A Look at Peer Review from the Skeptical Side

[Big Fitz]

I'm just waiting for Ole Crocks to sound off. Hold on, let me get his taped response.

YouTube - Paprika Scene

watch the whole thing. You'll understand as things progress. It lays out the Chicken Little argument perfectly.

 

[skookerasbil]

Shit Ian......wait'll Rocks gets aload of this..........he's going to go mental!!!

 

[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.

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!!"

So it's a syllogism! Too bad it's an example of a flawed syllogism, since the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In my syllogism, the conclusion does follow the premises, as long as you accept the premises. While your premises ARE acceptable, the conclusion isn't. Constructing a syllogism isn't simply a matter of throwing two statements together and coming up with an outlandish conclusion. Your example is: All A are B, this A is C, therefore All B are C. That obviously doesn't follow from the premises, since premise number one should say "All A are C" for the conclusion to be logically correct.

 

[Big Fitz]

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!!"

So it's a syllogism! Too bad it's an example of a flawed syllogism, since the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In my syllogism, the conclusion does follow the premises, as long as you accept the premises. While your premises ARE acceptable, the conclusion isn't. Constructing a syllogism isn't simply a matter of throwing two statements together and coming up with an outlandish conclusion. Your example is: All A are B, this A is C, therefore All B are C. That obviously doesn't follow from the premises, since premise number one should say "All A are C" for the conclusion to be logically correct.

A flawed syllogism for a flawed premise you moron. Sometimes I wonder if it's funnier if the target doesn't realize the depth in which he is being mocked.

 

[IanC]

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.



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




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.

fantastic point on backwards science and cherry picking. my biggest problem with the biased peer review in climate science is the resistance to correcting failed or fraudulent papers. when Jones' 1990 paper on UHI produced two fraud investigations it wasnt even withdrawn, and the IPCC continued to cite it. when McIntyre demolished the Hockey Stick the climate science community didnt rethink the data and methodology behind it, they spent their efforts trying to rehabilitate an obviously flawed idea. when O'Donnell showed Steig's front cover antarctica Nature paper was crap, Nature wasnt interested and the hockey team put up a long and trivial review process to delay it as long as possible. after it was finally published as an improvement instead of a rebuttal, Steig publically criticized a change that he, as a reviewer, forced O'Donnell to make!

climate science peer review is a bad joke. until the climategate emails came out nobody but the insiders knew what a cesspool of 'old boys club' that it is. now we do know better.

 

[IanC]

and guys like Old Rocks continue to denigrate skeptical papers because they cant get published in the top journals. read the OP. McKittrick sent his paper to the top statistical journal who considered it statistically correct but too simple to be published in a stats journal. climate journals turned it down because they didnt understand the statistics! the Wegman Report criticized climate science for being too insulated in their thinking and methodologies and pointedly recommended that they make use of available statistical resources outside of their field. apparantly that advice has been studiously ignored.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

What is cringeworthy is the fractured logic you use to put words into other people's mouths. Physicists have demonstrated that GHGs absorb infrared radiation and reradiate it. The more GHGs there are in the atmosphere, the more heat that is absorbed. The increased absorbtion has been measured by satellites.

The only thing heating the atmosphere is the heat from the sun. The retention of heat by the atmosphere is due to the GHGs in the atmosphere. From the geological record, we have seen what happens when there is a very low amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. The oceans froze over almost down to the equator. And we have also seen in the geological record what happens when there is a rapid increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. Major and minor extinction events.

Now if the TSI were increasing, you might have a leg to stand on, but it is not. Instead, for the last decade, it has actually decreased. Yet, the temperatures have gone up. As have the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. You combine those facts with the known absorbtion spectrum of the GHGs, and there is only one possible conclusion. The one that the vast majority of scientists in the world have stated.

Just because that reality does not fit your vison of the way things oughta be, does not change reality one whit. Your dishonesty in pursueing your political agenda is all too evident.

 

[rdean]

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.

First you say, "4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable." and that's bullshit.

Then you say, "Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." and that's bullshit.

Only 6% of scientists in the US are Republican. Guess their stuff isn't "peer reviewed". Not that many "peers".

Love to hear right wingers talk "science". The SAME people who push "Noah's Ark" as history and "The flood creating the Grand Canyon" as "geology'. Do they still believe disease is caused by "demons"? You gotta love 'em. Cuz all that's left is "pity".

 

[Old Rocks]

Asterism;

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

...........................................................................................................................

No, that is an out and out lie. We have not had cooler temperatures since 1998. Dr. Spencer's graph, the climate scientist that Limpbaugh claims as his own.

UAH Temperature Update for March, 2011: Cooler Still -0.10 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The running mean from 2002 to 2007 exceeds every other years high, excepting 1998. And 2010 matched 1998.

 

[IanC]

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.

in an ongoing quest to try to get you to move past your endlessly repeated simplistic comments on CO2, I will try to get you to look at yet another facet of the CO2 caused warming theory. the reason IPCC says CO2 will cause more than the ~1C that is calculated for a doubling of CO2 is that the increase of retained heat will cause an increase in water vapour leading to a feedback loop. konradv-- do you think that has happened?

 

[asterism]

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.



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




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



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.

fantastic point on backwards science and cherry picking. my biggest problem with the biased peer review in climate science is the resistance to correcting failed or fraudulent papers. when Jones' 1990 paper on UHI produced two fraud investigations it wasnt even withdrawn, and the IPCC continued to cite it. when McIntyre demolished the Hockey Stick the climate science community didnt rethink the data and methodology behind it, they spent their efforts trying to rehabilitate an obviously flawed idea. when O'Donnell showed Steig's front cover antarctica Nature paper was crap, Nature wasnt interested and the hockey team put up a long and trivial review process to delay it as long as possible. after it was finally published as an improvement instead of a rebuttal, Steig publically criticized a change that he, as a reviewer, forced O'Donnell to make!

climate science peer review is a bad joke. until the climategate emails came out nobody but the insiders knew what a cesspool of 'old boys club' that it is. now we do know better.

Yeah, those "corrections" and further publication of improvements on a flawed model are astounding once you get into it. Science has seen this before of course, circular orbits were wrong. Epicycles helped, but that didn't fit all situations and didn't provide a calculated set of rules that would predict a new object. They only somewhat explained the planets and visible (at the time) moons as visible from Earth.

Kepler's Watershed changed everything, a heliocentric solar system with elliptical orbits. It still works today for everything measurable.

 

[asterism]

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.

What is cringeworthy is the fractured logic you use to put words into other people's mouths. Physicists have demonstrated that GHGs absorb infrared radiation and reradiate it. The more GHGs there are in the atmosphere, the more heat that is absorbed. The increased absorbtion has been measured by satellites.

The only thing heating the atmosphere is the heat from the sun. The retention of heat by the atmosphere is due to the GHGs in the atmosphere. From the geological record, we have seen what happens when there is a very low amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. The oceans froze over almost down to the equator. And we have also seen in the geological record what happens when there is a rapid increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. Major and minor extinction events.

Now if the TSI were increasing, you might have a leg to stand on, but it is not. Instead, for the last decade, it has actually decreased. Yet, the temperatures have gone up. As have the amount of GHGs in the atmosphere. You combine those facts with the known absorbtion spectrum of the GHGs, and there is only one possible conclusion. The one that the vast majority of scientists in the world have stated.

Just because that reality does not fit your vison of the way things oughta be, does not change reality one whit. Your dishonesty in pursueing your political agenda is all too evident.

1998 was the warmest year on record. We have significantly higher GHG absorption.

 

[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.

First you say, "4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable." and that's bullshit.

Then you say, "Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." and that's bullshit.

You may call bullshit now that the discussions are over but unless you were in on them you cannot revise history.

Only 6% of scientists in the US are Republican. Guess their stuff isn't "peer reviewed". Not that many "peers".

Love to hear right wingers talk "science". The SAME people who push "Noah's Ark" as history and "The flood creating the Grand Canyon" as "geology'. Do they still believe disease is caused by "demons"? You gotta love 'em. Cuz all that's left is "pity".

You have just undercut your own case in favor of the current climatology field. You'll never consider anything someone you consider a "right winger" has to say. You embody the problem.

 

[asterism]

Asterism;

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

...........................................................................................................................

No, that is an out and out lie. We have not had cooler temperatures since 1998. Dr. Spencer's graph, the climate scientist that Limpbaugh claims as his own.

UAH Temperature Update for March, 2011: Cooler Still -0.10 deg. C « Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

The running mean from 2002 to 2007 exceeds every other years high, excepting 1998. And 2010 matched 1998.

Ah, the running mean. You get how that undercuts your CO2 level concentration argument right? Perhaps not.

So why a 13 month running mean? Do you have any idea? I do.