Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 Next
Comments 58051 to 58100:
-
Tom Curtis at 09:40 AM on 12 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
Martin @13, it is not clear how, and to what extent Knorr et al, 2011 disagree with LaRivierre et al, 2012. Knorr et al. discuss the mean global temperature in the Late Miocene rather than just the NH mid latitude Pacific as discussed by LaRivierre et al. Therefore there is may be no contradiction between their respective estimates of the temperature anomaly, ie, 3 Degrees C for the Global Mean Temperature Anomaly by Knorr et al, compared to 5 to 8 degrees C for part of the NH Pacific Ocean for La Rivierre et al. Like wise, the explanation for the anomalous global warmth may well be, primarilly, changes in albedo; while the explanation of the greater anomalous warmth in the NH Pacific may well still be ocean currents, as it is a different (although related) phenomenon. However, yes, the science of Mioncene climate is certainly unsettled. This is not because of a problem with the physics of climate, however. The same physics which predicts rising temperatures with increasing anthropogenic emissions can explain the anomalous warmth in the Miocene, as is shown by Knorr et al. What makes the science of Miocene climate unsettled is the restricted observational data set. To give one example, LaRivierre et al rely on just two data sets for their analysis of Miocene CO2 levels. One is an analysis of alkenones by Pagani et al, 1999 showing just 33 observations over the 7 million years discussed (panel a):
The other is from Pearson and Palmer (2000), which shows just six observations over the 7 million years:
(Note, I have set the CO2 concentrations as determined by Pagani et al as background for comparison.)
With such limited information, several hypotheses may remain consistent with the data. Of course, those several hypotheses are consistent with the physics of the greenhouse effect as determined from better observed times.
No doubt, of course, we are about to see an entertaining display from the fake "skeptic" community as they take the limited and partially conflicting observational data from the Late Miocene as being above reproach so they can falsely claim a counterexample to the known physics; while of course they insist the thousands of modern direct measurements with thermometers are not an adequate basis to determine that the Earth is warming.
-
Rufus9 at 09:18 AM on 12 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
John - nice admission that "... we really don't know." What is true of your study as well as many others is that it has established correlation but not causation. As such, the results are sufficient for generating hypotheses, but not "proving" anything (I'm not saying that was your objective). Similarly Dana notes that " Michaels for example got 7 published in CR and 7 published in other journals at the same time." Without some additional information, it is hard to know how to interpret that statement. Does it mean that there were 7 other journals that were also susceptible to "pal reviews", or does it lend credibility to Michaels because he was also published in those other journals. Once again, we can generate a hypothesis, but cannot prove it one way or another based on your work. If you listen to the Econtalk podcast I linked previously, there is a very good discussion of the pitfalls of scientific studies, and we should not be so naive to think that bad research is limited to once side of the climate debate or the other. As Dikran (14) noted, "The major problems with peer review is the "publish or perish" nature of academia, which means there is great pressure on all of us to publish in quantity often at the expense of quality. This is becuase it is hard to make an objective metric that measures quality (at least hard to make one that operates without a delay of 5+ years). This means that (i) there are many more papers published than there used to be (ii) academics have less time to review them than they used to do (iii) comments papers have little or no value, so academics have pretty much stopped writing them. The result is an explosion of the number of journal and a reduction in quality control." In other areas of science, for example cancer research, it was recently discovered that 47 of 53 "landmark" studies could not be replicated, and yet they were cited over 200 times by other researchers. http://blog.sethroberts.net/2012/04/03/lack-of-repeatability-of-cancer-research-the-mystery/ Quote from a Reuters article: "During a decade as head of global cancer research at Amgen, C. Glenn Begley identified 53 “landmark” publications — papers in top journals, from reputable labs — for his team to reproduce. Begley sought to double-check the findings before trying to build on them for drug development. Result: 47 of the 53 could not be replicated." So, while we might expect there to be some honest error in any field of research due to the limits of knowledge, an 88% non-repeatability rate is certainly shocking. Does this extend into other fields of research? It most certainly does. I'm a big fan of Gary Taubes, whose work often highlights flawed research in the area of nutrition and health. (he's written in other areas as well). For an enlightening view into this world, I suggest reading "Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy" or, more recently, his commentary on Harvard's latest "correlation study" showing the supposed dangers of eating red meat (which has been severely critiqued upon review of the actual data). See garytaubes.com So from my perspective, when I see Dikran's comment that seems to question "any paper that argues that the rise in CO2 is a natural phenomenon", it triggers my skeptical self-defense mechanism. It does not matter to me if Harvard says red meat causes increased mortality or if a stack of 500 climate research papers supports the AGW theory because it is simply naive to believe that all of those papers are correct. And, if 5% or 10% or 88% of them are flawed or not repeatable, then the skepticism is warranted. I think you've actually done some interesting work, but at the end of the day, as you said, we don't know. -
Alexandre at 08:57 AM on 12 June 20122012 SkS Weekly Digest #23
Hey, the Brazilian president on the toon of the week! That doesn't happen very often. BTW, is there an online source with a list of emission targets and actual emissions of each country? The most recent Brazilian emission inventory I've found has data from 2005. -
scaddenp at 08:07 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
NSherrard - while speculation is big on volatility in oil pricing, the line that the price wriggles around is dependent on production versus demand. Production can be producer whim but also under-investment in new production as older production peters out which is certainly a problem in Middle-East/North Africa at moment. Of course, getting new production on stream gets harder all the time. However, since problems with production/demand in oil will only get worse, and since there is only so much damage we can do to climate via petroleum, the real issue for climate is coal. -
Bob Lacatena at 07:44 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Dana and Phillippe, I think arguing the semantics of "theory" and "proof" is the wrong approach to take with Mr. Rauch, and will probably just leave him rolling his eyes in exasperation, feeling that you are missing the point. The fact is that he said that global warming was "at best" an unproven theory, suggesting that he dismisses all aspects of the science, not merely its certitude. In that event, I would suggest that a better approach with Mr. Rauch would be to point him towards the wealth of information available here, along with the fact that the only people who contradict the position of every major national science academy in the world is a small, loud, vocal cadre of outliers and an equally loud cadre of PR firms and personalities (Forbes writers, not-exactly-lobbyists, weathermen, not-exactly-Lords, etc.). Just because they have his attention, and keep hammering their misinformation at everyone who will listen, does not make what they are saying true. -
Philippe Chantreau at 07:41 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
"there are myriad reasons to begin adopting alternative energy resources" Most definitely. It is plain that fossil fuels of all kinds will be exhausted if mined to, well, exhaustion. Then what? This question by itself is enough reason to do all the work we need to do to get away from fossil fuels, now that we are enjoying the unprecedented comfort and ease of living that these same fuels have allowed and that we can afford to do that work. We have a small window of opportunity; with billions of people wanting to enjoy the good life like we do in the West, it will not last very long, and the aftermaths of the big carbon release will call for some serious flexibility on our part. -
Rob Honeycutt at 07:23 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
I think Marc Rauch is right, that there are myriad reasons to begin adopting alternative energy resources. There are national security issues, domestic jobs issues and many other fantastic and meaningful reasons. But I believe he is misguided in his desire to see AGW and alternative energy sources to be separate issues. The science for man-made warming is overwhelming, and very often it's very difficult to convince people in his position of this. I think there is extreme exasperation within the scientific community to find ways to explain to people like Mr Rauch exactly how overwhelming the research is. There is no doubt at all that man-made greenhouse gases are warming the planet. There is no doubt that reduction of those gases is absolutely necessary. There are uncertainties with regards to how severely the planet will respond but even the lower estimations are very concerning. How to make this clear to people like Mr Rauch is an issue that is keeping lots of scientists awake nights. -
Philippe Chantreau at 06:55 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Mr Rauch, I certainly do not want to impinge on SkS comments policy that precludes "dogpiling." However, I have to point out, seconding Dana, that "unproven theory" in the context used in your post indicates a lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is. Quantum theory is also an "unproven" theory, whose implications are at odds with the General Relativity theory. Yet both of them are very successfully applied together in GPS, where electronics put Quantum to use, and where General Relativity allows for the accuracy that newtonian physics would not permit, considering the velocities and distances involved. It should be noted, however, that Relativity did not disprove Newtonian physics, only changed its domain of application. A scientific theory is not a hypothesis. This misunderstanding appears to be common in the US because of the pervasive deceitful argument made by creationists that "Evolution is only a theory." It works well with that part of the public that does not understand the difference between theory and hypothesis. The consensus model of Earth climate as it has been experienced by Humans is a well supported theory, not a hypothesis. -
dana1981 at 06:38 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Mr. Rauch, first of all, all scientific theories are unproven because theories cannot be proven. Saying "unproven theory" is redundant. It's also no different than saying "evolution by natural selection is just an unproven theory." Secondly, the best case for supporting alternative fuels is that they are a key solution to human-caused global warming, which is one of the greatest threats humanity has ever faced. Bringing up absurd conspiracy theories of 'fraud' and the like only harms the case for alternative fuels. While you might prefer that the two issues be treated separately, that's not going to happen. Most of the people who oppose alternative fuels oppose climate science for the exact same reasons. -
Dan Moutal at 06:00 AM on 12 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
Remember here in British Columbia we have had a carbon tax for the past several years. And if the economy was destroyed, I haven't noticed. I even write an article about it here as sks. -
marcrauch at 05:26 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
One of the biggest problems with acceptance of alternative fuels and energy is that so-called man-made global warming has been lumped together with it. If man-made global warming is real and if the use of non-fossil fuels would impact the effects of global warming then there would be a reason to put the two issues together. But, even if man-made global warming is happening, there is nothing but conjecture to support the theory that alt-fuels can mitigate it. However, there are sufficient good reasons to support the wide-spread use of alt fuels without taking into account man-made climate change. In fact, because man-made global warming is at best an unproven theory, tying the two issues together drastically hurts alt-fuel acceptance. The issues should stand on their own, which I believe would make arguing for alternative fuels much easier and more palatable for the vast majority of people who believe that man-made global warming is a fraud. On the other hand, if man-made global warming is real, and if the production and use of non-fossil fuels are a helpful solution, then fine, both issues are addressed. But if we can get alt-fuels accepted then everyone wins. Marc J. Rauch Exec. Vice President THE AUTO CHANNEL -
Martin at 05:05 AM on 12 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
@12 Tom Thanks for posting Knorr et al. It seems to me that Knorr disagrees with this nature article regarding the causes of a warm, low CO2 Miocene world. Knorr emphasizes a change in albedo due to a change in vegetation distribution whereas the Nature article focuses on changes in ocean circulation. I'm tempted to believe that the science isn't settled at least with respect to the Miocene. -
Philippe Chantreau at 03:10 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
NSherrard, most of the (very large) volatility in the price of the oil barrel is owed to speculation. "Pure" oil speculation consists of buying and selling oil without ever taking possession of a single drop of it. It does, in fact, represent a problem for the purpose of working our way out of oil dependence. Right now there is no political will to regulate the parasites cashing in on the system without adding any value to anything. As push comes to shove, which will inevitably happen, low-hanging fruits for easing oil prices will be picked first and the enormous speculation will be eliminated, giving everybody the impression that oil is cheap and pllentiful again, for a little while. As with other kinds of speculation, it is a far greater threat to economies than any large scale action to curb GH gas emissions. As a matter of fact, it is easy to demonstrate that the behaviors of the important actors of Wall Street and other big markets are largely responsible for every major depression or recession that has happened since, and including, the Great Depression. -
NSherrard at 02:40 AM on 12 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Slightly off-topic, but related to the post, how can the increase in crude oil price from $35 a barrel in 2004 to $144 a barrel in 2008 have anything to do with "unrest in Libya and elsewhere in the Middle East" which began in December 2010? The price and future (and future price!) of oil is inextricably linked to the fate of our climate. I have not yet seen a satisfactory explanation from any government report of the behavior of the price of oil over the past decade. Someone somewhere is obfuscating. -
JohnMashey at 02:17 AM on 12 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
re: 16 Tom "directed their submissions almost exclusively to him, and ceased submissions after their "gig" was discovered. " Note that we don't actually *know* that, although it seems likely. We don't know anything about papers submitted, but rejected, only the ones actually published. I'd guess your conjeecture is true, but we really don't know. "published almost exclusively through him, and essentially ceased publication after their "gig" was discovered. " -
dana1981 at 01:04 AM on 12 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
MarkR @1 - yes we certainly can't tease out the exact effects of the carbon pricing system on the RGGI states' economies. However, as noted in the post, the contrarians like Monckton and the Koch brothers have said that these types of systems will spell doom for the economies of whatever states and countries implement them. That is pure alarmism, as RGGI demonstrates. Of course as with all climate myths, the fact that it is disproven by reality won't stop the contrarians from continuing to make the argument. -
Albatross at 00:10 AM on 12 June 2012Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Hi Tom @5, Yes, that is a good read and exposes more of the errors and misrepresentations in Easterbrook's talk. It is hardly a surprise that shoddy "science" is being presented at Heartland "climate" conferences, but still importnant to document. -
CBDunkerson at 23:55 PM on 11 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
John, technically yes... but in reality most retirees pay no income tax because the deductions are greater than the tax which would be due. The exceptions are usually cases where some other form of income is still coming in. Also, most states do not subject social security returns to income tax. -
John Hartz at 23:36 PM on 11 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
CB Dunkerson: In the US, retirement income, including social security, is subject to federal and state income taxes. In the US, the majority of adults do not belong to a political party. -
CBDunkerson at 20:15 PM on 11 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
MarkR, I think I can safely say that most of the American people aren't paying enough attention to be insulted. Last year the GOP came out with a bit about half of all Americans paying no taxes (really income taxes, but they always seem to forget to include that word). It was a big deal with angry rants on major 'news' programs. I felt horribly embarrassed for the retirees brought on the shows to denounce these "filthy leeches"... not realizing that they constituted the majority of the people in question (i.e. they're retired... they have no income... ergo no income tax). The vast majority of Americans have no idea what is going on and just accept whatever their chosen party tells them... even when that is directly at odds with what the party was telling them last year. Thus, the fact that reality proves the 'carbon pricing will destroy the economy' claims to be complete nonsense doesn't really matter. A good deal of what the people who believe that hold to be true is complete nonsense. They aren't about to change now. -
MarkR at 18:12 PM on 11 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
In the US the fossil fuel lobby has been saying that any climate action would be too expensive and ruin the economy. Since the US was recently around 20 tons CO2 per person and European nations around 10 tons (France ~6 and UK ~10 iirc?) the argument from the lobbyists is basically 'America is so incompetent compared to Europe that if we gave ourselves 30 years to match what they're already doing, it would destroy America!' Which is ridiculous, America isn't the useless incompetent country that the lobbyists are trying to persuade the people & politicians it is. I'm surprised the American people aren't more insulted. -
MarkR at 18:08 PM on 11 June 2012Carbon Pricing Alarmists Disproven by the Reality of RGGI
I think the important thing we can take from this is that these data aren't enough to say whether the policy cost x% or had benefits of x%. the alarmist claims about demolishing economies are obviously far wrong. -
Tom Curtis at 11:15 AM on 11 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
Perhaps Knorr et al, 2011 will help put the above article in perspective:"Proxy records from the Miocene epoch (∼23-5 Ma) indicate a warmer climate than today in spite of lower atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations in the range of preindustrial levels. As yet the simulation of a warm Miocene climate with these low CO2 values has proven to be a challenge. In this study we present climate simulations of the Late Miocene (11-7 Ma) with a preindustrial CO2 level, using a coupled atmosphere-ocean general circulation model (AOGCM). The simulated global mean surface temperature of ∼17.8 °C represents a significantly warmer climate than today. We have analyzed the relative importance of tectonic and vegetation changes as forcing factors. We find that the strongest temperature increase is due to the Late Miocene vegetation distribution, which is more than three times stronger than the impact induced by tectonic alterations. Furthermore, a combination of both forcing factors results in a global temperature increase which is lower than the sum of the individual forcing effects. Energy balance estimates suggest that a reduction in the planetary albedo and a positive water vapor feedback in a warmer atmosphere are the dominating mechanisms to explain the temperature increase. Each of these factors contributes about one half to the global temperature rise of ∼3 K. Our results suggest that a much warmer climate during the Late Miocene can be reconciled with CO2 concentrations similar to preindustrial values."
Also, for reference, here is the abstract of the article referred to by the OP. -
Rob Honeycutt at 10:39 AM on 11 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
Martin @ 7... CO2 is the "biggest" control knob, not the only control knob. -
John Hartz at 10:28 AM on 11 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
Point of clarification:"The Miocene is a geological epoch of the Neogene Period and extends from about 23.03 to 5.332 million years ago (Ma). The Miocene was named by Sir Charles Lyell. Its name comes from the Greek words μείων (meiōn, “less”) and καινός (kainos, “new”) and means "less recent" because it has 18% fewer modern sea invertebrates than the Pliocene. The Miocene follows the Oligocene Epoch and is followed by the Pliocene Epoch. The Miocene is the first epoch of the Neogene Period. The earth went from the Oligocene Epoch through the Miocene and into the Pliocene as it cooled into a series of Ice Ages. The Miocene boundaries are not marked by a single distinct global event but consist rather of regional boundaries between the warmer Oligocene and the cooler Pliocene. The plants and animals of the Miocene were fairly modern. Mammals and birds were well-established. Whales, seals, and kelp spread. The Miocene Epoch is of particular interest to geologists and palaeoclimatologists as major phases of Himalayan Uplift had occurred during the Miocene Epoch affecting monsoonal patterns in the Asia, which were interlinked with Northern Hemisphere glaciation."
Source: WikipediaModerator Response: TC: When quoting another source, quoted text should be enclosed in inverted commas and marked of from other text by indenting (using the [blockquote][/blockquote] command. This post has been edited to comply with this standard. -
Bob Loblaw at 09:40 AM on 11 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Dana: think of how many papers Michaels could have gotten published elsewhere if there wasn't a conspiracy against him! Seven per journal, dozens and dozens of journals. ;-) -
SirCharles at 07:51 AM on 11 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
The study explains a wider local effect in a narrow period some 12 million years ago. So what? Interesting is the clue about the increased sensitivity which has been stromg for more than 500,000 years. More important: For more than 20 million years the planet hasn't shown higher CO2 concentrations than the rapidely rising current ones. At that stage earth was about six Celsius warmer! -
Tristan at 06:15 AM on 11 June 2012New research from last week 20/2012
Perhaps this should be edited in light of the recent developments in the Gergis paper. -
kampmannpeine at 05:32 AM on 11 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
@1 Dave - I am eagerly awaiting the future denialists (in Europe) commenting on that finding ... we'll see -
dana1981 at 04:28 AM on 11 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Ah but Bob, while the pals got a great many papers published in CR during this timeframe, they were also able to get papers published elsewhere. Michaels for example got 7 published in CR and 7 published in other journals at the same time. -
Martin at 03:46 AM on 11 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
I always thought that CO2 was the control knob. This is the first time I've heard that other factors play a major role in determining global temperature. Does the Nature article explain why the thermocline was so deep at the time? How would the ocean circulation have to change to make our modern world cooler? -
Bob Loblaw at 01:53 AM on 11 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Although I also agree with John, Tom, and Dana, I can also imagine that the De Freitas et al group think that their collusion just represents an example of how thorough the "establishment" conspiracy against them was - only by setting up their own "non-biased" editor at a journal outside the clutches of the mainstream scientists could they succeed at getting their "brilliance" published. When you view things as a conspiracy, it's easy to reject any "evidence" that disagrees with your world view. To paraphrase from Monty Python's The Oscar Wilde Sketch, De Freitas et al probably think that their papers "shine out like a shaft of gold when all around is dark", when most everyone else in the climate scientist community recognizes that they are "like a stream of bat's piss". -
Tom Curtis at 20:56 PM on 10 June 2012Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Gareth Renowden, who has tracked down many of Easterbrook's other shonky claims has now made a forthright analysis of Easterbrook's latest claims. Well worth a read. -
Rob Painting at 17:10 PM on 10 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
Sailrick - what do your contrarian adversaries think is happening to all those fossil fuel emissions? The simplest counter-argument is that carbon isotope ratios reveal that the CO2 cannot be coming from a volcanic source. See SkS post: Comparing CO2 emissions to CO2 levels. Dave123- the problem I have with the article is that it is not enlightening. Earth's climate was certainly sensitive to atmospheric CO2 concentration before the Miocene, and afterwards. What was so special about the Miocene? The article doesn't help in clearing this up. -
Tristan at 16:54 PM on 10 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
sailrick http://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htmModerator Response: TC: Link made live. -
Dave123 at 15:24 PM on 10 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
I suppose you can respond- 1) that an explanation of the differences was offered (does the full paper indicate that models were applied and failed without basic changes in heat distribution assignments and ocean current patterns...but succeeded when adjusted?) and 2) It's not comforting that it was hotter with lower CO2...that just makes the current increases scarier. But the people grasping at those straws aren't good listeners or thinkers. When the science is resolved on this, count on another myth surviving all attempts to put a stake through its heart. -
sailrick at 14:20 PM on 10 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
This is off topic, but I keep seeing skeptic comments on the internet, that say volcanoes below the sea are where CO2 is coming from. Is there a post that covers that? -
ubrew12 at 14:17 PM on 10 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
Dave123: I've already seen it used just that way. -
Dave123 at 10:44 AM on 10 June 2012Today's Climate More Sensitive to Carbon Dioxide Than in Past 12 Million Years
This is fascinating. But I can't help thinking that fake skeptics will seize upon this genuine inquiry as another means of saying "See, Climate Scientists can't explain something so we don't know what's going on now" -
dana1981 at 09:30 AM on 10 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Tom Curtis @16 - I agree, the fact that the pal's CR submissions began when de Freitas started at the journal, dried up after he left, and that he handled the majority of their CR submissions, is pretty damning evidence. -
Tom Curtis at 07:53 AM on 10 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Without going into the detailed research that John Mashey did, what is most damning to me is the fact that the pals began frequent submissions to Climate Research only on the appointment of Chris De Freitas as Associate Editor, directed their submissions almost exclusively to him, and ceased submissions after their "gig" was discovered. That pattern seems to indicate clearly that they did not think their articles could were worthy of publication, and would need De Freitas to shepherd their articles through peer review. It also strongly suggest that they new before submission that De Freitas would do exactly that. Tellingly, fake "skeptic" accusations of "pal review" are never accompanied by evidence of such selective submission patterns. -
dana1981 at 05:21 AM on 10 June 2012Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality
Note that a SkS contributor emailed this post to Easterbrook, so he should now be aware that his IPCC-related assertions are factually wrong. It appears he has declined to comment on the post or respond to the email, however. -
dana1981 at 05:07 AM on 10 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
actually thoughtful @13 - it's a good point that right now when unemployment is high is exactly the right time to be funding infrastructure projects like the transition to renewable energy for the overall benefit of the economy. -
JohnMashey at 02:27 AM on 10 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
dana1981 added the nice graph to visualize the connections, as opposed to proving anything. I would be happy to hear critiques of my original paper's research, by informed readers who: a) Read my entire paper. b) Read all the red-labeled papers (ones labeled A-U) c) Read the rest of the de Freitas-reviewed papers, a-m d) At least read the abstracts of the rest. The spreadsheet was published, listing ~700 papers, all with URLs. e) Having done that, feel free to argue with my categorizations,i.e., columns D and E, especially of those marked in red. I do not claim these are perfect, and of course I'd be especially interested if anyone finds appears that deserve to be red, or argue informedly that a red one deserve not to be. f) Then, pick a random dozen or two of the non-categorized articles edited by people other than Davis or Khandekar, evaluate them in the same way as I did, and categorize them in the same way as I did, with notes like mine on pp.9-14. -
ribwoods at 00:05 AM on 10 June 2012The 5 characteristics of scientific denialism
In "Update 16 April 2012" at article's end, the link to "article written by Mark and Chris Hoofnagle" is incorrect (http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about.php) and should be http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/ as it is given for the phrase "first suggested by Mark and Chris Hoofnagle" at the end of the article's second paragraph. -
ribwoods at 23:33 PM on 9 June 2012Fred Singer Promotes Fossil Fuels through Myths and Misinformation
Re: "... a pro-Mitt Romney (the US Republican Party 2012 presidential nominee) editorial ..." Romney is the presumptive Republican presidential nominee because of the delegates he's accumulated in state primary elections, but cannot be the official nominee until the Republican National Convention, at the end of August, makes him so. -
chriskoz at 20:47 PM on 9 June 2012Richard Alley Looks at The Big Picture
Alex, Did you miss/misunderstood that "ostrich thing"? Watch it again, then. It does not say "Don't be an Ostrich" but "How to talk to an ostrich". I think proverbial "ostriches" are those who never take their heads out of the sand. Sure, they will not understand that series, possibly even dig the heads deeper. An example is Fred Singer with his mind so far from reality as discussed here to be absolutely incurable case. That's a classic ostrich. Any regrets that this series hurts the feelings of such man? Of course none. Same principle applies as what Richard Alley nicely explains in this video: minor cases do not matter. What does matter is a big picture. And big picture in this case is what sane people are going to think/do about it. What the decision makers, like Mitt Romney are going to do. -
bill4344 at 20:15 PM on 9 June 2012Richard Alley Looks at The Big Picture
Exactly... and at any rate, it's a whole lot less contentious than the 'D' word! It's well worth watching the whole 'Operators Manual' series (i.e. the full hour-long programs). Alley is a very likeable presenter. One could certainly direct ostriches to them... -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:04 PM on 9 June 2012Pal Review - the True Story and the Fairy Tale
Rufus9 wrote "Papers are pulled or corrected all the time, but likely not at a sufficient frequency to correct all errors" This is a very unrealistic expectation! In my experience the majority of papers either have significant flaws in the methodology, experimental sections that do not adequately support the conclusions, or flawed intepretation of the results. Peer review is only ever a sanity check, nothing more, and it is unwise to assume any paper is correct simply because it appears in a journal. "Group think" is not really a problem in peer review; the scientific mindset has no problem finding faults in anything, whether it agrees with their preconceptions or not. Personally I view the "group think" as mere rhetoric designed to discredit a particular branch of science that another branch doesn't like. It has nothing to do with science IMHO. The major problems with peer review is the "publish or perish" nature of academia, which means there is great pressure on all of us to publish in quantity often at the expense of quality. This is becuase it is hard to make an objective metric that measures quality (at least hard to make one that operates without a delay of 5+ years). This means that (i) there are many more papers published than there used to be (ii) academics have less time to review them than they used to do (iii) comments papers have little or no value, so academics have pretty much stopped writing them. The result is an explosion of the number of journal and a reduction in quality control. Nothing to do with "group think", everything to do with the economics. As I said, peer review has always only been regarded as a sanity check, nothing more (unless you are lucky enough to have really good reviewrs). In the past, poor papers get published, but they get ignored by the research community, so nothing needs to be done. It used to be that particularly bad papers recieved comments refuting them to make sure the are ignored, but that additional quality control no longer really exists. The problem these days is that the papers are discussed outside the research community, e.g. on climate blogs, that don't generally have the scientific background to properly understand them, and bad papers are no longer ignore as there will always be some that take them seriously, no matter how bad they are (e.g. any paper that argues that the rise in CO2 is a natural phenomenon). Peer review isn't emotionally charged, at least not in the sciences, a mountain is being made from a molehill IMHO. -
Rob Painting at 16:31 PM on 9 June 2012Richard Alley Looks at The Big Picture
Alex, it appears the videos are targeted at those that talk to climate change ostriches.
Prev 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 Next
