institutions, and just 3.0 percent in elite, PhD granting schools).

So your Marxists are actually all to be found in liberal art colleges, no surprise there, and are incredibly rare in other fields of academe - hardly the indictment of climate science you made it out to be, surprise surprise. All this study shows is that conservatives are either too thick to be academics, or, more likely, are less interested in serving the common good by working in public education. Again, surprise surprise!

 

[HarryTiger]

It was rejected on the grounds of being flawed, that's what the review proces is meant to do, it happens all the time.

What was rejected?

 

[bit_pattern]

Blocked, rejected... Whatever.

 

[Wednesday]

Here's what the actual study had to say about you Marxist "scientists"

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~ngross/lounsbery_9-25.pdf



So your Marxists are actually all to be found in liberal art colleges, no surprise there, and are incredibly rare in other fields of academe - hardly the indictment of climate science you made it out to be, surprise surprise. All this study shows is that conservatives are either too thick to be academics, or, more likely, are less interested in serving the common good by working in public education. Again, surprise surprise!

....or can survive in the real world instead of relying on government handouts and subsidies whilst hiding in the education system their entire lives teaching womyns post modern interpretive dance studies or something of equal value to society.

 

[HarryTiger]

Blocked, rejected... Whatever.

Neither.

You're posting responses to an article you haven't bothered to look at.

 

[blueblooded]

Blocked, rejected... Whatever.

You still hanging about Al Gore??? After the few weeks your AGW industry has had one would think you'd make yourself very scarce around these parts but i have to give you credit....you keep snapping at the heels like a pitbull, you haven't gone hiding in your 50 room mansion like i thought you would.

Even after climategate and the conflict of interest of those members of the UN who are pushing this crap down our throats is being played out across the MSM around the world, even after China and the Arab nations calling everyones bluff on this and saying "**** you and your vested interests and agendas we dont believe in these man made lies", even after the majority of Australians start believing that something fishy is going on....you still show your face and embarass yourself further.

At least Rudds playing it smart he's not saying much unless its rehearsed, the beauracratic speak and tone coming from his mouth on the news on Saturday arvo was quiet humorous to say the least.

Back in your box big Al, your AGW industry, carbon trading money printing machine is coming undone and if their is any justice left in this world, and corruption doesn't exist all the way at the top (fat chance i know) it will all come out at the climategate inquiry next year. Its make or break next year for the AGW industry and for Rudd who is coming all undone!

 

[bit_pattern]

Why are you guys so obsessed with Al Gore?

 

[Hawkamania!]

Why are you guys so obsessed with Al Gore?

Not obsessed. We just like making a mockery of the global village idiot and his acolytes.

Anyway, you are the one that has used gore as an authoritative figure in the past.

 

[bit_pattern]

I've defeneded him against some of the more ******ed attacks against him, that is all, try as you might to make out otherwise you are the only one with a hard on for Gore. You attack Gore because you don't have any other argument, you attack a figurehead to compensate. Goes to show how weak the whole denier schtick really is.

 

[medusala]

Why are you guys so obsessed with Al Gore?

Good point, should be more worried about this chap.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/684...climate-change-guru-Dr-Rajendra-Pachauri.html

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations.

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year

 

[bit_pattern]

Smart man. Why wouldn't he invest? I love it when so called 'free marketers' get upset about lefties using the market to make money.