@A Lovell
Ah, and finally I have found the agenda defined on that comedy site you linked.
And so, based on my research, I have become personally convinced that ‘climate change’ is being used to implement a much deeper agenda. In order to protect Gaia from the ‘voracious beast of capitalism’ they must strike at the beast’s lifeblood – fossil fuels. And in order to transition to ‘sustainable global earth community’ they must implement a new form of governance which will allow them to control, and ultimately reduce, human activity on this planet.
Steve Reynolds
February 2, 2009 1:31 pm
Benjamin P,
I saw your comment over at RealClimate complaining about the quality of the science here. I’m responding here because of the likelihood of being censored at RC.
While I think Anthony’s site is very useful for the original posts, I can see some truth in your opinion in some of the comments here, and do find the comments much less useful. But Anthony is very successful with his comment moderation policy, so who am I to tell him to change?
Have you done much reading at climataudit.org ? I think the policies there address many of your complaints, and still do a very good job of questioning the ‘consensus’ on AGW. “Learning the language and thinking critically about data”, as you say.
Benjamin P.
February 2, 2009 2:37 pm
I will be honest. I am not a ‘warmist’ nor a ‘denilist’ nor a climate scientist. I am an igneous geochemist with a passion for volcanism and what the chemistry of rocks can tell me about processes associated with said volcanism.
With respect to climate, I think climate is a pretty complex thing but the truth is in the data, and as long as we are honest with the data the truth will be ours at the end of the day. I think it is disingenuous for many of the folks here to write off AWG simply because they think there is some vast geopolitical conspiracy (e.g. comment from A Lovell (11:57:36)), or that climate scientists are only in it for the money (much more money out there if you are a denilist), or a whole host of other ‘ad hominem’ that is on display here in many of these comments.
I think the “useful” original posts you talk about could use a bit more science in them as well. I see very little with respect to methodology in the posts, I see very little with respect to providing data used in the undescribed methodology, etc. An example is the CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages post by Frank Lansner. Honestly, that post is laughable in my opinion.
An example:
“Fig 2. This graph of actual data from all major temperature peaks of the Antarctic vostokdata confirms the pattern we saw in fig 1, and now we have a very clear signal as random noise is reduced.”
Okay, its actual data…great! It should not be described in the subsequent comments how it was constructed or what the process was to make the graph. Figure captions should “stand alone” and leave no questions in the readers mind of what it is they are looking at.
Perhaps folks are under the impression that since this is a blog those types of things should not be included. Well, I know folks here think this is a science blog, and that’s part of the gig with science. That whole “peer-review” thing that many people here believe to be such a bad thing is vitally important. Its not a bunch of bearded dudes saying “I like this paper because they agree with me” or “This paper sucks because they don’t agree with me”.
The peer review process is there to ensure that the science is sound. That the methodology is sound, the data is sound. Its a process designed to make sure that the data is honest.
I think some of the posts that are dealing directly with the analysis of data would be much improved if there was more time spent talking about how that analysis was done.
Steve Reynolds
February 2, 2009 2:39 pm
Just to satisfy my curiosity (and possibly let RC readers see a wider world), I tried posting my comment above (without most of the first paragraph) at RC.
As expected, it was censored. Plenty of cheerleading comments disparaging WUWT were allowed through.
Benjamin p
I was not sure about some of Frank Lansner’s data either so did the logical thing, contacted him direct rather than make comments where he is not likely to look and therefore is denied the chance to respond. And he came up trumps, data right back to NOAA – still not as much as I’d have liked, but certainly enough to prove its genuineness. So why don’t you try the same? I suspect I’m not the only one here who works like this.
Many of us are here because we have good reason to suspect serious flaws in the practice of peer-reviewing. In theory it is right. But there are heavy questions in practice – and you will only find the science behind those heavy questions explored in places like here. We have been teaching ourselves the science and doing it for ourselves because we have found the official authorities wanting and failing to come clean. So quite often our work may look “amateur”. Perhaps you should remember that an amateur is one who does it for the love of it, not for money or power. And Truth (and therefore Science) comes far closer to love than to money or temporal power.
Benjamin P.
February 2, 2009 6:50 pm
Thanks Lucy for the response.
While contacting Frank may have been the best way to address my questions, it was not really the point I was trying to make. The point is, if Frank’s analysis is going to be passed along as “authoritative” or “research” then it should be constructed and presented as such. There should not have been any questions in my mind what was done to make figure 2, but there was. I was not even sure what I was looking at and I was not alone as the questions came up in the comments.
The methodology must always be on display and in the forefront because without it there can be no replication. As we know, replication is a rather important aspect of the scientific method.
As for your suspicions of the peer-review process, I am curious what that is rooted in. Are there clear cases where papers where dismissed solely because it was an inconvenient idea to the folks who are doing the reviewing? I’ve experienced peer-review first hand. If anything, I would say the process made my article better (not everyone involved was warm to the ideas presented).
I understand that while data is impartial, it is the human element in science that sometimes makes the science partial. People spend whole careers researching a particular subject and some folks get very attached to their ideas. But the truth is in the data, and whether or not you dislike the conclusions, you can’t refute data.
Tim
February 2, 2009 7:24 pm
Sorry if somebody already said it. The steady rise in you web stats must be a result of increased atmospheric CO2. What else could it be?
Pamela Gray
February 3, 2009 7:19 am
The peer review process is highly political and is nearly a fool proof gate for papers that make it into journals. And that is the key. Making it into journals. It is the journal submission peer review that provides us with one-sided views of observations. It is as corrupt as any political arena (which means that there are pockets of ugly political processes as well as pockets of truly double blind processes, with the majority somewhere in-between the extremes). Anybody who wants to publish in a journal understands this: data analysis is a way to make your data say what you want it to say. No one wants to spend millions on studies and then have something that is not significant. So you talk about it in interesting phrases so that it looks like it could become significant. And then you submit to journals that want you to say what they believe. Bottom line, if your study doesn’t go along with the river flow and you can’t publish, just try to get that next grant.
Benjamin P.
February 3, 2009 8:18 am
Pamela Gray,
Your comment on the peer-review process is said with such certainty! It would really be interesting for me to see you substantiate your claims beyond a few links to some posts from random blogs/websites.
data analysis is a way to make your data say what you want it to say
No, that’s called data manipulation.
Your general mistrust for science, falsely construed as it is, speaks volumes.
Henry Phipps
February 3, 2009 8:35 pm
@Benjamin P.
Mr. P. :
Pamela Gray’s comments about the peer-review self-validation system seemed both gentle and restrained to me. And data analysis IS data manipulation, of course. Think about what the words analysis and manipulation mean. Perhaps it has escaped your notice that the people who are most concerned about obtaining scientific credentials from the closed society of the prestigious editorial boards are often the very type of scientists who are later found to have falsified their work? It has not escaped the notice of the unwashed masses with whom I find myself increasingly in agreement. The academic elitist is a rank novice compared to someone who must live with the consequence of his research. Give me an “oil company researcher” any day – if he’s wrong, he gets fired, and I never hear about him again. No tenure in the real world. Your distrust of scientific skepticism, the foundation of real, verifiable science, speaks volumes.
My bachelor’s degree is in zoology, my doctorate is medical. Henry Phipps is my real name. Or you can call me Henry P., if you are uncomfortable using real names.
Benjamin P.
February 3, 2009 11:03 pm
Dr. Phipps,
I do not have a distrust of scientific skepticism. The key word is scientific paired with that word skepticism.
Perhaps it has escaped your notice that the people who are most concerned about obtaining scientific credentials from the closed society of the prestigious editorial boards are often the very type of scientists who are later found to have falsified their work?
I suppose this must be, what? 99% of researchers in your mind?
Tom
February 4, 2009 11:55 am
Finally! A hockey stick graph American can believe in! Congratulations!
Benjamin P.,
Read the Wegman Report to Congress: click
You will see that the peer review process in the climate sciences has been thoroughly corrupted, and is controlled by a small self-serving clique of insiders, who by their agenda bear much of the responsibility for the unwarranted loss of respect for scientists in general.
Read also Prof. Richard Lindzen’s account of the disreputable shenanigans by like-minded people pushing an AGW/CO2 agenda: click
It is unconscionable that the bias and corruption of those feeding such false information to the public, like the discredited Hockey Stick and other bogus climate scares, has resulted in an adverse and unjustified impact on the credibility of scientists in general, the great majority of whom are honest.
And I should point out that if the tables were turned and you did not believe in the AGW/CO2 hypothesis, and you attempted to post your views in the same manner on RealClimate, your comments would be deleted. Why? Because RealClimate can not tolerate the truth, so they censor opposing views.
A big part of the reason the this site received about ten times more votes than RealClimate is its tolerance for different points of view. That makes it possible to sort out the truth — something that the folks at RC, Tamino and similar sites have a big problem with.
Tom M
February 5, 2009 10:04 am
Smokey (09:37:03) : A big part of the reason the this site received about ten times more votes than RealClimate is its tolerance for different points of view. That makes it possible to sort out the truth — something that the folks at RC, Tamino and similar sites have a big problem with.
I’m new to this debate and have stumbled onto RealClimate, Climate Audit and WattsUp and a few other places looking for help to understand the science. I have found RealClimate to very unhelpful as, according to their apparent policy, opposing viewpoints are not allowed. I read something about them not wishing to give credence to myths by repeating them. That means they define truth from myth in the back room and don’t give me a chance to see the process or information that led to the decision. Somehow that makes it difficult for me to feel comfortable with what I’m reading, knowing that all opposing viewpoints are either redacted out or were chased away long ago by the policy. And that leads me to my question for this blog, which is surely more robust, (to borrow a word I’ve been seeing a lot of lately). I also have observed that the people at Real Climate are primarily climate modelers. Even this last Antarctic warming letter is some sort of reconstruction of the the past 50 years without actually using real data from years 50 to 25 because the satellite data was not available then. There was some sort of effort to extrapolate that data using ground station data. They call it interpolating, not extrapolating, but I don’t get that because they are going open ended backwards in time to nowhere. Although I do understand that they have interpolated data as between missing points of ground station (and satellite?) data somewhere along the line. I understand that sort of bootstrapping. I don’t like it particularly, but I understand it to be interpolating, but the greater purpose is to interpolate so they can get back to a point that gives them the desired trend. Anyway my tiny brain keeps whispering to me, “this is not real climate information, it’s unreal climate information”. I think they should adjust their website name, in the spirit of the way they adjust the temperature data, to UnRealClimate. This is only partly tongue in cheek because the essence of their efforts is “modeling”, which by definition is “unreal”.
The field should be left open for someone wishing to study and discuss real climate data to use the name real climate. Does this make sense?
Tom M 10 04 17
I like the idea of someone setting up a spoof science blog call Unreal Climate.
complete with spoof subjects
“Adventurer to surf to North Pole’
“Startling new evidence shows sea level will rise 7 feet by next Wednesday.”
“Dr Mann apologises for hockey stick graph-it was only meant as a joke.”
On a more serious note it is essential that the issues are discussed from all viewpoints rather than just a mono view which will not even consider any ones elses contrarian arguements might have some merit.
TonyB
Benjamin P.
February 5, 2009 5:58 pm
Smokey,
Is that the same Richard Lindzen who thinks smoking isn’t bad for your health?
As for the Wegman report, I would be interested in seeing their “social network analysis” for the folks on the other side of the climate debate (McIntyre, et al.).
Also, from the Wegman report….
Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of research related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change. Funding should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused discipline research.
As for the Wegman report, I would be interested in seeing their “social network analysis” for the folks on the other side of the climate debate (McIntyre, et al.)
See, you left out the tens of thousands of scientists with your ‘et al’, versus the relatively tiny clique identified in the Wegman Report. That is the problem. If Wegman’s analysis covered the AGW skeptic side, the network would have to include the majority of U.S. scientists: click
The problem with federal funding on climate research is that it is political, and therefore funding is funneled primarily to those pushing the AGW agenda. If a half-dozen prominent skeptic scholars were allowed to appoint half of the recipients of this taxpayer largesse, the outcome would be entirely different; the truth would emerge. Instead, as Wegman shows, a small clique receives the bulk of all the money, and they also control the climate peer review agenda as Lindzen so convincingly explains.
Anyone who thinks that science should not be politicized must find the current regime extremely distasteful.
@A Lovell
Ah, and finally I have found the agenda defined on that comedy site you linked.
Benjamin P,
I saw your comment over at RealClimate complaining about the quality of the science here. I’m responding here because of the likelihood of being censored at RC.
While I think Anthony’s site is very useful for the original posts, I can see some truth in your opinion in some of the comments here, and do find the comments much less useful. But Anthony is very successful with his comment moderation policy, so who am I to tell him to change?
Have you done much reading at climataudit.org ? I think the policies there address many of your complaints, and still do a very good job of questioning the ‘consensus’ on AGW. “Learning the language and thinking critically about data”, as you say.
I will be honest. I am not a ‘warmist’ nor a ‘denilist’ nor a climate scientist. I am an igneous geochemist with a passion for volcanism and what the chemistry of rocks can tell me about processes associated with said volcanism.
With respect to climate, I think climate is a pretty complex thing but the truth is in the data, and as long as we are honest with the data the truth will be ours at the end of the day. I think it is disingenuous for many of the folks here to write off AWG simply because they think there is some vast geopolitical conspiracy (e.g. comment from A Lovell (11:57:36)), or that climate scientists are only in it for the money (much more money out there if you are a denilist), or a whole host of other ‘ad hominem’ that is on display here in many of these comments.
I think the “useful” original posts you talk about could use a bit more science in them as well. I see very little with respect to methodology in the posts, I see very little with respect to providing data used in the undescribed methodology, etc. An example is the CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages post by Frank Lansner. Honestly, that post is laughable in my opinion.
An example:
Okay, its actual data…great! It should not be described in the subsequent comments how it was constructed or what the process was to make the graph. Figure captions should “stand alone” and leave no questions in the readers mind of what it is they are looking at.
Perhaps folks are under the impression that since this is a blog those types of things should not be included. Well, I know folks here think this is a science blog, and that’s part of the gig with science. That whole “peer-review” thing that many people here believe to be such a bad thing is vitally important. Its not a bunch of bearded dudes saying “I like this paper because they agree with me” or “This paper sucks because they don’t agree with me”.
The peer review process is there to ensure that the science is sound. That the methodology is sound, the data is sound. Its a process designed to make sure that the data is honest.
I think some of the posts that are dealing directly with the analysis of data would be much improved if there was more time spent talking about how that analysis was done.
Just to satisfy my curiosity (and possibly let RC readers see a wider world), I tried posting my comment above (without most of the first paragraph) at RC.
As expected, it was censored. Plenty of cheerleading comments disparaging WUWT were allowed through.
Benjamin p
I was not sure about some of Frank Lansner’s data either so did the logical thing, contacted him direct rather than make comments where he is not likely to look and therefore is denied the chance to respond. And he came up trumps, data right back to NOAA – still not as much as I’d have liked, but certainly enough to prove its genuineness. So why don’t you try the same? I suspect I’m not the only one here who works like this.
Many of us are here because we have good reason to suspect serious flaws in the practice of peer-reviewing. In theory it is right. But there are heavy questions in practice – and you will only find the science behind those heavy questions explored in places like here. We have been teaching ourselves the science and doing it for ourselves because we have found the official authorities wanting and failing to come clean. So quite often our work may look “amateur”. Perhaps you should remember that an amateur is one who does it for the love of it, not for money or power. And Truth (and therefore Science) comes far closer to love than to money or temporal power.
Thanks Lucy for the response.
While contacting Frank may have been the best way to address my questions, it was not really the point I was trying to make. The point is, if Frank’s analysis is going to be passed along as “authoritative” or “research” then it should be constructed and presented as such. There should not have been any questions in my mind what was done to make figure 2, but there was. I was not even sure what I was looking at and I was not alone as the questions came up in the comments.
The methodology must always be on display and in the forefront because without it there can be no replication. As we know, replication is a rather important aspect of the scientific method.
As for your suspicions of the peer-review process, I am curious what that is rooted in. Are there clear cases where papers where dismissed solely because it was an inconvenient idea to the folks who are doing the reviewing? I’ve experienced peer-review first hand. If anything, I would say the process made my article better (not everyone involved was warm to the ideas presented).
I understand that while data is impartial, it is the human element in science that sometimes makes the science partial. People spend whole careers researching a particular subject and some folks get very attached to their ideas. But the truth is in the data, and whether or not you dislike the conclusions, you can’t refute data.
Sorry if somebody already said it. The steady rise in you web stats must be a result of increased atmospheric CO2. What else could it be?
The peer review process is highly political and is nearly a fool proof gate for papers that make it into journals. And that is the key. Making it into journals. It is the journal submission peer review that provides us with one-sided views of observations. It is as corrupt as any political arena (which means that there are pockets of ugly political processes as well as pockets of truly double blind processes, with the majority somewhere in-between the extremes). Anybody who wants to publish in a journal understands this: data analysis is a way to make your data say what you want it to say. No one wants to spend millions on studies and then have something that is not significant. So you talk about it in interesting phrases so that it looks like it could become significant. And then you submit to journals that want you to say what they believe. Bottom line, if your study doesn’t go along with the river flow and you can’t publish, just try to get that next grant.
Pamela Gray,
Your comment on the peer-review process is said with such certainty! It would really be interesting for me to see you substantiate your claims beyond a few links to some posts from random blogs/websites.
No, that’s called data manipulation.
Your general mistrust for science, falsely construed as it is, speaks volumes.
@Benjamin P.
Mr. P. :
Pamela Gray’s comments about the peer-review self-validation system seemed both gentle and restrained to me. And data analysis IS data manipulation, of course. Think about what the words analysis and manipulation mean. Perhaps it has escaped your notice that the people who are most concerned about obtaining scientific credentials from the closed society of the prestigious editorial boards are often the very type of scientists who are later found to have falsified their work? It has not escaped the notice of the unwashed masses with whom I find myself increasingly in agreement. The academic elitist is a rank novice compared to someone who must live with the consequence of his research. Give me an “oil company researcher” any day – if he’s wrong, he gets fired, and I never hear about him again. No tenure in the real world. Your distrust of scientific skepticism, the foundation of real, verifiable science, speaks volumes.
My bachelor’s degree is in zoology, my doctorate is medical. Henry Phipps is my real name. Or you can call me Henry P., if you are uncomfortable using real names.
Dr. Phipps,
I do not have a distrust of scientific skepticism. The key word is scientific paired with that word skepticism.
I suppose this must be, what? 99% of researchers in your mind?
Finally! A hockey stick graph American can believe in! Congratulations!
Benjamin P.,
Read the Wegman Report to Congress: click
You will see that the peer review process in the climate sciences has been thoroughly corrupted, and is controlled by a small self-serving clique of insiders, who by their agenda bear much of the responsibility for the unwarranted loss of respect for scientists in general.
Read also Prof. Richard Lindzen’s account of the disreputable shenanigans by like-minded people pushing an AGW/CO2 agenda: click
It is unconscionable that the bias and corruption of those feeding such false information to the public, like the discredited Hockey Stick and other bogus climate scares, has resulted in an adverse and unjustified impact on the credibility of scientists in general, the great majority of whom are honest.
And I should point out that if the tables were turned and you did not believe in the AGW/CO2 hypothesis, and you attempted to post your views in the same manner on RealClimate, your comments would be deleted. Why? Because RealClimate can not tolerate the truth, so they censor opposing views.
A big part of the reason the this site received about ten times more votes than RealClimate is its tolerance for different points of view. That makes it possible to sort out the truth — something that the folks at RC, Tamino and similar sites have a big problem with.
Smokey (09:37:03) :
A big part of the reason the this site received about ten times more votes than RealClimate is its tolerance for different points of view. That makes it possible to sort out the truth — something that the folks at RC, Tamino and similar sites have a big problem with.
I’m new to this debate and have stumbled onto RealClimate, Climate Audit and WattsUp and a few other places looking for help to understand the science. I have found RealClimate to very unhelpful as, according to their apparent policy, opposing viewpoints are not allowed. I read something about them not wishing to give credence to myths by repeating them. That means they define truth from myth in the back room and don’t give me a chance to see the process or information that led to the decision. Somehow that makes it difficult for me to feel comfortable with what I’m reading, knowing that all opposing viewpoints are either redacted out or were chased away long ago by the policy. And that leads me to my question for this blog, which is surely more robust, (to borrow a word I’ve been seeing a lot of lately). I also have observed that the people at Real Climate are primarily climate modelers. Even this last Antarctic warming letter is some sort of reconstruction of the the past 50 years without actually using real data from years 50 to 25 because the satellite data was not available then. There was some sort of effort to extrapolate that data using ground station data. They call it interpolating, not extrapolating, but I don’t get that because they are going open ended backwards in time to nowhere. Although I do understand that they have interpolated data as between missing points of ground station (and satellite?) data somewhere along the line. I understand that sort of bootstrapping. I don’t like it particularly, but I understand it to be interpolating, but the greater purpose is to interpolate so they can get back to a point that gives them the desired trend. Anyway my tiny brain keeps whispering to me, “this is not real climate information, it’s unreal climate information”. I think they should adjust their website name, in the spirit of the way they adjust the temperature data, to UnRealClimate. This is only partly tongue in cheek because the essence of their efforts is “modeling”, which by definition is “unreal”.
The field should be left open for someone wishing to study and discuss real climate data to use the name real climate. Does this make sense?
Tom M 10 04 17
I like the idea of someone setting up a spoof science blog call Unreal Climate.
complete with spoof subjects
“Adventurer to surf to North Pole’
“Startling new evidence shows sea level will rise 7 feet by next Wednesday.”
“Dr Mann apologises for hockey stick graph-it was only meant as a joke.”
On a more serious note it is essential that the issues are discussed from all viewpoints rather than just a mono view which will not even consider any ones elses contrarian arguements might have some merit.
TonyB
Smokey,
Is that the same Richard Lindzen who thinks smoking isn’t bad for your health?
As for the Wegman report, I would be interested in seeing their “social network analysis” for the folks on the other side of the climate debate (McIntyre, et al.).
Also, from the Wegman report….
I think that is something we can all agree on.
Benjamin P.:
See, you left out the tens of thousands of scientists with your ‘et al’, versus the relatively tiny clique identified in the Wegman Report. That is the problem. If Wegman’s analysis covered the AGW skeptic side, the network would have to include the majority of U.S. scientists: click
The problem with federal funding on climate research is that it is political, and therefore funding is funneled primarily to those pushing the AGW agenda. If a half-dozen prominent skeptic scholars were allowed to appoint half of the recipients of this taxpayer largesse, the outcome would be entirely different; the truth would emerge. Instead, as Wegman shows, a small clique receives the bulk of all the money, and they also control the climate peer review agenda as Lindzen so convincingly explains.
Anyone who thinks that science should not be politicized must find the current regime extremely distasteful.