Climate Journal Publishes Referees' Report In Response To "Witch-Hunt" Claims 330
Sockatume (732728) writes "The resignation of Prof. Lennart Bengtsson from an anti-global-warming think tank has triggered widespread outrage in the British tabloids, with the University of Bristol Professor blaming his departure on a 'witch-hunt' environment amongst climate scientists and the rejection of one of his papers. The UK's Times quotes a passage from the reviewer comments in support of this, in which it is claimed that the paper was rejected for being 'unhelpful to their cause.' In response, that journal's publisher has taken the rare step of publishing the referees' report in full. The report describes Bengtsson's paper as a 'simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al [data sets], combined with the statement they they are inconsistent,' 'where no consistency was to be expected in the first place' and therefore is not publishable research. The referee adds a number of possible areas of discussion which would allow Bengtsson to make the same data into a publishable paper, but warns that publishing it in its current state 'opens the door for oversimplified claims of errors and worse from the climate sceptics media.'"
Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but refusing to provide a public forum for crackpots is not a witch-hunt, or McCarthyism. It's science. The journal didn't publish the paper because the referee said it was an unsalvageable piece of crap, which is precisely how peer review is supposed to work.
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:5, Informative)
Surely you don't expect journalists of all people to have any inkling about rigorous peer review, quality of research, or any other attribute of publishing in a scientific discipline.
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Particularly when the motive of the news item is to attack a scientific theory you don't like.
Re: (Score:3)
The Daily Telegraph has been one of the leading major newspapers in attacking AGW. Christopher Booker, a kook that rejects evolution and claims tobacco and asbestos are not harmful, is given frequent and prominent space to make all sorts of attacks against AGW. So I think it goes a little beyond simply wanting a controversy to sell papers, and makes the Daily Telegraph, and similar papers like Wall Street Journal, the National Post in Canada denier-friendly outlets.
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:5, Informative)
Someone dug up some old comments by the Professor himself expressing his anger that you couldn't just ship all the climate scientists off to East Berlin. I guess he has a great sense of irony.
It's a shame that the GDR disappeared otherwise would have been able to offer one-way tickets there for these socialists. Now there's unfortunately not many orthodox countries left soon and I surely do not imagine our romantic green Communists want a one-way ticket to North Korea. But if interested I'd gladly contribute to the trip as long as it is for a one way ticket. Perhaps you could arrange a Gallup study, since it can not be ruled out that I underestimated rush to the exit5
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/... [blogspot.com.au]
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:5, Interesting)
I think his implication is that they would be more comfortable in the employ of the Stasi, which had a pretty good grip on censorship and thought policing. Not that I agree with him, but I think you've misunderstood the statement.
Re: (Score:2)
If you say you're going to give someone a one-way ticket to a place they don't want to go to, it's safe to assume you're asking for them to be exiled.
Re: (Score:3)
If you read the quote it says 'want' and 'offer'. He's accusing them of being communists. Why do you want so badly for it to be worse than that? Isn't that bad enough?
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:4, Interesting)
What do "motivations" have to do with the temperature? I thought this was supposed to be about "science".
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:5, Informative)
Here it shows that the author's intention was to create a flawed study with flawed conclusion just to promote a political agenda. So you would think it was about science but it wasn't. Sorry that your hero got caught with his pants down.
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:5, Informative)
It was. The paper was crap, and further revelations put the author's crap paper in greater perspective. He's politically motivated, wasn't interested in a meaningful scientific critique, and has an ax to grind.
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:4, Insightful)
The journal didn't publish the paper because the referee said it was an unsalvageable piece of crap, which is precisely how peer review is supposed to work.
Obviously the referee is a part of the AGM movement and was doing his part to make sure the truth isn't published /sarcasm*
* Sadly I expect this to be used as a genuine counter argument.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There was an entire film starring Ben Stein that was making that claim about evolutionary biology. Ah my, how the pseudo-skeptic community just recycles previous pseudo-scientific babble.
The sad part is that major newspapers like the Daily Telegraph are carrying this guy's rejection, and of course, will never print the other side of the story; that the paper was just shyte.
Re: (Score:3)
And William F. Buckley is now spinning in his grave.
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
While Bengtsson is wrong on this, he's no crackpot. This paper was rejected, but most of his previous ones were published and he is (was?) a respected scientist in the field. His problem seems to be that he has allowed himself to mix his politics with the science. That's wrong, but so is your ad hominem; calling him a crackpot cheapens the word, and your argument.
I think it's perfectly fair to label somebody who calls their ideological opponents Communists and McCarthyites a crackpot. YMMV.
Re:Witch-Hunt. Right. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The journal didn't publish the paper because the referee said it was an unsalvageable piece of crap"
It worse than that: the referee suggested that it might be salvageable, but Bengtsson couldn't be bothered.
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
I read an interview of him, and the rejection of the paper was a small part of his complaints. He is basically saying that anyone who questions anthropogenic global warming dogma is ostracized. This is the basis of McCarthyism and witch hunts. It also questions the foundation of the global warming "consensus" so often cited. The fact is that questioning orthodoxy is part of the scientific process. Ironically then, those who attempt to ostracize global warming skeptics for being "anti-science" are the ones themselves being anti-science.
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-climate?
How can one be anti-climate? Does the "Global Warming Policy Foundation" advocate for elimination of climate?
[sarcasm off]
From thegwpf.org "The Global Warming Policy Foundation is unique. We are an all-party and non-party think tank and a registered educational charity which, while open-minded on the contested science of global warming, is deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated."
As I understand (from a very short reading), GWP
Re: (Score:2)
Your sig:
"If it's worth doing, it's worth doing for money."
Think tanks, many on the "left" too, are in it for money. They write to further the economic interests of their backers. Some see the truth as something that must be carefully tiptoed around when it's not beneficial for what they promote. Others just don't give a damn and have decided that any position, no matter how dumb, deserves a defense lawyer as long as they can pay. And if they have to employ the Chewbacca defense or the Shaggy defense, so be
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It indicates a possible bias, and media reaction should never be a criteria for determining what has scientific merit.
Its also interesting that they guy has a reasonably 'reputable' career history, and also is quite up-front about his views. Yet this one instance is enough for many folks here to trash him, call him a crackpot and other names.
Maybe his paper is total crap. I gu
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have to ask yourself, if so many of your qualified peers think you're crazy for taking a given perspective, and your new paper on the subject is rejected for being crappy: have they all lost their minds, or have you?
Re: (Score:3)
Consensus is not always right but if you make a habit of betting against it you're probably going to be a loser in the long run. What consensus means in science is that the scientists don't waste their time arguing about something they almost all agree but move on to something that still has room for argument.
Re: (Score:3)
No real way to put this consensus to the test, is there?
Actually, that's the purpose of all that sciency stuff they do. I suppose we could just sit around and see what happens, though. But that's kind of like waiting to see if that car driving toward you on the wrong side of the road actually hits you before you decide to make an attempt to avoid it.
It's not fair! (Score:3)
They do the same thing to creationist research! These so-called "scientists" just don't like having their dogma challenged! It's a conspiracy!
That's rich (Score:2)
And just prior to that: Rupert Murdoch apparently trying (and failing) to look as harmless as possible.
And: Absurd anti-science faux journalism flares up again - as usual, it's Big Oil that's set to benefit, not the public
Self-introspection isn't the Guardian's strong suit, is it?
Re:That's rich (Score:4, Informative)
"Self-introspection" as compared to introspecting other people?
So you don't like these headlines because, what, they're too mean about some of the idiots at the Guardian's competition?
Correction: Reading (Score:2)
He's at Reading, not Bristol. To be fair they're on the same train line.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not that science is rejecting scepticism. Heck, scepticism is fundamental to science. The issue that legitimate climate sceptics face is that they are trying to disprove a large body of evidence that is both diverse and mature. If sceptics want to prove their point, they have to collective evidence that is also diverse and mature. That is no simple feat.
That is also making a huge assumption: that the climate sceptics are legitimate. I'm sure that some sceptics are, particularly when it comes to critiquing particular pieces of evidence. On the other hand, they seem to be a tiny minority. Most of the debate that I see comes from people who have little understanding of science, nevermind climate science.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure I've ever seen a "legitimate climate skeptic." The vast majority I've dealt with are ignoramuses who don't try to answer their own questions, and when you show them the evidence they easily could have found themselves, they go into denialist lockdown mode and just say the evidence is not valid/fabricated etc. A few are just underinformed and turned off of the idea for non-scientific reasons (many of which are understandable...who wouldn't want to disbelieve what Al Gore preaches at you?)
I think
Re:Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidenc (Score:4, Insightful)
It isn't even that they need extraordinary evidence. Ordinary evidence would do just fine. But creating strawmen to demolish is not a rebuttal of actual science and that is the issue here. What is really sad is the part where the "bias" shows and is trotted out by deniers is true. He would've been remiss to omit it because it is a negative. All the referee did was acknowledge the political reality of the entire point behind the paper.
Its like being accused of bias when rejecting a paper that uses phrenology as proof that that whites are smarter than blacks due to greater cranial capacity because you point out that, in addition to being flawed and incorrect, it will just be used to support a racist agenda.
Re:Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidenc (Score:5, Insightful)
But there appears to be no firm line in the sand here. Those ideologically opposed to AGW frequently try to use what at least sound like scientific arguments to attack the theory. The sad fact is that in many cases they're using similar attacks that have been used by Creationists in the past to attack biology, genetics, geology, cosmology and any other theory that challenged their ideologically-driven beliefs.
Beyond that, to be skeptical of any theory, you have to understand the theory, and the data that purports to support the theory. When you get a dozens of posters making claims like "it hasn't warmed in 17 years", you're simply not dealing with people who have the faintest idea what they're talking about. That's not even dealing with the people who go on about the "church of AGW" and "AGW is going to be demolished any day now" (these are literally picked right out of the Creationist arsenal).
And then when you get the few people who do have the expertise to critique AGW, you end up with guys like Spencer, who don't actually even try to publish papers critiquing AGW, but basically are paid shills for the Heartland Institute. Bengtsson is in the real minority, in that he actually tried to publish a paper, albeit a very poor paper, so I guess you have to give him points for that. But, considering he is a publishing researcher, I think you have to start wondering if he did this intentionally so that denialist newspapers like the Telegraph could claim "You see, the AGW crowd stifles dissent!" Again, this similar trick has been used a very few times by Creationists/IDers (the Sternberg-Myer affair [wikipedia.org], where a pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design paper did get published in an obscure journal). It gets a great deal of press, of course, and now Bengtsson's crap paper will be brought up by every pseudo-skeptic for years to come, because the one thing that is universally true of all pseudo-skeptics, whatever scientific field they're attacking, is that no attack is so bad or so debunked that it can't be dusted off and shoved and used again.
The sad fact is that it does mask the actual debates among climatologists, which are far more interesting and far more pertinent.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me know when Spencer actually does publish his critique of AGW. Writing oped pieces in the WSJ is not publishing.
This is useless (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
my point was that comparing climate science to eugenics is a vast (and incorrect) oversimplification
"Anti-global-warming think tank?" (Score:2)
Re:"Anti-global-warming think tank?" (Score:5, Funny)
They're opposed to thinking.
Thinking requires energy in the form of glucose in the blood, derived from food that we eat. So sustaining critical thinking processes require the consumption of more food, which generally comes from a grocer. They have to truck tons of it in every week, which inevitably belches many tons of CO2 in the air.
Therefore, they only oppose thinking for the purposes of saving the environment for our children. Won't you just think of the children? The best thing you can do is not think about them.
You know, for the children.
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Informative)
"Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.
Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form." - http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2... [blogspot.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
From the reviewers: "The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.
The finding of differences between the three “assessments” and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.
The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understa
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Insightful)
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
This is a point that is radically misunderstood by almost all sides of the political debate around anthropogenic climate change. Think about what it implies: climate models do not predict observational reality. That, and only that, is why one cannot and should not expect a nice fit between the model and the reality.
This is OK, mind: non-predictive modelling is extremely useful, and there is very little doubt that human activity is adding about 1.6 W/m**2 to the Earth's heat budget (somewhat less than 0.5% of the total, equivalent to an orbital perturbation of about half the distance to the Moon). But climate models do not tell us in any meaningful or useful sense how the ocean/atmosphere system will respond to that additional heating.
There will be a response, but estimating its type, distribution and magnitude well enough to be considered predictive is well beyond current model capabilities. I haven't looked at AR4 or 5 code, but AR2 had approximations that made me cringe, up to and including fixing up energy conservation at the end of each time-step by adjusting cell temperatures.
Climate skeptics--the sane ones at least--are aware of this and take the strong claims of predictive power in the models with a large grain of salt. They also tend to assume that "you can't prove there will be a disaster" means "there won't be a disaster", which is utterly unwarranted.
Climate believers also ignore the poor predictivity of the models, which is unfortunate, because the logical response to that poor predictivity is to invest in robustness and flexibility rather than specific solutions, because we don't know what the specific future conditions will be.
Climate believers also undermine their case by an excessive focus on "abstinence only" policies, and are for some reason unwilling to contemplate any response to climate change that involves things like nuclear power and geo-engineering research. It's almost as if they think the climate-driven destruction of civilization is such a huge issue that we must be willing to do anything to stop it... except change anyone's mind on the relative value of nuclear energy.
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Interesting)
climate models do not predict observational reality
Models are projections, not predictions. They project what would happen under specific circumstances. They cannot predict when a volcano will erupt, but can help us understand how the climate will respond if one does. In reality, we cannot predict how much CO2 we will emit, or how much aerosols, or whether La Ninas will dominate the next decade. But we can project what will happen for each scenario. You shouldn't presuming that the model for one scenario should give the same results as a model for another, but investigating how and why they differ would be useful. That was the reviewers point.
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Informative)
If that's what you got then you need to read it again. First of all the methodology used was oversimplified. I don't know a lot about the ranges but my understanding is that by using one basic equation was too simplistic. Also the authors didn't describe why they used this approach. There may be plausible reasons to do so but they authors did not elaborate. Lastly the innovation was low meaning they've seen many papers on this before and this new one does not add anything new. Pointing out errors was not the problem; being the umpteenth one to do so but with a flawed approach is the problem.
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The research itself was called 'simplistic' as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody said the science is settled. But when the overwhelming majority of experts in any field are leaning in one direction, to claim that there isn't something to what they're saying, or worse, claiming that that large majority is an argument against what they're saying is anti-intellectual.
In other words. Grow the fuck up. The universe doesn't owe your ideology any favors.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The science is settled [npr.org]
He also said the Arctic would be ice-free by now.
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Insightful)
NPR apparently cared at the time, along with just about every other traditional media outlet. And the people who saw his movie. And the people who invited him to speak to congress. He was the #1 spokesman for global warming just a few years ago. Did you forget?
Re: (Score:3)
Who cares what NPR says. A great deal of information by the actual researchers is out there, so quit fixating on public figures and media outlets, and get the information from the horse's mouth. Heck, I don't even read SciAm anymore because it's become more of a science journalism rag, and I'd rather read what the scientists themselves say, whatever the particular field of research is.
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:4, Insightful)
Your example of the problems of climate science is climate scientists correcting Al Gore? Isn't that exactly what you want climate scientists to do in a healthy environment where the science decides the issues?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No. I was directly refuting "Nobody said the science is settled". It's not an example of anything other than that.
Re: (Score:2)
Countering the alarmism is not "denying the science".
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Gore never said the Arctic would be ice free by now. The closest thing I've ever seen to him saying that is he commented that a study by the US Navy reported the Arctic could become functionally ice free sometime between 2017 and 2024. Note that Gore was merely repeating what the study said. If you can cite an actual quote by Gore where he said the Arctic would be ice free by 2014 I'll eat my hat.
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think this is a bit oversimplified... I'd like to expand it to reflect what the referee stated....
When the overwhelming majority of experts in any field are leaning in one direction, to claim that they're incorrect without rigorous application of the scientific method but instead just making vague claims of overlap and inconsistency regarding the models you don't support and stating that the results don't line up with your preferred model, is not legitimate science. Legitimate politics, yes.
Science works by taking the accepted model and proving where it fails by quantitative and qualitative analysis. The method he was using in his paper is closer to using the Bible to prove that the world is flat when the prevailing theory is that it is a somewhat squished and misshapen globe.
Mind you, the world MAY be flat, but to prove that, you'd have to show where the prevailing models fall down, and show how your own model stands up where those others fail. Qualitative AND quantitative, people. He seemed to be flip-flopping between the two from the report.
Re: (Score:2)
What memo? That AGW is real, that three centuries of barfing millions of years worth of sequestered CO2 into the atmosphere isn't a climate-neutral activity? That memo?
Yes, I think he's got it.
Re: (Score:2)
The CO2 was in the atmosphere to begin with. Plus the global climate was arguably better when it had more carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
"Better" or "worse" overall isn't even the most important factor. "Different" is bad for our civilization and the planet's wildlife (which would have to evolve about 10,000x faster to adapt).
If, for the sake of argument, tomorrow we found out that AGW was indeed a carefully choreographed international hoax, and the climate changes were completely natural, do you know what the correct course of action would be?
To change not a damn thing about what we've been working towards. To continue reducing CO2 emission
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:4, Informative)
The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the atmosphere over millions of years. The ecosystem had time to adjust. In the cycle of ice ages we've had lately CO2 in the atmosphere would drop to 180 ppm at the height of the glaciations and rise to around 280 ppm during the interglacial periods. That 100 ppm rise took 10,000 years or more. The ecosystem had time to adjust. Since the start of the industrial revolution less than 300 years ago we've been burning fossil fuels that took millions of years to accumulate. In 1830 the CO2 level was still about 280 ppm. Now in 2014 it's around 400 ppm. That's an increase of 120 ppm in less than 200 years. If we took 10,000 years to raise the CO2 levels to 400 ppm it wouldn't be that much of a problem. It's the rate of change that is the majority of the problem.
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Insightful)
The science on the Standard Model isn't settled, but that hardly means the Standard Model is wrong or falsified. It means it is incomplete. Not having an absolutely perfect theory (if such a thing is even achievable) does not mean the theory you have lacks all utility. There is a great deal of evidence for AGW. Is it complete, is it settled? No, but then again, neither is any scientific theory. Why does anthropogenic climate change receive this kind of special treatment.
Oh that's right, because someone stands to lose money, and, heaven forbid, people might have to change their behaviors.
Re: (Score:3)
If there was the ability to search through the text of all the slashdot comments, you would be overwhelmed with the AGW Crowd claiming, "The science is settled".
If only there was some sort of search engine that could be used... oh wait. there is! https://www.google.ca/#q=%22th... [google.ca] . Huh... Looks like just the deniers pushing that meme. Science can always be overturned. Most people believe in heliocentrism. It could be overturned... but probably not by these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is an absurd exaggeration that relies on a very dubious definition of the word "wrong". Is Newtonian Mechanics wrong? Strictly speaking, I suppose so, as it does not adequately explain the full range of observations, and in some cases does indeed get the answers wrong. But if you look at Newtonian mechanics as simply a simplified extrapolation of General Relativity that applies to non-relativistic equations, it still works very well; well enough to launch probes to Mars or the outer reaches of the solar system, and useful enough for many ordinary physics problems.
Yes, certain theories, like the steady state theory of the universe, have been falsified, but they certainly weren't falsified by crap papers. But, by and large, not many scientific theories are out and out falsified, so your use of the word "wrong" is simply hyperbolic.
No one says consensus means the end of research in a field, and no one says that consensus cannot be wrong. Indeed, consensus is often a target for scientists, which is why, for instance, even though the Standard Model has been a highly successful theory, particle physicists are desperate to peer beyond it to find new physics. And when that happens, the Standard Model still won't be "wrong", it will simply be subsumed into some larger theory.
All the evidence we have points to CO2 emissions over the last three centuries leading to climate change that cannot be explained by non-anthropogenic processes. We have theories to explain it, that no one believes are complete or the final word, but there is a sufficiently high degree of agreement between models and via different lines of evidence that it is not unreasonable to say with a high degree of certainty that there are man-made factors contributing to current observations, and then continued CO2 emissions will accelerate this process. The exact degree degree to which emissions can be attributed is a matter of debate, but very few climatologists argue with the core claims of AGW. Even worse for the skeptics is that every time they claim to find the smoking gun, it turns out to be their own camp playing rhetorical tricks, outright lying, or in this particular case, trying to publish a crappy paper.
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:4, Interesting)
You must be from the American Petroleum Institute...
Ah yes, nothing like an ad hominem attack to soundly refute a claim.
Tell us, what other scientific discipline has ever been "settled"? Look here [ucr.edu] for over a century of experiments on relativity. Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
Re: (Score:2)
Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
Seeing as they are not denying the theory of general relativity: no.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
For the most part, no, because they recognize that relativity already explains a large number of observations. If they succeed in finding a fault, then any theory that supersedes relativity would still have still have to reproduce those observations, and reproduce relativity in an appropriate limit.
There are a select few however that would (and in a case two have) gotten the label of relativity deniers because they reject various experiments already done. They are not out there running new experiments l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:The Science is settled! (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell us, what other scientific discipline has ever been "settled"? Look here [ucr.edu] for over a century of experiments on relativity. Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
Other scientists in the field who hold contrary positions are not generally labeled deniers. People in the field like Lindzen, Spencer, Curry will not tell you that CO2 will have no effect, just that there are other factors that override it. They have enough knowledge to at least debate intelligently with others in the field. The real climate science deniers are those without much scientific training who think their worldview trumps science when it comes to climate change. It's a waste of time to try and debate them.
Science is never absolutely settled but that doesn't mean we should treat it as if what we know about is is useless. Holding out hope for some revolutionary overturning of science you don't like, especially with no evidence that anything like that is forthcoming, is wishful thinking.
Re: (Score:2)
And what exactly was the poster's legitimate point? It was inflammatory and outright wrong.
Re:Tabloids? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd call it a very biased paper that allows its editorial department masquerade as its reporting department. Witness the incredible number of anti-NHS stories that were one-sided, biased, and clearly intended to underwrite a series of columns by various right wing regulars demanding the NHS be demolished, privatized or something between the two.
And yes, the Guardian does the same thing. British newspapers are, by and large, utter crap.
Re:Tabloids? (Score:5, Funny)
I wouldn't call the Daily Telegraph a tabloid.
Of course not. It's my go to source for the REAL truth on bigfoot, aliens, and the Loch Ness monster.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk] - Hikers-capture-bigfoot-on-film
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.... [dailytelegraph.com.au] - have-aliens-hijacked-voyager-2-spacecraft
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk] - Mystery-alien-like-creature-seen-in-Bristol-harbour
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk] - Has-Apple-maps-found-the-Loch-Ness-Monster
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... [telegraph.co.uk] - Has-the-Loch-Ness-monster-finally-been-caught-on-camera
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just because its posh propaganda doesnt mean it isnt propaganda. The Torygraph so nicknamed because of its history of right wing editorial has always been the subject of derision for its political bias. In that respect it is the same as a tabloid in that it tells its readers what to think.
Re:now reviewers manage skepticism (Score:4, Insightful)
"If the press sees this crappy paper they will use it to perpetuate misconceptions" is a valid thing to point out when rejecting dodgy work. I dare say you would've found something similar in response to the papers that eventually wind up in the Journal of Cosmology.
Re:Consensus achieved (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1: Systematically ostracize, shun, bully, and threaten people who disagree with you.
I don't know if you've ever participated in a scientific debate with scientists but this happens regardless of what is being discussed. Some of the nastiest fights I've seen are between scientists about the most trivial of questions.
Step 2: Make sure contrary views are never published.
Correlation != causation. Getting a paper published in a prestigious journal isn't easy in the first place. From what I've seen most contrary views like AGW and creation science are not published because they are contrary. They are not published for a variety of reasons including errors, lack of innovation, lack of basic science, etc. For example if you wanted to publish a paper about T-Rex being a carnivore it would probably be rejected because that is rather old news. Now if you found evidence that T-Rex may have had dangerous pathogens in the saliva (like the Komodo dragon) which made it a more dangerous predator, that would be something worthy of publishing.
In this case, the referees noted the deficiencies and suggested corrections to make the paper more publishable. That does not sound like they were opposed to contrary views at all. But being contrary or not, the referees still have to enforce standards of science.
Step 3: When people decide to be quiet instead of getting bullied, claim consensus.
First when have the AGW and creationists every been quiet? Second, being louder does not help your cause when it comes to science. Having evidence helps your cause. Here is the one thing people don't understand about scientific consensus: Getting a vast majority of scientists to agree on anything is a big deal. It means scientists fighting from opposing sides have settled on the matter.
For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was high theoretical when it first came out and hard to test even though it solved certain problems like the precession of Mercury. It required using a solar eclipse before some scientists began to think that it might be not just theoretical. Over the decades different experiments have verified that Einstein was right. No one doubts the validity of it today.
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless. And even if you did want to assign value to consensus, the nasty exclusionary tactics directly undermine that value.
Re:Consensus achieved (Score:4)
Which nasty exclusionary tactics? Your coworkers and friends ostracising you because you're joining an organisation that exists to undermine their life's work? That's what happens when you get in bed with a widely-despised organisation.
A paper not being published because it's bad? That's science, baby.
Re:Consensus achieved (Score:5, Informative)
"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!" [telegraph.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Re: (Score:3)
"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!" [telegraph.co.uk]
Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC [skepticalscience.com].
We [the Independent Climate Change Email Review] conclude that there is evidence that the text was a team responsibility. It is clear that Jones (though not alone) had a strongly negative view of the paper but we do not find that he was biased, that there was any improper exclusion of material or that the comments on the MM2004 paper in the final draft were “invented” given the (continuing) nature of the scientific debate on the issue.
So Jones' comment, in regard to MM2004, would be troubling on its own. However, not only did he apparently lack the power to exclude the paper, he was apparently unbiased in the final comments.
The other paper referenced in Jones' quote is also discussed in the link I provided.
Re:Consensus achieved (Score:4, Insightful)
And yet both of those papers did get referenced in the IPCC report. That cuts into the argument that contrarian papers can't get published, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:3)
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless. And even if you did want to assign value to consensus, the nasty exclusionary tactics directly undermine that value.
That's absurd circular logic. How was consensus reached? Was it reached because the evidence supported it? In your statement, you've already declared that consensus is meaningless because of exclusionary tactics yet have to provide that it is actually happening. I can say the same thing that that the reason polar bears haven't attacked me yet because of this magical rock I have. I'll sell it to you for $1000 or 900 Euro.
What consensus means (Score:3)
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless.
Consensus is not meaningless if it is a second order effect of the evidence for a particular theory. For example general relativity has been tested heavily and so far every piece of evidence shows that it is a very accurate model. In the face of this evidence a consensus has developed that general relativity is "correct". Consensus by itself means nothing unless it follows from the natural and proper progression of scientific inquiry.
The problem is that some people misunderstand that consensus means an a
Re:Consensus achieved (Score:4, Insightful)
"Consensus" simply identifies where the burden of proof lay. It is not a barrier to new ideas.
Examples:
(1) The geosyncline theory was replaced by plate tectonics.
(2) We used to think passing a black hole event horizon was a one way trip for matter/energy; now we think black holes evaporate.
(3) We used to think DNA to RNA information transcription was one way; then we discovered retroviruses.
The idea that "consensus" is just scientific priggery is ridiculous. Scientists *want* consensus to be overturned. New ideas are what make science interesting, but a new consensus only meaningful if the standards of disproof for the old consensus are high. Otherwise a change on scientific consensus wouldn't be *progress*, it would be *fashion*.
Re: (Score:2)
...but enough about the conservative press.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Step 1: Systematically conduct flawed studies, search for like-minded or easily convinced people to side with you,, and threaten people who disagree with you.
Step 2: Attempt to get your flawed and subjective contrary views published as scientifically sound.
Step 3: When people decide to reject your articles based on flawed methods, claim conspiracy.
Sadly, both the parent's 3-step plan and this one are used constantly... mostly in politics, but increasingly in "scientific" communities.
Re:Consensus achieved (Score:4, Insightful)
This dipshit wasn't bullied or threatened or anything else. His worthless piece of shit article he wrote was denied publication because it was a worthless piece of shit article. Science journals try not to print worthless piece of shit articles..... even though i understand that's the only kind you seem to prefer; that says a lot more about your useless fucking worldview of wanting to be a fucking stupid idiot than it does about a science journal upholding high standards. As for a consensus... there is one, whether your butthurt that 97% or so of these very highly educated people think your a fucking idiot or not. If you don't know the science, your opinion means nothing, regardless of how big an egotistical little twat you are.
You want to be useful to the discussion? Quit being a twat.
Re:Consensus achieved (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, climate change skeptics publish in mainstream journals all the time. There's always loose threads you can pull at.
For example RW Spencer [drroyspencer.com] is an evangelical Christian who believes that climate change would contradict God's will [cornwallalliance.org]. Yet he still gets published [google.com] in mainstream journals.
This demonstrates the extreme open-mindedness of science, when compared to virtually any other field of human endeavor. Yes, the process is slanted in favor of the prevailing wisdom, but people who disagree with the majority opinion aren't ostracized or prevented from publishing, no matter *why* they believe what they do. Scientists believe things for all kinds of un-scientific reasons: aesthetics, hunches, even personal dislike for other scientists. Religion isn't any less scientific than any of that stuff, but you leave that stuff in the locker room when you're on the playing field, so to speak.
Naturally people whose papers get rejected by reviewers think the referees were unfair. But it's not like *other* skeptics can't get their papers published; they just have to play by science's rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Earth's climate is hardly the only complex system that we study.
Re:Consensus achieved (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, what are the odds that science could be wrong about a staggeringly complex physical system which cannot be studied in isolation?
Science is generally not amenable to binary right/wrong judgements. It's more about how well your science models the physical reality you are studying. If climate science contrarians want to discredit the current theory it's not enough to just take pot shots at it trying to tear it down. You come up with something that models the climate better than the current theory.
Re:Not sure which is worse... (Score:4, Insightful)
Frankly, I don't know enough about the science to evaluate the content of this guy's paper. What I do know are facts which leave me unable to fairly judge this case: (1) The reviewer, ostensibly, is qualified to review the paper's content and finds it unpublishable. Therefore, it is good that it isn't published. (2) The reviewer taints the decision with a foolish political footnote, inviting - if not forcing - the very kind of denial that he ostensibly was trying to avoid.
If the paper was bad enough to be rejected on its own (lack of) merit, then what in God's name did this guy hope to achieve by bringing it up in the first place? If I were in the AGW crowd, I'd be investigating the reviewer to see whether he's a Big Oil plant. Negligent buffoonery.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As an illustration, you could look at a paper that "proved" that white crows don't exist by taking a bunch of studies counting the black crow population in various areas, a few studies looking for white crows in various areas, and claim that the one study that found white crows in a black crow population was obviously flawed as it didn't line up with all the other studies. The studies were measuring different things in different places, and so shouldn't be expected to line up.
And whether the paper gets pub
Re: 'unhelpful to their cause.' (Score:4, Insightful)
As I always suspected, AGW is a cause, not a hypothesis, let alone an actual scientific theory.
False. AGW began as a hypothesis, became a generally accepted scientific theory, and is now a cause — as a result of becoming accepted theory with global ramifications.
Nice try^Wtroll, though.