From Roger Pielke Jr.’s blog, some strong advice.
UPDATE: Dot Earth on the debate.
If you want to know why Steve McIntyre has a large following and the respect (often begrudging) from many professionals, you need look no further than his latest post on the Yamal controversy. Some people won’t like his tone and others won’t like how his work is used and spun in the political process. All fair complaints, but they are largely a side show to the substantive issues.
And so long as Steve is delivering detailed, systematic and devastating substantive arguments — and yes this post is all three — he will continue to have a following and earn respect (however begrudging).
Anyone coming to this fresh who compares McIntyre’s latest dissection with the recent screed from Real Climate will come to a similar judgment, I’d guess.
I stand by my unsolicited advice to McIntyre that he needs to publish his work in the peer reviewed arena if he wants to have his work accepted and included in the mainstream scientific discourse. Meantime, those professionals, such as the guys at Real Climate, who want to do public battle over scientific issues on the blogs had better step up their game, because no matter how much the blog chorus gets whipped up about the tribal aspects of the debate, fair minded people observing events are going to come to a very different conclusion, like it or not.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tom P (01:07:06) :
I tried your link. Apparently you only inserted one of the chronologies.
Fruedian slip?
Scott A. Mandia
Check out my post on tree data vs. long term temperatures, WUWT thread
“Spencer on finding a new climate sensitivity marker”.
There you can compare direct long term temperature data with tree data. This covers the most recent 200+ years of temperature recording.
Gene Nemetz (07:32:21) :
“It appears Steve McIntyre has addressed you in his post.
“You should be able to deduce what his reply might be to your comments, and why he hasn’t responded to you in the comments, from what he says in the post..”
Steve McIntyre does not agree with you:
“I’m busy on personal things today. I will reply to this point, which is on topic.”
Tim Clark (09:28:42) :
As I said, I’m plotting a difference between two chronologies. I am intrigued as to what might be a Fruedian slip, though.
Let’s stop pretending Steve doesn’t try to publish in the peer-reviewed literature, please.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5551
I agree with Toto (23:01:24) and Tom in Florida (07:36:02) – Steve M should publish his excellent analysis in a statistical journal, reviewed by experts in the extraction of information from minuscule samples.
It would appear that many scientists themselves accept that peer review is of diminishing importance, since concensus is now proposed as the final arbiter of a scientific theory.
I would suggest that WUWT, with its recent vote on tree ring data, is now providing a viable alternative to peer review.
Steve McIntyre – Lord of the Tree Rings.
Peter Plail (11:42:54) :
“It would appear that many scientists themselves accept that peer review is of diminishing importance, since concensus is now proposed as the final arbiter of a scientific theory.”
Something similar happened when the Bible was translated from the Latin and widely printed using the then new technology. The priests lost their stranglehold.
Being of the “old school” of scientific method, as I recall, observations were made, and then a hypothesis was conjured up, to explain the observations. The person making the hypothesis was expected to test and test the hypothesis against further observations. When the hypothesis had been tested a good many times, by its proposer, then it would be put forth as a theory, with full disclosure of all methods and data used. This data and methodology could then be tested by others, (any others, whether a “specialist” or “expert” or “peer” or anybody), with the intention of disproving the theory if anyone could do so. I do think that it was expected of others to disprove the theory if possible. A duty, so to speak.
Now, I see, commonly, mere speculations put forth as theory, with little trial and testing, if any, involved. Constructive criticism is squelched in every way possible, including the continuing claim, when things are found amiss, that the person criticizing the “theory” doesn’t have the proper credentials to even get involved.
What happened to scientific method?, I ask myself. It seems to have gone completely by the wayside. I do see a great deal of psuedo-statistics done by people who obviously don’t know all that much about the mathematics of statistics. A good many are downright laughable.
An excellent site to go to to learn about statistics is http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/
John Briggs, who operates the site, is most competent, and about as credentialed as could be, regarding statistical analysis, and his writings and analyses are real pleasures to read and extremely informative. WARNING . . . John is not in the least politically correct in any way, and doesn’t like the way government(s) are going about things, regarding the false way statistics are being used.
Steve Mc has no peers.
The work Tom P has put into doing an actual analysis of the data has been recognized as being far more effort than most put into these debates. I’m not about to approve of any attempt to silence dissent. His comments and opinions should be welcome here. He has remained ~mostly~ civil (any venting of spleen on his part being understandable given the sometimes rancorous attacks aimed at him), and we should try to be so as well.
“”” Peter Plail (11:42:54) :
It would appear that many scientists themselves accept that peer review is of diminishing importance, since concensus is now proposed as the final arbiter of a scientific theory.
I would suggest that WUWT, with its recent vote on tree ring data, is now providing a viable alternative to peer review. “””
Well I would not be so hasty as to say that “peer review” has outlived its usefulness. For an alternative to peer review, I can strongly recommend spending a few late evenings listenign to the “Coast-to-coast-AM” radio show; that used to be modrated by Art Bell.
If you do that you will from time to time be regaled by total charlatans who have at least mastered the gift of the gab, and can for three hours spout pseudo scientific gobbledegook without batting an eyelid; and evidently The radio listeners simply lap it up; so the shows host simply lets it all come out so the listener can decide.
It seems to be a learnable skill, as our present teleprompter reader in chief is also a master of the art.
From time to time, authors have tried to foist similar stuff of on technical audiences in the literature, and sometimes just to point out weaknesses in the “peer review system”.
A very famous case occurred many years ago in the program for an IEEE convention technical conference.
A certain paper abstract proposed to reveal the remarkable properties of a new electronic device named by the authors as a “Linistor”.
This device promised to overcome the well known serious non-linearities that were known to occur in the operation of vaccuum tubes, Transistors, and similar electronic devices, and yeild a highluyy linear transfer function.
Based on this abstract, the paper was accepted by the technical program committee, and included in a session on electron devices. This was some months before the conference. Quite shortly (weeks) before the conference, the Authors of this paper on the “Linistor”, decided to fess up, and report that the physics of their device had been earlier researched by one George Simon Ohm, and that the transfer function of the Linisor was enshrined in what was well known as “Ohm’s Law”.
Well the Linistor was nothing more that a resistor, and everything in the paper abstract, clearly point to that conclusion.
So the technical committee got egg all over their faces, so they invited the Linistor authors to chair a panel discussion on refining procedures for reviewing technical papers for such conferences, to ensure a high standard of technical merit to the presentations; and that panel discussion in fact took place at the conference.
Sp peer review cewrtainly has an important role to perform.
Perhaps the criticism should be directed not at the process, but at the reviewers; for it is they who have allowed the process to degenerate into a not so subtle censorship of work that is contrary to the reviewers personal views.
As they say; prostitution is not confined to the dark alleys of rundown cities.
So it is up to scientists themselves, who wish to see the peer review process continue, and benefit science; to look inwards on themselves and ask whether they can give honest unbiassed evaluation of sometimes competitive work by other authors.
If you don’t; then that system WILL be replaced. But there is no reason for discussion fori such as WUWT and such to not contibute to the dissemination of scientific information alongside the peer review process; they really are two separate information channels.
I should add, that we are all in trouble if “Concensus” ever replaces rigorous proof in the evaluation of science.
Tom B = Tom P?
Roger Pielke observes: ‘fair minded people observing events are going to come to a very different conclusion, like it or not’. Meanwhile Lysenko rules. Science is dead, whether one likes it or not and no matter who claims to engage in the alleged discipline. The Australian government some years ago refused to allow access to funding for research (not confined to ‘science’) to persons not employed by a university, the huge bulk of which are government funded. And in the Australian government the hockey stick rules. Dissent means silence. This situation will continue for quite some time. State government schools increasingly deny children language. The possibility of dissent thus not only declines for venal reasons but because the very concept becomes inconceivable. The peers help maintain discipline for the interim whilst it remains necessary. And then go off with their pensions. There’s nothing new about it. It’s all in Dostoevsky’s Demons. Dissent and science are dead. Long live Lysenko.
Seeing as RealClimate posted many other hockey sticks not derived from Yamal, the next logical step seems to be that McIntyre “audit” all of those ones too.
Jr. is right about fair-minded observers and the “tribal” behavior. This is also why we all need to be calmer and fairer than the other side. RC will never convince WUWT, and vice versa, but in the end that is not who needs convincing anyway. Not running off the open-minded in horror is very important.
Tom P (01:07:06) :
Steve thought my comments were worth a rebuttal in a full post
Ya, you’re in it, but I wouldn’t going around pointing out to people that you’re in it if I was you.
You sure you understand his post? Go back and double check.
Tom P (10:25:05) :
Steve McIntyre does not agree with you:
“I’m busy on personal things today. I will reply to this point, which is on topic.”
You left this part out :
I would urge you to read some of the back threads on Briffa at this blog
You did see he had replied to others. He made it clear in more than one comment that he is reading all the comments.
He may be saying, and this is a guesstimate by me, that your questions could all be answered in his previous posts on Briffa. So I would suggest, if my guess is right, that you spend a lot of time reading all you can on Briffa, and also the Hockey Stick, that is on Climate Audit before posting another comment there. You will probably learn a lot about this topic that you are unaware of at this point.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/an-inconvenient-truce-as-green/story-e6frfhqf-1225783524958
Sorry, Anthony, I am going to have to give my vote for best science blog this year to Steve. What a year he has put in! Do you think some of the scientists on Sen. Inofe’s list could give it a peer review? Does it matter where it is published, if the people reviewing it are top-notch?
I obviously know nothing of science, just a thought.
Pardon me, that was John Brignell. Sorry, John and all.
As we civil engineers used to say, “Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.”
I think you’re wrong there. I see Anthony and many of use regulars here as willing to change if the evidence supported it. I know I am.
Gene Nemetz (17:02:06) :
Steve McIntyre has now come back on one of my two points on CA, and I’ve responded:
Steve,
You said in an earlier thread:
“There is a profound inhomogeneity in the age composition of the living trees in the CRU archive relative to the subfossil archive, which is much reduced in the Schweingruber Variation. Does the age inhomogeneity in the CRU version “matter”? It’s the sort of thing that should have been reported and discussed in a site report, prior to using this chronology in multiproxy studies.”
This seemed like a reasonable comment, though it seemed a little strange that you should point out a potential problem with the CRU archive without investigating it. I thought it worth seeing if indeed this inhomogeneity “mattered”. The answer – the original Briffa chronology holds up as younger trees are removed from the archive.
Now you say:
“… your sensitivity analysis is one that, to my knowledge, has never been of interest in the dendro literature.”
How about a bit of consistency here!
You go on to say above:
“Perhaps they should ignore young trees as you advocate, but they don’t.”
This is a sensitivity analysis, not an alternative chronology, a point you laboured to make when you first introduced your combined Yamal-Khadyta series:
“I do not suggest that the sensitivity run be used as an alternative temperature history.”
I’m not advocating ignoring younger trees, but using it as a test to see if the chronology holds up as they are excluded.
While Briffa’s Yamal series passes the test your comments suggest with respect to age inhomogeneity, your combined Yamal-Khadyta series fails such a test. Your combined series produces a different chronology when trees less than 75 years old are excluded from the record.
Finally, do you have any response to my comment (#80) concerning the historical repeated divergence between younger and older trees in your combined Yamal-Khadyta chronology, despite your unsupported claim to the contrary in the head post?