Environmental Research Letters strikes back at: ‘Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view’

Environmental Research Letters has published a statement on the growing Bengtsson Climate McCarthyism scandal, now a front page issue in The Times, claiming their innocence over the accusation that it rejected Bengtsson’s paper because of his connection to climate scepticism. Here’s the part of the reviewers report that is at issue: 

Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement 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.

Now that Bengtsson has been put on “double-secret probabtion” in the peer review world, and the ERL peer review has become the center of the maelstrom, of course ERL would issue a statement essentially saying “nothing to see here, move along”.

Here is the statement:

============================================================

Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times

16 May 2014Bristol, UK

Dr. Nicola Gulley, Editorial Director at IOP Publishing, says, “The draft journal paper by Lennart Bengtsson that Environmental Research Letters declined to publish, which was the subject of this morning’s front page story of The Times, contained errors, in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore could not be published in the journal.”

“The decision not to publish had absolutely nothing to do with any ‘activism’ on the part of the reviewers or the journal, as suggested in The Times’ article; the rejection was solely based on the content of the paper not meeting the journal’s high editorial standards, ” she continues.

“The referees selected to review this paper were of the highest calibre and are respected members of the international science community. The comments taken from the referee reports were taken out of context and therefore, in the interests of transparency, we have worked with the reviewers to make the full reports available.”

The full quote actually said “Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement 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.”

“As the referees report state, ‘The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low.’ This means that the study does not meet ERL’s requirement for papers to significantly advance knowledge of the field.”

“Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson’s questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance.”

“As the report reads, ‘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.”

“Far from hounding ‘dissenting’ views from the field, Environmental Research Letters positively encourages genuine scientific innovation that can shed light on complicated climate science.”

“The journal Environmental Research Letters is respected by the scientific community because it plays a valuable role in the advancement of environmental science – for unabashedly not publishing oversimplified claims about environmental science, and encouraging scientific debate.”

“With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of ‘balance’ on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.”

Please find the reviewer report below quoted in The Times, exactly as sent to Lennart Bengttsson.

We are getting permission from the other referees for this paper to make their reports available as soon as possible.

REFEREE REPORT(S):

COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent “assessments” of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

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 understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of “errors” being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of “reasons” and “causes” for the differences.

- The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
– The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some “unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors” but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately “adjusted” to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
– The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
– Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn’t fit the same ranges)

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.

==============================================================

Source: http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

Bishop Hill notes this about the reports:

==============================================================

Regarding the scientific issues, the journal says it is trying to get permission to publish the referees’ reports and indeed the first of these appears at the bottom of the statement. As far as we can ascertain from this, Bengtsson’s paper focused on similar ground to the Lewis/Crok GWPF report, namely the stark difference between GCM estimates of climate sensitivity and those derived from the observational record and energy budgets. The referee quoted seems to object to this approach because of claimed inadequacies in the nergy budget approach. He says in essence that you wouldn’t expect consistency because the energy budget approach is flawed.

People closer to the climate sensitivity debate need to look at the full review, but  noted something rather interesting among the list of objections to energy budget models. This is the paragraph that caught my attention:

Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn’t fit the same ranges).

==============================================================

It seems to me that Climate Science is reaching a tipping point. After Climategate, we were told that all of those nasty emails were taken out of context, and that “real climate scientists” don’t really act like that, and it is shameful for climate skeptics to label these instances as indicative of systemic problems that are endemic to climate science and the peer review process.

And now, here we are, right back where we started at Climategate.

About these ads

77 thoughts on “Environmental Research Letters strikes back at: ‘Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view’

  1. ‘Less then helpful’…an interesting spelling mistake. Mosher? Would you mind finding out who would write that way please…

  2. It’s billions and xx.000 jobs soley based on the political established UNFCCC.
    In other Words it’s policy based “science” hitting the “FAN” science?

  3. This is a milestone day for AGW hardcore believers. The fact that the telegraph put this on page is highly significant. I think you will now find that MSM journalists will pounce on the greatest hoax of this century story soon or from now on. I think Steyn will destroy Mann utterly in court, the APS will issue a statement that it does not condone the AGW theory and Obama will back down totally from AGW etc as is happening in Australia where ALL climate Institutions are being deprived of funds or shut down, If I was Mann, Gavin, UEA, Climate Nature Editors, Environmental Research letter editors, member of IPCC supporting ideological AGW etc I would start considering a new career and getting out of AGW fast before the big lawyers money starts coming after you for Fraud, deceipt and support of such. Ther are gonna be a lot of unhappy people who put money into this fraud under false pretences.

  4. Before we can explain why global temperatures and the Earth’s energy budget is not keeping up with the theory’s and the model’s predictions, we have to first recognize that this is really the case.

    There have been a few papers demonstrating this, but climate science and the IPCC have stubbornly refused to simply accept that it is actually occurring. Dessler just published a paper last week that said everything was fine.

    So, given there are only a few published papers identifying this, there should be no reason to reject the paper because it doesn’t fully explain why there is a discrepancy. Most of the field doesn’t even accept that there is a discrepancy in the first place.

    Have a look at Prof. Lennart Bengtsson’s publication list and tell me he is not qualified to have a paper published on this topic.

    http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/1788

  5. Among the frivolous reasons for rejection:

    “AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology”

    Paraphrasing, satellite observations are newfangled technology that can’t be trusted, but the IPCC climate models are golden.

    Dr. Roy Spencer commenting on the Bengtsson paper today:

    “this seems to be the direction the IPCC is going, too. If the models and the observations disagree, the observations must be wrong.”

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/05/the-bullying-of-bengtsson-and-the-coming-climate-disruption-hypocalypse/#comment-114937

  6. “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.”
    Do I understand this correctly to mean that IPCC models are not related to reality and, therefore, cannot be compared with observational studies? Innovation in Climate Science (as required by the journal) means paying attention to model output and ignoring observations if they don’t fit?
    Please correct me if I am wrong.

  7. It is the end of the beginning. I am already seeing my future nostalgia for the days when climate scientists identified themselves with the plucky but nerdy heroes of science fiction who were saving the world. The drama! Sky is the limit funding! The humor! Who would have thought science could be so fun. Well, the answer is of course, it is not science that is the fun, it is the petty politics of human beings that provides the drama. When climate science returns to one of a number of disciplines primarily of interest to its practitioners I can see myself quoting Lord Mastumoto “I will miss our conversations.”

  8. And the rats begin to scatter and hide, but it is too late. They have already tripped the trap.

    Justice for all, not just some, will prevail.

    Is it time to crowd source legal action against these defiant bullys?

    This type of behavior would not be tolerated anywhere else in society. Why has it been acceptable in the climate community? Why?

  9. From the article above:
    “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).”

    Gee. When they present these IPCC plots as predictions to the general public in order to bilk billions of dollars from us in the form of taxes, shouldn’t they put a note along with the predictions that they are not actually comparable to what temperatures we will actually experience?

  10. AGW is so entrenched within the scientific community and political sphere, it will not go away. Just watch.

  11. You think real data matters?! LOL! This is climate science, we have models doncha know. The models make data, and then we can model that too. The Climate is unnecessary to climate science.

  12. To paraphrase Bertholt Brecht “If reality doesn’t agree with the models, it’s time to change reality”

  13. As many have known or suspected, their statement illustrates the guiding principle that determines what gets published. It doesnt get published if “it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

    And it seems obvious whether or not bad science is retracted is also determined by the likelihood of opening doors to skeptical idea. AMS justified hiding half data ( a la ENRON} because Parmesan’s work has been the foundation of subsequent ecological climate catastrophe papers.

    Read: How the American Meteorological Society Justified Publishing Half-Truths

    http://landscapesandcycles.net/American_Meterological_Society_half-truth.html

  14. It remindes me of the ole addage: Fingures don’t lie but liars can figure.

  15. Some familiar names are on the journal’s executive board. One extremely familiar name.

  16. Yea, the paper didn’t “advance” the knowledge of climate science. And why? It opened the door for “skeptics” to show errors. Ok, I think I’ve got it; only papers that tow the dogmatic party line are ones that actually “advance” the science? Is that about right?

  17. Shouldn’t the response be better science? Blaming somebody else is a poor excuse. Just keep on trying and studying more.

  18. It’s funny that they think modeling studies that note they realize their results are at odds with reality are considered (somehow) to be innovative but pointing out how blatantly irrelevant these studies are does not advance the knowledge in the field???

  19. The story in The Telegraph today:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10835291/Scientists-accused-of-suppressing-research-because-of-climate-sceptic-argument.html

    “The research fellow from the University of Reading believes a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publicatoin in a leading journal because of an intolerance of dissenting views about climate change by scientists who peer-reviewed the work.”

    The Telegraph readership is 12.2 million monthly and their demographic is mostly higher and intermediate managerial, administrative or professional.

  20. A simple critique that shows the IPCC “consensus” to be bogus is MORE powerful and more important than an “innovative” critique that stands on less certain (as “innovative” suggests) grounds. Demanding “innovative” when basic is sufficient to knock a leg out from the dominant paradigm is like, as Krauthammer says about the IRS investigation, stonewalling for 2 years then saying “that was 2 years ago dude.” Only here the stonewalling has been going on for 20 years.

  21. If ECS was not presented as PDFs in AR4, then exactly what were those curves in WG1 chapter 10.5 box 10.2?
    This reviewers comments themselves are at ‘factual variance’ with the final published text of AR4, something the ERL knew or should have known. Moreover, Nic Lewis has posted on how Forster and Gregory 2006 was transmogrified by AR4 from whatnot actually said (ECS mode 1.6) to what AR4 said it said (climate etc 7/5/11). See my more general post at Climate Etc “what climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment” on 7/20/12. Or see the longer bersion complete with the fundamental model flaws explaining why the model ECS comes out to high in my last book in the chapter on climate.
    This sensitivity discrepancy between observation and model has been out there evennthoughnthe IPCC has tried to suppress it. And others have ignored it. For example, Annans 2011 paper in Climate Change using informed priors to contrain the high end tail resulted in an ECS of 1.8 to 1.9 ( depending on prior), published in his figure 2 and NEVER mentioned in the paper.
    The reviewer did not want all this acknowledged in ERL lest ‘errors’ be inferred. Nuts on inferred. Errors were already proven. Bengtssom was simply too polite to take that next step.
    ERL has ignored the first rule of holes, and kept shoveling.

  22. “…As the referees report state, ‘The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low.’ This means that the study does not meet ERL’s requirement for papers to significantly advance knowledge of the field…”

    A totally subjective opinion.

    “…Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson’s questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance…”

    As in; better luck next time you old four eyed skeptic? Oh, yeah, very professional.

    “…As the report reads, ‘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…”

    In other words; we don’t like what you’ve written, we want you to do some other research to keep you busy till next time..

    “…Far from hounding ‘dissenting’ views from the field, Environmental Research Letters positively encourages genuine scientific innovation that can shed light on complicated climate science…”

    More doubletalk. So long as those papers are approved for the CAGW faithful.

    “…The journal Environmental Research Letters is respected by the scientific community because it plays a valuable role in the advancement of environmental science – for unabashedly not publishing oversimplified claims about environmental science, and encouraging scientific debate…”

    Appeal to authority? How classic. Makes one wonder where they found such an example.

    “…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…”

    After only stating personal opinions he declares a research author’s claims false?

    Now supposedly the paper is seeking permission of the other reviewers to publish their reviews? Want to bet only one other gives their permission, the other critical reviewer?

    Interesting wait for the list of reviewers; any guesses as to who is on that list and whether they’re familiar names?

  23. It is hard to maintain double standards rationally – even for people who are naturally duplicitous. Their own words are going to haunt them. But they do not have to worry about sycophants coming to their defense. No matter how contorted the justification is.

  24. I highly recommend Steve McIntyre’s post on this matter at Climate Audit. It is clear, concise, to the point, and devastating. He explains that, in the one reviewer comment already published, no genuine reason for rejection was offered.

  25. ”the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage”

    The models we trained and validated on observations with limited coverage (and spurious adjustments); therefore the models can only produce (calculate) results that have no more relationship to “true global mean” than the observations.

  26. What is remarkable about the review is how similar it is to the content of AGW alarm papers where the most ridiculous claims are made with trumped up arguments that can only be described as facetious.

    Reviewer claims models are not expected to match measurements because the models have global coverage. Coverage, in the sense of making stuff up for the whole world. The statement is outrageous.

    Further the models are also not expected to match heat calculations because the heat models> are wrong. No possibility the climate models are wrong.

    Like they said in CG1, they have to keep it out even if the reasons are as unreal as the output of a climate model. Oh, I am paraphrasing. It said ‘even if I have to redefine peer review’. Fascinating the evident fear of having reality grace the pages of their journal.

  27. Well, this is just common and very much familiar “critique” to those who tried publishing works that revise or modify foundational principles of any science. The critique goes like that: simplistic, not verified by experiment, and nothing new. Wait, wait… what’s the error? Nothing about error… Instead, just opinion – quality is insufficient for publication in such esteemed journal. Peer pressure review that allows publication of only “novel” atto-megaSchrodinger-ultra-nonlinear-Higgs-biomemetic-bigdata science. Anything less that that – simplistic.

  28. ”The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears”

    So, we can’t compare apples to pears? I don’t see why not as long as we compare attributes with the same units such as ECS and TCR.

  29. Its time for public to demand open (named and unrestricted for public access) review process for the publically funded research. The same should go for the reviews of the proposed research submitted to gov agencies.

  30. “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).”

    And, therefore, they are worse then useless?.

  31. The most effective counterattack on ERL would be to list and critique the substandard warmist papers it has published.

  32. Models they control observational science they do not. Simple according to the AGW believers – observational science has to go. Thanks to the Times for publishing what WUWT has shown for years – science at its very best. The question is – will any other papers develop the nerve to venture where the only the Brits have traveled, or will the rest of the media ignore as usual? I say they will ignore this paper as per normal.

  33. The ERL reviewers involved with the process of peer reviewing the Bengtsson et al paper should not remain anonymous when their reviews are publicly posted. Desist from the faceless reviewers of open science; it is a self-contradictory situation in the transparent spirit of the open scientific process. Identities are required to responsibly and credibly defend their arguable science assessments.

    Uncloak the gatekeepers.

    Needed I think the MSM and the science loving public should shout for Bengtsson et al to have a public scientific debate face to face with those reviewers and the ERL editor(s) involved. That will restore decency to this situation involved ERL and Bengtsson et al.

    John

  34. “Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson’s questions,…

    So the paper was rejected on the sound grounds that the paper was just stating the obvious.

    ERL acknowledges that everyone knows the IPCC predictions are inconsistent and therefore unjustified.

    Bye Bye Baby. Bye Bye Bathwater.

  35. Theo Goodwin says:
    May 16, 2014 at 9:57 am

    I highly recommend Steve McIntyre’s post on this matter at Climate Audit. It is clear, concise, to the point, and devastating. He explains that, in the one reviewer comment already published, no genuine reason for rejection was offered.

    Yeah. It’s actually better than that IMO. Model discrepancy from observations isn’t an error, because no consistency was expected in the first place. Ain’t that the truth. ;) Ah, from the mouth of babes and scientists.
    I’m surprised AW hasn’t linked a top post to it yet.

  36. “This is a milestone day for AGW hardcore believers”

    Midway was a milestone, too, but it didn’t mean that the Pacific War was over. The bulk of the fight is still in front of us.

  37. michael hart alerted: “Some familiar names are on the journal’s executive board. One extremely familiar name.”

    Peter H Gleick = identity theft criminal.
    Stefan Rahmstorf = fake (virtual) “sea level” guy that has been critiqued by Tom Moriarty’s Climate Sanity blog on the blogroll here.

    Both are on the small Executive Board, not just the Advisory Board:

    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/page/Editorial%20Board

    This journal also rejected Tol’s debunking of Cook’s 97% paper:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/17/erl-rejects-richard-tols-comment-on-cook-et-al-2013-but-wont-say-who/

  38. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources.

    Aren’t “expert based assessments” opinions? Did the reviewer just state that the “IPCC estimates” are not scientific? An opinion or “expert based assessment” is not science.

  39. Lots of good comments above. Let me single out this by Scott Scarborough: Gee. When they present these IPCC plots as predictions to the general public in order to bilk billions of dollars from us in the form of taxes, shouldn’t they put a note along with the predictions that they are not actually comparable to what temperatures we will actually experience?

    I wouldn’t have written “bilk” (possibly “request” instead) but your point about their double-talk is spot on. We have been told simultaneously that the model outputs are not “predictions” (so their inaccuracy is not a scientific test), and that the climate will turn out just as modeled (so society has to move away from fossil fuels.)

  40. “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.” Is there any such contribution out there in the literature today? If not, would it even be allowed in any peer reviewed journals? It would take dozens of papers to really do a “careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis”…..

  41. 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.

    A high impact factor for writing what was already known? How often do journals reject papers with estimated “high impact factors” and no documented actual error? This reviewer is creating the “perception of bad faith” that Gavin Schmidt tweeted about yesterday.

  42. “…The journal Environmental Research Letters is respected by the scientific community…”

    HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Dream on!! Your bird cage liner journal published Cook, et al. 2013. Check out the “Executive Board” members of Environmental Research Letters (hat tip to Bishop Hill):

    Myles Allen University of Oxford, UK

    http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/5/23/myles-allen-on-climategate.html

    Peter H Gleick The Pacific Institute, Oakland, USA

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/tag/peter-gleick/

    Stefan Rahmstorf Potsdam University, Germany

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/22/stefan-rahmstorf-on-sea-level-vs-reality-reality-wins/

    Michelle L Bell Yale University, USA
    Air pollution, ozone, climate change, environmental health, epidemiology, climate policy

    José Goldemberg Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil

    Giles Harrison University of Reading, UK
    Physics of atmospheric aerosol particles, development of instruments for physical atmospheric measurements

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/15/solar-wind-to-lightning-strike-link-discovered/

    Tracey Holloway University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA
    Air pollution chemistry, atmospheric models, energy use, public health assessments, climate policy

    Jakob Mann Technical University of Denmark, Denmark
    Renewable energy, wind energy, turbulence and modelling

    Allen, Gleick, and Rahmstorf are proven liars with ZERO credibility. I feel sorry for the other five for having to associate themselves with these three stooges.

  43. I’ve seen papers published with less new material.

    The biggest problem, I think, with the review-critique is that some well-founded suspicions as to the cause of the difference are really unpublishable. An expansion of the paper, done properly in the direction suggested by the reviewers, would only lead to lawsuits. Also, calculations of the same physical number are supposed to be consistent, regardless of the data-source.

  44. @ Matthew R Marler says:
    May 16, 2014 at 11:39 am

    You should make adjustments as academics express themselves always in very non-straightforward manner. This reviewer meant that the “false” claims of submitted paper will have very high negative impact on progress of almost flawless climate science as deniers will use these “false” claims to attack. Does it make any sense as scientific critique though…

  45. “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”

    IPCC ranges are not comparable to observation.

    Yup, my thoughts exactly.

  46. John Whitman says:
    May 16, 2014 at 11:02 am
    Uncloak the gatekeepers.
    When I argued precisely that a few posts back, I caught a fair amount of shit thrown my way on this very blog. Perhaps there are different rules for different people…

  47. Walt the Physicist: This reviewer meant that the “false” claims of submitted paper will have very high negative impact on progress of almost flawless climate science as deniers will use these “false” claims to attack.

    I think I understand you, but the reviewer did not identify any “false” claims in the paper: everyone else, up til this reviewer, including the IPCC, has understood these different lines of evidence to be comparable. That is what supported using “expert” priors in the Bayesian methodology.

  48. lsvalgaard on May 16, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    John Whitman says:
    May 16, 2014 at 11:02 am

    Uncloak the gatekeepers.

    When I argued precisely that a few posts back, I caught a fair amount of shit thrown my way on this very blog. Perhaps there are different rules for different people…

    – – – – – – – – –

    lsvalgaard,

    Leif,

    It is a compliment to you, in my view, that virtually everyone here almost always reads carefully everything you say here and a compliment to you that you have accomplished a situation here where such a large number of commenters feel they can talk to you openly whether agreeing or disagreeing.

    Of course the reaction here to my comments isn’t in the same universe as reactions to yours. : )

    NOTE: I remember clearly some of your past comments critical of anonymity in the phases of journal review processes. I remember agreeing with you enthusiastically in my comments. It is even plausible that deep down in my subconscious you may have inspired the idea of my “uncloak the gatekeepers” phrase in this thread. Thank you.
    : )

    John

  49. If these journal “standards” where equally enforced, the journal would be nearly empty. The journal is being selective because it’s making a lot of money….

  50. @ lsvalgaard says:
    May 16, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    2John Whitman says:
    May 16, 2014 at 11:02 am

    i am joining you, Gentlemen. And I would suggest to go further. Peer review became inadequate these days. Peers (especially anonymous; however, also uncloaked – as in academic promotion) will never let someone above them to pass through. The number of people involved in scientific research became too large and competition for the funding resources too tough resulting in complete and utter corruption of selection system. It must be changed asap.

  51. The first reviewer is Steven Sherwood.
    1) Because it’s attached. He is on the Advisory Board at ERL, so permission is instant. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/page/Editorial%20Board
    2) He has recently published on this topic, this gives him priority to review paper at issue. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/31/climate-craziness-of-the-week-only-the-cooler-models-are-wrong-the-rest-say-4oc-of-warming-by-2100/)
    here he stated: “Climate sceptics like to criticize climate models for getting things wrong….”
    3) Add here too (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/mar/06/lord-lawson-climate-sceptic-thinktank) he gives expert advice
    So now we know who it is. This is the guy who claimed it should not be published because of political statement “and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

    Haha.

  52. ossqss says:
    This type of behavior would not be tolerated anywhere else in society. Why has it been acceptable in the climate community? Why?

    Technocratic Control-freak Marxist/Communist/etc types will unashamedly say/do *anything* to achieve their goals – and how dare anyone question them or their propaganda ‘science’. What makes it worse is that many of them aren’t really anywhere near as smart as they like to believe of themselves.

    They (the elites planning this scam) ideally (for them) want a multi-tiered society – a Worldwide UN Technocratic ‘Scientific’ Dictatorship ruling-over near-everyone else who must live in subservience in heavily controlled communist/marxist style agrarian subsistence enclaves… How nice [vomit].

    They intend to achieve this by manipulating us and our society, including by lying to us.

    When it’s discussed in the open it is put in to words that make it sound necessary or desirable, and those who disagree are usually put-down (verbally, so far… their intolerance for dissent against their views is oft thinly veiled).

    Luckily there are competing interests (slowing them down) who all want their own lot to be in charge – bureaucrats, scientists, Marxists/Leninists/Communists/Socialists, Corporates, and don’t forget super-wealthy UN donors who are involved in orchestrating the UN circus/freakshow.

    Some interesting reading:

    http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-editorials/editorial_2013_03.html

    https://web.archive.org/web/20130228072323/http://www.aibs.org/bioscience-press-releases/resources/Kinzig%20et%20al.pdf

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/09/08/years-setbacks-looks-world-leader/

    http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/austria_retreat_papers.pdf

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1958703/posts

    UN Blueprint: Dismantle Middle Class, Build World Government
    ^Some interesting links to follow inside!
    http://green-agenda.com/ backup: http://web.archive.org/web/20140513130548/http://green-agenda.com/
    ^Read the Quotes!

    Some somewhat related reading (just to upset the eco-fascists lurking here):

  53. “xanonymousblog says: May 16, 2014 at 7:13 pm

    The first reviewer is Steven Sherwood.”

    Great catch xanonymousblog!

  54. Give me a fricken break. Been there done that. Sent my article to one journal and they said the same thing. No new information. Sent it to another and they said, “Wow! You have something new here!” I won’t go into the whys of that polarity but it matches this: Getting published through the dog eat dog, back slapping review process is a disgusting vomit inducing spirit killing drone making process I decided I wanted no more of. The content of the IOP rebuttal letter is the very essence and odor of polishing a turd.

  55. “lsvalgaard says: May 16, 2014 at 1:49 pm

    Uncloak the gatekeepers.
    When I argued precisely that a few posts back, I caught a fair amount of shit thrown my way on this very blog. Perhaps there are different rules for different people…”

    Isvalgaard:
    I’ve long suspected that you have your own troll groupies. They only visit when you post and it’s just to disagree and nitpick with anything you say; attempt to rake you though the mud When one is devastatingly put down, they log back in with a different screen name.

    Take it as a supreme compliment. Your ideas are great, your science is solid and your attention to detail magnificent.

    Ignore the gnats and swat the peskier mosquitos.

  56. ATheoK ,

    anytime.

    ps, while we might not ever know with absolute certainty that the activist reviewer is Steven Sherwood, Science is never about “proof”, its about probability, and given the evidence, it is extremely likely (>greater than 95% probability) that the reviewer is Steven Sherwood.

  57. Eliza – let’s hope you’re right, but folks, let’s also get the word out to everyone as best we can! A major chink in the AGW armor, methinks.

  58. Leif, I’ve had it stomped into my cowboy hat and have seen it turn my black boots green, it has turned love into accusation, and stained two stellar careers, and have even had it grow legs and follow me. Why? Cuz like you, data is more important than beliefs or somebody else’s precious little toes. Oh well. Fishing season starts next weekend and rainbow trout are calling my name.

  59. ‘ i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately “adjusted” to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations,’

    There you have it – the models are not wrong, it is the satellites. Those ev1l sats are producing duff data. That’s why we have to continually adjust.

  60. xanonymousblog says:
    May 16, 2014 at 8:10 pm

    ATheoK ,

    anytime.

    ps, while we might not ever know with absolute certainty that the activist reviewer is Steven Sherwood, Science is never about “proof”, its about probability, and given the evidence, it is extremely likely (>greater than 95% probability) that the reviewer is Steven Sherwood.
    ======================

    But all can see that Gleick and Rahmstorf are in the chain of command. That comes close to summary execution for dissenters.

  61. This has one interesting feature.

    Dr Nicola Gulley was been at IOP for a long time.

    I can remember her as the operational editor for a paper I was reviewing.
    Some of the calculations were complete nonsence, as in there was a
    major breakdown in the reliability of the calculations. Basically, some
    of the results were complete nonsense and I recommended rejection,
    one reason being I could do the same calculations myself and knew
    the correct answer.

    I was over-ruled.by Nicola Gulley. So, I wrote a comment on the article.
    Lucky for me, the author had integrity. I suspect, they realized there
    was a major oops when they saw my results. They redid calculations
    with numerical issues fixed and we were all in agreement. This was
    fortunate because I suspect that the comment would have been rejected
    (some of the likely referees from England actively dislike me). So comment
    and rejoinder (the authors published corrected results).

    Anyway, after that episode I ceased refereeing for the IOP.

    I really do not think it is not appropriate to publicly reveal referee reports,
    unless the name of the referee is also published.

  62. Gulley directly contradicts herself in these statements within her written response:


    “The decision not to publish had absolutely nothing to do with any ‘activism’ on the part of the reviewers or the journal, as suggested in The Times’ article; the rejection was solely based on the content of the paper not meeting the journal’s high editorial standards, ” she continues.

    “Far from hounding ‘dissenting’ views from the field,Environmental Research Letters positively encourages genuine scientific innovation that can shed light on complicated climate science.”

    and

    “With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of ‘balance’ on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.”

    So at the same time they are “far from hounding fissenting views” and “encouraging innovative contributions to difficult climate science” – but also belive that balance in the climate debate is “false and damaging” and societally irresponsible.

    So which is it Nicola?

    Either she just doesn’t notice the contradiction, or is so well trained and indoctrinated in Orwellian double-speak that she couldn’t communicate in any other way.

  63. “Non Nomen says: May 17, 2014 at 1:31 am

    xanonymousblog says:
    May 16, 2014 at 8:10 pm

    ATheoK ,

    anytime.

    ps, while we might not ever know with absolute certainty that the activist reviewer is Steven Sherwood, Science is never about “proof”, its about probability, and given the evidence, it is extremely likely (>greater than 95% probability) that the reviewer is Steven Sherwood.
    ======================

    But all can see that Gleick and Rahmstorf are in the chain of command. That comes close to summary execution for dissenters.”

    Resounding agreement! Couple them with Fred’s interaction example with Nicola and IOP and it’s definitely a place where people leave their morals and integrity outside, probably under a rock that is always damp.

  64. “As the referees report state, ‘The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low.’ This means that the study does not meet ERL’s requirement for papers to significantly advance knowledge of the field.”

    “Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson’s questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance.”

    “As the report reads, ‘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.”

    “Far from hounding ‘dissenting’ views from the field, Environmental Research Letters positively encourages genuine scientific innovation that can shed light on complicated climate science.”
    ————————————————-
    Is ERL looking to turn honest?
    Maybe someone should take them up on their offer and write that paper.
    See if they publish it or would it “not significantly advance knowledge of the field.”
    Interesting times, alright.
    cn

  65. Ugh, tired of all this double speak. I have to force me to read it through to see their excuses not to publish…
    You don’t want to publish this and have the editor to be forced to resign isn’t it? Compare models to reality and show they are wrong? How dare they….
    Contaminated area with 100% pure Lysenkoism

  66. ”Dr. Nicola Gulley, Editorial Director at IOP Publishing, says, “The draft journal paper by Lennart Bengtsson that Environmental Research Letters declined to publish, which was the subject of this morning’s front page story of The Times, contained errors, in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore could not be published in the journal”

    However, this is a very concise admission of the failure of the models to reflect observations,
    I think this is indeed a significant advancement in the field of Climate Science. Now perhaps we can have everything put back on track and move on.

    Eamon.

Comments are closed.