A Look at Peer Review from the Skeptical Side

[IanC]

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf

a must read for anyone who wonders why there was a fuss made over the climategate emails. it also describes how the slanted playing field is obtained and preserved in climate science peer review.

anyone who thinks it must be better since climategate has only to go back and read the tortureous road that R O'Donnell had while trying to debunk the Steig study on Antarctica.

 

[Si modo]

An Insult to All Science - Are We Beyond Reporach?

Scientists uninvolved in climate science are not pleased with the devaluation of peer-review by those involved.

 

[Oddball]

I've peer reviewed these posts and find them 100% accurate.

 

[uscitizen]

Pier review? Not posts those are pilings.
Sheesh, amateurs.

 

[asterism]

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf

a must read for anyone who wonders why there was a fuss made over the climategate emails. it also describes how the slanted playing field is obtained and preserved in climate science peer review.

anyone who thinks it must be better since climategate has only to go back and read the tortureous road that R O'Donnell had while trying to debunk the Steig study on Antarctica.

It's just a short 4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable. Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." It was only 5 years ago that the IPCC reports were considered "Peer Reviewed" scientific reports.

Then the 2007 IPCC report was found to have non-peer reviewed opinions written by environmental activists, bad data from non-conforming surface stations, and a transposition of paleoclimate reconstructions on top of empirical measured data. Climategate was merely the beginning, but it was a watershed. The process is corrupt, the data is corrupt, the initial models were fiction, and the raw data is gone.

The hubris is that the Climate hucksters still don't realize how obvious their "Science" is tainted by biases about who is doing the research and publishing the papers.

 

[Si modo]

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf

a must read for anyone who wonders why there was a fuss made over the climategate emails. it also describes how the slanted playing field is obtained and preserved in climate science peer review.

anyone who thinks it must be better since climategate has only to go back and read the tortureous road that R O'Donnell had while trying to debunk the Steig study on Antarctica.

It's just a short 4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable. Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." It was only 5 years ago that the IPCC reports were considered "Peer Reviewed" scientific reports.

Then the 2007 IPCC report was found to have non-peer reviewed opinions written by environmental activists, bad data from non-conforming surface stations, and a transposition of paleoclimate reconstructions on top of empirical measured data. Climategate was merely the beginning, but it was a watershed. The process is corrupt, the data is corrupt, the initial models were fiction, and the raw data is gone.

The hubris is that the Climate hucksters still don't realize how obvious their "Science" is tainted by biases about who is doing the research and publishing the papers.

As peer review involves humans, there is always a possibility that it can have bias. Scientists recognize this and are diligent to keep the peer-review process clean so that we can keep it as an untainted exchange of knowledge.

Then came the warmergate emails. They are an insult to all science.

 

[konradv]

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf

a must read for anyone who wonders why there was a fuss made over the climategate emails. it also describes how the slanted playing field is obtained and preserved in climate science peer review.

anyone who thinks it must be better since climategate has only to go back and read the tortureous road that R O'Donnell had while trying to debunk the Steig study on Antarctica.

It's just a short 4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable. Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." It was only 5 years ago that the IPCC reports were considered "Peer Reviewed" scientific reports.

Then the 2007 IPCC report was found to have non-peer reviewed opinions written by environmental activists, bad data from non-conforming surface stations, and a transposition of paleoclimate reconstructions on top of empirical measured data. Climategate was merely the beginning, but it was a watershed. The process is corrupt, the data is corrupt, the initial models were fiction, and the raw data is gone.

The hubris is that the Climate hucksters still don't realize how obvious their "Science" is tainted by biases about who is doing the research and publishing the papers.

Regardless of of individual bias, and you're not immume as your "huckster" comment shows, the basic logic of AGW is unassailable IMO.

We know that CO2 and other gases trap Infra-red radiation.

We know their concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

See that, no data, no "hucksterism", just LOGIC. The skeptics would do well to study the subject.

 

[Si modo]

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf

a must read for anyone who wonders why there was a fuss made over the climategate emails. it also describes how the slanted playing field is obtained and preserved in climate science peer review.

anyone who thinks it must be better since climategate has only to go back and read the tortureous road that R O'Donnell had while trying to debunk the Steig study on Antarctica.

It's just a short 4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable. Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." It was only 5 years ago that the IPCC reports were considered "Peer Reviewed" scientific reports.

Then the 2007 IPCC report was found to have non-peer reviewed opinions written by environmental activists, bad data from non-conforming surface stations, and a transposition of paleoclimate reconstructions on top of empirical measured data. Climategate was merely the beginning, but it was a watershed. The process is corrupt, the data is corrupt, the initial models were fiction, and the raw data is gone.

The hubris is that the Climate hucksters still don't realize how obvious their "Science" is tainted by biases about who is doing the research and publishing the papers.

Regardless of of individual bias, and you're not immume as your "huckster" comment shows, the basic logic of AGW is unassailable IMO.

We know that CO2 and other gases trap Infra-red radiation.

We know their concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

See that, no data, no "hucksterism", just LOGIC. The skeptics would do well to study the subject.

Well, there is NO logic to equating correlation to causation, as you just did.

But, you usually do that.

 

[asterism]

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf

a must read for anyone who wonders why there was a fuss made over the climategate emails. it also describes how the slanted playing field is obtained and preserved in climate science peer review.

anyone who thinks it must be better since climategate has only to go back and read the tortureous road that R O'Donnell had while trying to debunk the Steig study on Antarctica.

It's just a short 4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable. Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." It was only 5 years ago that the IPCC reports were considered "Peer Reviewed" scientific reports.

Then the 2007 IPCC report was found to have non-peer reviewed opinions written by environmental activists, bad data from non-conforming surface stations, and a transposition of paleoclimate reconstructions on top of empirical measured data. Climategate was merely the beginning, but it was a watershed. The process is corrupt, the data is corrupt, the initial models were fiction, and the raw data is gone.

The hubris is that the Climate hucksters still don't realize how obvious their "Science" is tainted by biases about who is doing the research and publishing the papers.

Regardless of of individual bias, and you're not immume as your "huckster" comment shows, the basic logic of AGW is unassailable IMO.

We know that CO2 and other gases trap Infra-red radiation.

We know their concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

See that, no data, no "hucksterism", just LOGIC. The skeptics would do well to study the subject.

Please educate us on the part of the Scientific Method you used in that summary. Also, pull some past climate models that directly correlated CO2 concentrations with temperature increases. Then show me one that got 2010 correct. According to your logic, 2010 should have been by far the warmest year on record. Was it?

See that's the point, you haven't studied the subject. The "subject" being the actual science involved. You have apparently studied the politics and appeals to authority. A study of the science shows flaws in the models, flaws in the process, and a group of gatekeeper Scientists not following the Scientific Method. All because of the very reason you stated, "the basic logic of AGW is unassailable."

 

[konradv]

It's just a short 4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable. Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." It was only 5 years ago that the IPCC reports were considered "Peer Reviewed" scientific reports.

Then the 2007 IPCC report was found to have non-peer reviewed opinions written by environmental activists, bad data from non-conforming surface stations, and a transposition of paleoclimate reconstructions on top of empirical measured data. Climategate was merely the beginning, but it was a watershed. The process is corrupt, the data is corrupt, the initial models were fiction, and the raw data is gone.

The hubris is that the Climate hucksters still don't realize how obvious their "Science" is tainted by biases about who is doing the research and publishing the papers.

Regardless of of individual bias, and you're not immume as your "huckster" comment shows, the basic logic of AGW is unassailable IMO.

We know that CO2 and other gases trap Infra-red radiation.

We know their concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

See that, no data, no "hucksterism", just LOGIC. The skeptics would do well to study the subject.

Well, there is NO logic to equating correlation to causation, as you just did.

But, you usually do that.

And once again you've made a false charge. That some gases absorb IR isn't correlation, it's established scientific fact. Saying we're responsible for the rise in GHGs may be correlation, but since we put out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, it's correlation bordering on the obvious. Therefore, it's up to the skeptics to tell us where that extra gas is coming from, if not from us. Got any ideas? If you don't, then line 3 follows logically from 1 & 2.

 

[Si modo]

Regardless of of individual bias, and you're not immume as your "huckster" comment shows, the basic logic of AGW is unassailable IMO.

We know that CO2 and other gases trap Infra-red radiation.

We know their concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

See that, no data, no "hucksterism", just LOGIC. The skeptics would do well to study the subject.

Well, there is NO logic to equating correlation to causation, as you just did.

But, you usually do that.

And once again you've made a false charge. That some gases absorb IR isn't correlation, it's established scientific fact. Saying we're responsible for the rise in GHGs may be correlation, but since we put out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, it's correlation bordering on the obvious. Therefore, it's up to the skeptics to tell us where that extra gas is coming from, if not from us. Got any ideas? If you don't, then line 3 follows logically from 1 & 2.

You know, I used to feel sorry for you because you cannot tell the difference between correlation and causation.

Now, I just feel sorry for you. And, I continue to point out your idiocy. Maybe someday I will find your idiocy humorous, but I tend to make sure the dilettantes in science don't soil it more than they already have. You are an enemy of science because of that.

 

[asterism]

The CO2 levels:

The temperatures:

Where is the correlation?

CO2 Now | CO2 Home

 

[asterism]

Regardless of of individual bias, and you're not immume as your "huckster" comment shows, the basic logic of AGW is unassailable IMO.

We know that CO2 and other gases trap Infra-red radiation.

We know their concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

See that, no data, no "hucksterism", just LOGIC. The skeptics would do well to study the subject.

Well, there is NO logic to equating correlation to causation, as you just did.

But, you usually do that.

And once again you've made a false charge. That some gases absorb IR isn't correlation, it's established scientific fact. Saying we're responsible for the rise in GHGs may be correlation, but since we put out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, it's correlation bordering on the obvious. Therefore, it's up to the skeptics to tell us where that extra gas is coming from, if not from us. Got any ideas? If you don't, then line 3 follows logically from 1 & 2.

You have the same position as the Climate hucksters. You make a statement, say it's "logical," or "obvious," cannot prove it with data, and then put the onus on the skeptics to explain the flaws in your own statement using your own incorrect basis.

CO2 concentrations have been rising significantly since 1998. Why isn't it significatnly warmer?

 

[Si modo]

The CO2 levels:

The temperatures:

Where is the correlation?

CO2 Now | CO2 Home

They both went up, thus because the one went up, it caused the other to go up.

Just like postal rates. Just look at that.

And, the practice of Wiccan has gone up, as have the downloads of Firefox, so we can conclude they are also causing warming, right?

Can't we all see the logic in it?????



[/end sarcasm]

(I know that you see the difference. I'm just using your post for example.)

 

[konradv]

It's just a short 4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable. Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." It was only 5 years ago that the IPCC reports were considered "Peer Reviewed" scientific reports.

Then the 2007 IPCC report was found to have non-peer reviewed opinions written by environmental activists, bad data from non-conforming surface stations, and a transposition of paleoclimate reconstructions on top of empirical measured data. Climategate was merely the beginning, but it was a watershed. The process is corrupt, the data is corrupt, the initial models were fiction, and the raw data is gone.

The hubris is that the Climate hucksters still don't realize how obvious their "Science" is tainted by biases about who is doing the research and publishing the papers.

Regardless of of individual bias, and you're not immume as your "huckster" comment shows, the basic logic of AGW is unassailable IMO.

We know that CO2 and other gases trap Infra-red radiation.

We know their concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

See that, no data, no "hucksterism", just LOGIC. The skeptics would do well to study the subject.

Please educate us on the part of the Scientific Method you used in that summary. Also, pull some past climate models that directly correlated CO2 concentrations with temperature increases. Then show me one that got 2010 correct. According to your logic, 2010 should have been by far the warmest year on record. Was it?

See that's the point, you haven't studied the subject. The "subject" being the actual science involved. You have apparently studied the politics and appeals to authority. A study of the science shows flaws in the models, flaws in the process, and a group of gatekeeper Scientists not following the Scientific Method. All because of the very reason you stated, "the basic logic of AGW is unassailable."

I haven't made any "appeals to authority", just logic. Are you denying that CO2 traps IR, because I can prove it easily on a spectrophotometer? Politics isn't anywhere in the syllogism I presented, just facts and a conclusion derived from those facts. I don't care about what a model may oor may not show. That's irrelevant. I'm just stripping it down to the bare bones, i.e. A increases B, A has been rising, therefore B will also rise. Where's the politics?

 

[konradv]

The CO2 levels:

The temperatures:

Where is the correlation?

CO2 Now | CO2 Home

They both went up, thus because the one went up, it caused the other to go up.

Just like postal rates. Just look at that.

And, the practice of Wiccan has gone up, as have the downloads of Firefox, so we can conclude they are also causing warming, right?

Can't we all see the logic in it?????



[/end sarcasm]

(I know that you see the difference. I'm just using your post for example.)

I'm sorry, but you seem to have a limited knowledge of the subject. Your analysis of my thesis smacks of the same mindset as those that wsear there are "death panels" in the new health care law. Throwing out ridiculous scenarios in no way compares to what I presented. Ridicule like that might work with the scientifically unsophisticated, but in a real scientific setting you'd get laughed out of the room.

 

[Si modo]

The CO2 levels:

The temperatures:

Where is the correlation?

CO2 Now | CO2 Home

They both went up, thus because the one went up, it caused the other to go up.

Just like postal rates. Just look at that.

And, the practice of Wiccan has gone up, as have the downloads of Firefox, so we can conclude they are also causing warming, right?

Can't we all see the logic in it?????



[/end sarcasm]

(I know that you see the difference. I'm just using your post for example.)

I'm sorry, but you seem to have a limited knowledge of the subject. Your analysis of my thesis smacks of the same mindset as those that wsear there are "death panels" in the new health care law. Throwing out ridiculous scenarios in no way compares to what I presented. Ridicule like that might work with the scientifically unsophisticated, but in a real scientific setting you'd get laughed out of the room.

Still, your equating correlation to causation contains NO logic. Yet, you do it consistently. What makes it even more pathetic is that you actually think it is logical. And, topping off the pathetic nature of your posts is that you love to demonstrate to all of us that you cannot differentiate between correlation and causation. Really, it's cringeworthy.

 

[asterism]

Regardless of of individual bias, and you're not immume as your "huckster" comment shows, the basic logic of AGW is unassailable IMO.

We know that CO2 and other gases trap Infra-red radiation.

We know their concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

See that, no data, no "hucksterism", just LOGIC. The skeptics would do well to study the subject.

Please educate us on the part of the Scientific Method you used in that summary. Also, pull some past climate models that directly correlated CO2 concentrations with temperature increases. Then show me one that got 2010 correct. According to your logic, 2010 should have been by far the warmest year on record. Was it?

See that's the point, you haven't studied the subject. The "subject" being the actual science involved. You have apparently studied the politics and appeals to authority. A study of the science shows flaws in the models, flaws in the process, and a group of gatekeeper Scientists not following the Scientific Method. All because of the very reason you stated, "the basic logic of AGW is unassailable."

I haven't made any "appeals to authority", just logic.

Your act of confining the logic to just CO2 is an appeal to authority. It's backwards science, starting with a predetermined conclusion and then justifying it with cherry picked facts.

Are you denying that CO2 traps IR, because I can prove it easily on a spectrophotometer?

Can you prove that CO2 always traps IR on every scale and that more CO2 always means higher temperatures?

Politics isn't anywhere in the syllogism I presented, just facts and a conclusion derived from those facts.

And yet we have cooler temperatures since 1998 but significantly higher CO2 levels.

I don't care about what a model may oor may not show. That's irrelevant. I'm just stripping it down to the bare bones, i.e. A increases B, A has been rising, therefore B will also rise.

Where's the rise over 1998?

Where's the politics?

In the IPCC and the crew who has been selling this bogus and unproven lie that AGW is a scientific fact.

 

[Oddball]

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf

a must read for anyone who wonders why there was a fuss made over the climategate emails. it also describes how the slanted playing field is obtained and preserved in climate science peer review.

anyone who thinks it must be better since climategate has only to go back and read the tortureous road that R O'Donnell had while trying to debunk the Steig study on Antarctica.

It's just a short 4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable. Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." It was only 5 years ago that the IPCC reports were considered "Peer Reviewed" scientific reports.

Then the 2007 IPCC report was found to have non-peer reviewed opinions written by environmental activists, bad data from non-conforming surface stations, and a transposition of paleoclimate reconstructions on top of empirical measured data. Climategate was merely the beginning, but it was a watershed. The process is corrupt, the data is corrupt, the initial models were fiction, and the raw data is gone.

The hubris is that the Climate hucksters still don't realize how obvious their "Science" is tainted by biases about who is doing the research and publishing the papers.

Regardless of of individual bias, and you're not immume as your "huckster" comment shows, the basic logic of AGW is unassailable IMO.

We know that CO2 and other gases trap Infra-red radiation.

We know their concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

See that, no data, no "hucksterism", just LOGIC. The skeptics would do well to study the subject.

 

[Big Fitz]

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf

a must read for anyone who wonders why there was a fuss made over the climategate emails. it also describes how the slanted playing field is obtained and preserved in climate science peer review.

anyone who thinks it must be better since climategate has only to go back and read the tortureous road that R O'Donnell had while trying to debunk the Steig study on Antarctica.

It's just a short 4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable. Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." It was only 5 years ago that the IPCC reports were considered "Peer Reviewed" scientific reports.

Then the 2007 IPCC report was found to have non-peer reviewed opinions written by environmental activists, bad data from non-conforming surface stations, and a transposition of paleoclimate reconstructions on top of empirical measured data. Climategate was merely the beginning, but it was a watershed. The process is corrupt, the data is corrupt, the initial models were fiction, and the raw data is gone.

The hubris is that the Climate hucksters still don't realize how obvious their "Science" is tainted by biases about who is doing the research and publishing the papers.

Regardless of of individual bias, and you're not immume as your "huckster" comment shows, the basic logic of AGW is unassailable IMO.

We know that CO2 and other gases trap Infra-red radiation.

We know their concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?

See that, no data, no "hucksterism", just LOGIC. The skeptics would do well to study the subject.

That is a syllogism.

Ducks are birds
This duck is black
All birds are black.

And then to defend the argument with the equivalent of shouting "How can you not smell pickles have green olive loaf flowers!? If you can't quaf the bear seltzer of Nepal, you cannot dance the lotion in a muddled finger!!"