The WUWT rebuttal piece “Judith I love ya but you’re way wrong” written by Willis Eschenbach has made it all the way to the NYT. There’s also an interesting quote from Gavin Schmidt.
“Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.”
From the RealClimate About page, first sentence:
“RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.”
Note to Gavin: We’ll all be missing your daily work on RealClimate now. What’s the end date? 😉
=========================================
Excerpts of: Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON — For months, climate scientists have taken a vicious beating in the media and on the Internet, accused of hiding data, covering up errors and suppressing alternate views. Their response until now has been largely to assert the legitimacy of the vast body of climate science and to mock their critics as cranks and know-nothings.
But the volume of criticism and the depth of doubt have only grown, and many scientists now realize they are facing a crisis of public confidence and have to fight back. Tentatively and grudgingly, they are beginning to engage their critics, admit mistakes, open up their data and reshape the way they conduct their work.
The unauthorized release last fall of hundreds of e-mail messages from a major climate research center in England, and more recent revelations of a handful of errors in a supposedly authoritative United Nations report on climate change, have created what a number of top scientists say is a major breach of faith in their research. They say the uproar threatens to undermine decades of work and has badly damaged public trust in the scientific enterprise.
The e-mail episode, called “climategate” by critics, revealed arrogance and what one top climate researcher called “tribalism” among some scientists. The correspondence appears to show efforts to limit publication of contrary opinion and to evade Freedom of Information Act requests. The content of the messages opened some well-known scientists to charges of concealing temperature data from rival researchers and manipulating results to conform to precooked conclusions.
“I have obviously written some very awful e-mails,” Phil Jones, the British climate scientist at the center of the controversy, confessed to a special committee of Parliament on Monday.
…
Climate scientists have been shaken by the criticism and are beginning to look for ways to recover their reputation. They are learning a little humility and trying to make sure they avoid crossing a line into policy advocacy.
“It’s clear that the climate science community was just not prepared for the scale and ferocity of the attacks and they simply have not responded swiftly and appropriately,” said Peter C. Frumhoff, an ecologist and chief scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “We need to acknowledge the errors and help turn attention from what’s happening in the blogosphere to what’s happening in the atmosphere.”
A number of institutions are beginning efforts to improve the quality of their science and to make their work more transparent. The official British climate agency is undertaking a complete review of its temperature data and will make its records and analysis fully public for the first time, allowing outside scrutiny of methods and conclusions. The United Nations panel on climate change will accept external oversight of its research practices, also for the first time.
Two universities are investigating the work of top climate scientists to determine whether they have violated academic standards and undermined faith in science. The National Academy of Sciences is preparing to publish a nontechnical paper outlining what is known — and not known — about changes to the global climate. And a vigorous debate is under way among climate scientists on how to make their work more transparent and regain public confidence.
Some critics think these are merely cosmetic efforts that do not address the real problem, however.
“I’ll let you in on a very dark, ugly secret — I don’t want trust in climate science to be restored,” Willis Eschenbach, an engineer and climate contrarian who posts frequently on climate skeptic blogs, wrote in response to one climate scientist’s proposal to share more research. “I don’t want you learning better ways to propagandize for shoddy science. I don’t want you to figure out how to inspire trust by camouflaging your unethical practices in new and innovative ways.”
“The solution,” he concluded, “is for you to stop trying to pass off garbage as science.”
…….
read the rest at Scientists Taking Steps to Defend Work on Climate in the New York Times
Bob Tisdale (03:54:05) :
I’ve illustrated in three posts how the rise in Ocean Heat Content since 1955 has been driven by natural variables (ENSO, AMOC, NAO, NPI) not Anthropogenic Greenhouse Gases.
I am not familiar with the science behind ocean heat content. As you write “I’m a skeptic, not a denier,” that suggests to me that you are (at this juncture) only taking issue with one area of climate science. My question for you is: How does what you write differ from what the IPCC says, and where in the IPCC report would that be?
Herman L: You wrote, “I am not familiar with the science behind ocean heat content.”
Then you may wish to start with Chapter 5 of AR4 and the references it contains.
You wrote, “As you write ‘I’m a skeptic, not a denier,’ that suggests to me that you are (at this juncture) only taking issue with one area of climate science.”
Incorrect. I advised you that I’m a skeptic simply because I am skeptical of what has been passed off as the science of anthropogenic global warming. And I advised you that I’m not a denier because I accept that global temperatures have risen. In fact had you read the entire paragraph, you may have grasped that point.
Also, had you read my entire 03:54:05 reply to you and had you clicked on and read the links I provided, you would have noted that my reply to you did not only deal with the topic of Ocean Heat Content. My reply also dealt with the rise in SST and in TLT, and with the use of outdated TSI data so that the IPCC climate models could reproduce the rise in temperature in the first half of the 20th Century. The posts about how scientists misrepresent ENSO illustrate significant errors in the hypothesis of AGW.
Herman L (09:47:48) :
If you cannot read then maybe you should not respond to posts. The over 500 papers are skeptical of either AGW theory or the environmental or economic effects of. Nothing has anything to with denial. To deny something would first mean it has been unequivocally proven, something AGW has not been.
“For example, the abstract for one of the papers in the list reads: “This is not to say that there is no impact of growing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, regardless of its source.”
That was In a reply to a comment on a paper,
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, Volume 90, Number 3, pp. 409-412, March 2006)
– Lee C. Gerhard
Full context,
“Little correlation exists between the smooth and steady rise in carbon dioxide concentration in the Earth’s atmosphere, the almost imperceptible rise in temperature measured in the lower stratosphere by balloons and satellites, and the multidirectional and multidecadal rise and fall of Earth’s temperature over the last 150 yr (Khilyuk and Chilingar, 2004). Interestingly, the NASA graph of United States temperature documents that the United States has cooled 0.7°C since 1998 (National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 2005).
In contrast, correlation exists between solar and orbital variations and the Earth’s climate over the last 150 yr and before (Reid, 1991; Hoyt and Schatten,1997; Bond et al., 2001). We are about 1100 yr beyond the medieval warm event (Lamb, 1995) and likely near the cusp of the modern warm event. Khilyuk and Chilingar (2004) have summarized many of the arguments for nonanthropogenic climate drivers. New studies (Scafetta and West, 2005; Usoskin et al., 2005) demonstrate the function that orbital and solar variations may have in climate change.
This is not to say that there is no impact of growing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, regardless of its source. But the data and the correlations negate carbon dioxide as the single major driver of climate change. It is the responsibility of computer modelers to revamp their algorithms to acknowledge solar and orbital correlation and reflect recorded climate history.”
Yes increasing CO2 in the atmosphere has effects such as increasing forestation.
“Many not scientific papers”
Some are not natural science papers but all are in peer-reviewed journals. Many of the papers are related to policy and very relevant to the debate.
“There are papers, but not related to climate science”
They are related to the “economic effects of” AGW which is why that paper is under the socio-economic section.
“Many not peer reviewed”
ALL THE PAPERS ARE PEER-REVIEWED.
* Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
– Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, Ingenta, JournalSeek and Scopus
– Found at 41 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 81 in electronic form.
– EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed – Yes, Academic Journal – Yes (PDF)
ISI (Institute of Scientific Information) is owned by the Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services similar to other companies services such EBSCO’s “Academic Search” and Elsevier’s “Scopus”.
Scopus incorrectly lists Energy & Environment as a “trade” journal, which is illogical as it is not associated with any specific “trade” such as “chemical engineering”. EBSCO correctly lists it as an academic journal.
Some are not “Supporting Skepticism of ‘Man-Made’ Global Warming”
No they are supporting skepticism of the environmental effects of climate change,
Phytoplankton Calcification in a High-CO2 World
(Science, Volume 320, Number 5874, pp. 336-340, April 2008)
– M. Debora Iglesias-Rodriguez et al.
This shows that ocean acidification will not reduce calcification of marine organisms.
Cold—an underrated risk factor for health
(Environmental Research, Volume 92, Issue 1, pp. 8-13, May 2003)
– James B. Mercer
This shows that cold temperatures kills more people than warm temperatures. Whether this happens indoor or out is irrelevant as the paper is directly related cold winter deaths. This is in direct response to the notion that warmer temperatures will be deadly.
All of you criticisms are invalid. I am the author of the list. It is quite clear what the list supports as it is stated quite clearly and no one except those attempting to refute the list have a hard time understanding it – again it says,
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of.”
You again just repeat your same propaganda about “5000 papers”. I have linked to rebuttals of the IPCC report.
Interesting:
Tell me more…
Poptech (16:11:52) :
You again just repeat your same propaganda …
When you write the above (it’s from your latest comment), it suggest to me that you are displaying a political bias and are not genuinely interested in the scientific research into climate change. Compare the citation list in the IPCC with the list of journals compiled by Jim Prall at U-Toronto (http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/journals.html). You will find a lot of overlap. When you use such a charged word as “propaganda,” I have to ask you: In your opinion, is this or is this not legitimate scientific research?.
Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal
Peer Reviewed by whom? I can find nothing in E&E’s that suggests it has any expertise in evaluating scientific papers on climate change. Let’s look at the editorial board, where we find not a single climate scientist in the group. Here’s a breakdown of the editoral board:
Social Sciences (11)
1. Dr Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen – geography
2. Aynsley Kellow Political Science
3. Bjorn Lomborg Political Science
4. Benny Peiser studied Political Science
5. Dr. Maarten J. Arentsen – Political Science
6. Julian Morris MA in economics
7. ZhongXiang Zhang PhD, Economics
8. David Ball Risk Management
9. Atle Midttun Management
10. Steve Thomas Business
11. Mithra Moezzi Anthropology and Folklore
Engineering (4)
12. Yousef S H Najjar Mechanical Engineering
13. Professor B W Ang Engineering
14. Max Beran Engineer
25. Hilary I. Inyang Engineering
Unknown (3)
16. David Cope Industry Railroad Manufacture
17. Richard S Courtney independent consultant (not known if he has a degree)
18. Dr Wolfgang Eichhammer, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ??
Misc Energy/Technology (2)
19. Horace Herring Faculty of Maths, Computing and Technology The Open University
20. Jim Skea Ph.D Energy Research
It’s revealing that so many “peer reviewed” articles on climate science that you stand behind appear in a single journal that has not a single climate scientist on its editorial board. Who are the climate scientists who are peer reviewing any of these articles? Who on the editorial board has qualifications to state of the science is the articles is sound, that there are no errors, and to find peers qualified to address the science?
Finally, as for your links to the Fraser/Heartland documents, two points:
1. They are long and therefore require a long time to read, so be patient, and
2. Do you stand behind these as solid scientific reports that accuratelyt describe the current state of climate science?
Willis, I couldn’t find your phone number or e-mail address, so I hope this reaches you. I thought you might find the enclosed website useful in understanding the dynamics of moment resistant joints in engineered reinforced concrete post and beam structures in seismic events If I read you correctly, you appeared to dismiss the shear strength available in these joints out of hand, while I contend that properly engineered, these joints can accommodate all the forces to which they may be subjected in a seismic event. If you have the time to look into it, I would be pleased if you wish to comment on any structural failings you find in my planned submittal for mass housing in Haiti to Architecture for Humanity after reviewing the enclosed article. Please believe me that when I am wrong, I always appreciate getting at the truth, and the sooner, the better.
http://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/IITK-GSDMA/EQ31.pdf
By the way, congratulations on your mention in the New York Times. Your work in the climate science field has clearly vaulted you to a position where you are being heard, and you deserve kudos for your dedication to the issue, and the fame that accompanies it. It takes a lot of courage for an amateur to challenge the dominant scientific thinking of the era. We have the dissidents of bygone eras to thank for their contributions to our understanding.
It takes even more courage to cast such blanket condemnation on the integrity of legitimate, peer reviewed science, while you demagogue from a highly prejudicial viewpoint. It is hard to understand how your agenda-based methodology is superior to the flow of understanding that evolves from a neutral based enquiry that lies at the heart of science. You say, “I don’t want faith in climate science to be restored.” Really. How then are we ever to get at the truth, or are we simply to look forward to the intellectual anarchy that so many ill-informed seem to so desperately want in their search for legitimacy!!!!! Which is more important to you Willis, being thought right, or getting to the truth? Your Blogs suggest the former, but what do I know. I’m just another amateur whose well being depends on the accuracy of science every day. Look forward to hearing from you. Harlow
harlow jones (12:20:57) : edit
Harlow, thanks for the information. I have not condemned legitimate science anywhere in my piece. I condemn garbage science, which is unfortunately too common in climate science. From my article, here is my take-home message to climate scientists who wish to restore trust in climate science:
I fail to see how that is a condemnation of legitimate science in any sense. It is a call for legitimate science.
w.
Herman L (05:55:18) :
“When you write the above (it’s from your latest comment), it suggest to me that you are displaying a political bias and are not genuinely interested in the scientific research into climate change.”
Anyone who uses the word “denial” or “denier” has a political bias and can drop their false pretenses of being “genuinely interested in the scientific research into climate change.” What a crock!
Your attempted use of all the references of the IPCC report as support of AGW theory is propaganda. This works on the ignorant not here. There are thousands of papers on climate change but few explicitly endorse AGW theory. All those thousands of papers in the IPCC report support climate change not AGW. I used the word “propaganda” because that is what you are doing.
“Peer Reviewed by whom?”
Do you even understand how peer-review works? The editors of a journal are not the reviewers. As with any other peer-reviewed journal relevant credentialed scientists to the paper would review it not the editorial board. Go find who the reviewers are for any other major journal and get back to me. E&E is not a pure natural science journal. It is an interdisciplinary academic journal serving both natural and social sciences. This is quite clear from the journal’s home page. Regardless it is a peer-reviewed journal and the papers relevant.
There are papers from many other journals in the list but you think that by attacking one journal you can discredit the list. Except E&E is peer-reviewed and thus you failed. Here are the journals you missed,
AAPG Bulletin
Advances in Geosciences
Advances in Global Change Research
Advances in Space Research
AIP Conference Proceedings
Ambio
American Scientist
Annales Geophysicae
Annals of Glaciology
Annual Review of Energy and the Environment
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics
Applied Energy
Arctic and Alpine Research
Area
Astronomical Notes
Astronomy & Geophysics
Astrophysics and Space Science
Astrophysics and Space Science Library
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
British Medical Journal (BMJ)
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS)
Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology
Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences
Central European Journal of Physics
Chemical Innovation
Civil Engineering
Climate Dynamics
Climate of the Past
Climate Research
Climatic Change
Comptes Rendus Geosciences
Contemporary South Asia
Earth and Planetary Science Letters
Ecological Complexity
Ecological Modelling
Ecological Monographs
Ecology
Economics Bulletin
Emerging Infectious Diseases
Energy & Environment *
Energy Fuels
Energy Policy
Energy Sources
Energy The International Journal
Environmental Geology
Environmental Geosciences
Environmental Health Perspectives
Environmental Politics
Environmental Research
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science and Pollution Research
Environmental Software
Environmetrics
Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union
Futures
Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography
GeoJournal
Geology
Geomagnetism and Aeronomy
Geophysical Research Letters
Geoscience Canada
Global and Planetary Change
Global Environmental Change
GSA Today
Hydrological Sciences Journal
Il Nuovo Cimento C
Interfaces
International Journal of Biometeorology
International Journal of Climatology
International Journal of Environmental Studies
International Journal of Forecasting
International Journal of Global Warming
International Journal of Modern Physics B
International Journal of Remote Sensing
International Quarterly for Asian Studies
International Social Science Journal
Irish Astronomical Journal
Irrigation and Drainage
Iron & Steel Technology
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics
Journal of Chemical Education
Journal of Climate
Journal of Coastal Research
Journal of Environmental Sciences
Journal of Environmental Quality
Journal of Fusion Energy
Journal of Geophysical Research
Journal of Information Ethics
Journal of Lake Sciences
Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Journal of the American Water Resources Association
Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
Journal of the Italian Astronomical Society
Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering
Lancet Infectious Diseases
Latvian Journal of Physics and Technical Sciences
Malaria Journal
Marine Geology
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics
Meteorologische Zeitschrift
Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change
Natural Hazards
Natural Hazards Review
Nature
Nature Geoscience
New Astronomy
New Concepts In Global Tectonics
New Phytologist
New Zealand Geographer
New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research
Nordic Hydrology
Norwegian Polar Institute Letters
Oceanologica Acta
Paleoceanography
Paleontological Journal
Physical Geography
Physical Review Letters
Physics and Chemistry of the Earth
Physics Letters A
Physics Reports
Planetary and Space Science
PLoS Biology
Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union
Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the Royal Society A
Progress in Physical Geography
Public Administration Review
Pure and Applied Geophysics
Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics
Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
Quaternary Research
Quaternary Science Reviews
Regulation *
Russian Journal of Earth Sciences
Science
Science of the Total Environment
Science, Technology & Human Values
Social Studies of Science
Society
Solar Physics
South African Journal of Science
Space Science Reviews
Spectrochimica Acta Part A: Molecular and Biomolecular Spectroscopy
Surveys in Geophysics
Technology
Tellus A
The Astrophysical Journal
The Cato Journal *
The Electricity Journal
The Holocene
The Independent Review
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
The Quarterly Review of Biology
The Review of Economics and Statistics
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
Topics in Catalysis
Weather
Weather and Forecasting
World Economics
2. The Fraser reports are a solid scientific critique of the IPCC report. Yes, the NIPCC Report is a solid scientitic report of the state of climate science. The Heartland Institute just publishes it.
First sent five hours ago and Mr. Watts has yet to put it up my response. Here it is again:
Poptech (14:54:53) :
Anyone who uses the word “denial” or “denier” has a political bias and can drop their false pretenses of being “genuinely interested in the scientific research into climate change.” What a crock!
I define a climate change or global warming “denier” as a person who denies the central finding of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I, namely: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (SPM, p. 15). If you accept that finding, then I apologize for calling you a denier.
Do you even understand how peer-review works? The editors of a journal are not the reviewers. As with any other peer-reviewed journal relevant credentialed scientists to the paper would review it not the editorial board.
I’m fully aware of that. I just don’t know the names and affiliations of any “credentialed scientists” for Energy and Environment — either editorial board or reviewers. Do you? Please reply with their names here. That is the specific point I am challenging here. I see no evidence from the editorial board of E&E that anyone affiliated with the journal is even qualified to be a peer for a review of a scientific paper on the topic of climate change.
There are papers from many other journals in the list but you think that by attacking one journal you can discredit the list.
No, I am challenging the value of the most prominent one on your list.
REPLY: You know what Herman Lxxxx? Making the assumption that your post isn’t showing up is directly my fault is a pretty broad assumption. We have a team of moderators, we get hundreds of spam messages a day, and yes once in awhile posts get deleted with the spam. Get over it. But specifically fingering me when you have zero evidence to support personal action on my part is not something I appreciate. I’ve been off for a Rotary meeting the last two hours and I’ve never seen your comment. You’ve been hostile to me, and to the members of this blog since your fist post, so yes, your posts earn penalty box status (because they often require immediate responses – like this one) and that’s the way they will stay. Don’t like it, tough noogies. Find another blog to comment on.
I suggest that in the interest of demonstrating that your are fair and rational you might consider an apology in your very next posting. I’ve asked for apologies before from you and you refused. Here’s your chance to elevate yourself if you really think you deserve to get out of the penalty box. Following that, do your own research, ask E&E to send you the information, you can write email just as well as the next person. We aren’t here to cater to your needs.
Of course, if you really want to get out of the penalty box immediately, put your full name to your comments. If what you have to say is so important, so factual, step into the light, and I’ll applaud you for doing so.
-Anthony
Herman L (14:02:21)
Herman L, perhaps you are just being deliberately obtuse. A number of people, myself included, have repeatedly objected to the word “denier” because of its obvious correlation with “Holocaust denier”.
If you continue to use the word after so many have made their objections plain, you are an impolite and uncouth person. Pick some other word, it’s childish and unproductive to come in to a man’s blog and insult people. All you’ll do is get your vote cancelled, no one wants to listen to someone who insults them.
Do I “deny” the IPCC statement that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” I neither affirm nor deny that statement, I’m a scientist. Instead, I either accept or reject the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis is that what we are seeing in the climate is due to natural fluctuations. The 20th century is in no way unusual, the earth has been warming for centuries. So I don’t think that the evidence supports the IPCC claims, see my posts here and here.
Now, if you want to have a discussion of those ideas, join in on an appropriate thread, you will be welcome. But if you just want to call people names that they have repeatedly told you they find offensive, I fear you’re in for a rough ride.
“I define a climate change or global warming “denier” as a person who denies the central finding of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report Working Group I, namely: “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” (SPM, p. 15). If you accept that finding, then I apologize for calling you a denier.”
Typical propaganda like Willis said the connotation is to associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. Yes I reject that statement from the IPCC and find it unsupportable with empirical evidence.
“I see no evidence from the editorial board of E&E that anyone affiliated with the journal is even qualified to be a peer for a review of a scientific paper on the topic of climate change.”
So? They don’t review the papers, credentialed scientists in the appropriate field do.
“No, I am challenging the value of the most prominent one on your list.”
Of which you failed to do because E&E is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal,
“E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed“ – Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
Herman you still have nothing.
Responding to several posts here:
If you don’t like the word “denier” because you associate it with the holocaust (BTW, something I have never done), then what word do you prefer I use to describe someone who does not accept the conclusion “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.” ? I reject use of the term “skeptic” to describe that because all scientists are skeptical. While you are at it, why not post a list of forbidden terms, so we can avoid these issues?
2. You’ve been hostile to me, and to the members of this blog since your first post.
Care to repeat back to me the words I have used that you define as “hostile?” That’s a strong term.
I suggest that in the interest of demonstrating that your are fair and rational you might consider an apology in your very next posting. I’ve asked for apologies before from you and you refused.
For calling people here “deniers” because they associate the term with the holocaust? Yes, I apologize now to everyone who finds the word “denier” offensive. I did not know that you were offended by that and I promise to never use that term again. But please recognize that I have never made that association. And please give me a workable term we all can agree on.
… you are an impolite and uncouth person.
And may I ask the moderator why THIS does not count as hostility towards me, worthy of an apology as well?
So I don’t think that the evidence supports the IPCC claims…
Good, and what word would you use to describe your rejection on that claim?
Typical propaganda like Willis said the connotation is to associate skeptics with holocaust deniers. Yes I reject that statement from the IPCC and find it unsupportable with empirical evidence.
While we are at it, I object to the description of the work of the IPCC as “propaganda.” I find that word offensive because has a serious negative connotation associated with Nazi Germany and Stalinism.
OK, so now I will start calling you and others “rejectors?” Is that acceptable?
They [the editors of E&E] don’t review the papers, credentialed scientists in the appropriate field do.
Finally, back to the science! Isn’t this what this website is supposed to be about? Perhaps I have not been clear enough, so I will repeat: I am fully aware that the editors do not necessarily review papers. (Depending on the journal, some may, but that is a side issue). But they do have to find qualified reviewers. Since the only names I have found affiliated with E&E have no climate science credentials, the peer review process there raises an important question. To properly review a paper, one needs to find the credentialed scientist in not just the larger discipline, but also with some expertise in the details of the topic of the submitted paper. (A good example of this is with the journal Climate Research, where its editorial board lists not just the review editors, but their detailed areas of expertise for review purposes.)
Given that Energy and Environment has no names of climate scientists on its editorial board, I am at a loss to understand specifically how its editors can first find qualified climate scientists in general and then at the level of detail necessary to evaluate the finer nuances of technical manuscripts. Perhaps some respected, recognized climate scientists have come forward and say “yes, I peer reviewed a number of papers for E&E and found them all acceptable for publication.” But, as is clear from the above, there is no visible trail of qualified scientist on the editorial board to even begin with to find those individuals. That helps explain why E&E is carried in so few libraries. So, you may accept the science in its papers, but I see no evidence that the larger world community of climate scientists do.
Not all scientists are skeptics, far from it. In fact, very few scientists in the IPCC, CRU, Penn State, NASA/GISS, NOAA, etc., are skeptics. They prostitute themselves for grant money.
Richard Feynman on scientific skepticism:
Contrast scientific skepticism with the pre-ordained judgements of today’s AGW promoters who fancy themselves as honest scientists. They are not, because they are not skeptics. The truth is not in them.
When have we ever heard the likes of Michael Mann, Phil Jones, or James Hansen say, “…on the other hand, today’s climate is well within the historical parameters of natural variability, so we cannot state as a matter of fact that CO2 is the driver of the climate”? Instead, every utterance leads toward the imposition of the control and taxing of “carbon.”
Their conclusions are already decided upon, and they hammer their massaged data into a form that supports their CO2=CAGW conjecture, while discarding any inconvenient data. That makes them non-skeptical scientists.
And because every honest scientist is a skeptic, first and foremost, we cannot trust the conclusions of these non-skeptical scientists with an AGW agenda, who have traded scientific honesty and integrity for money and status.
Herman L (06:38:22) :
“While we are at it, I object to the description of the work of the IPCC as “propaganda.” I find that word offensive because has a serious negative connotation associated with Nazi Germany and Stalinism. ”
No it is not associated with them. The word is associated with anyone who uses selective information to promote a position usually dishonestly.
“But they do have to find qualified reviewers. Since the only names I have found affiliated with E&E have no climate science credentials, the peer review process there raises an important question. To properly review a paper, one needs to find the credentialed scientist in not just the larger discipline, but also with some expertise in the details of the topic of the submitted paper. “
Finding qualified reviewers for a paper is not hard and has nothing to do with the credentials of the editors. Finding qualified reviewers is what the editors of the journal do now unless you can prove otherwise you still have nothing but an attempted smear on a reputable journal.
The editorial board consists of qualified scientists for the mission statement of the journal. It is not a pure natural science journal nor a pure climate journal. It does however publish papers relating to climate science and the environment. E&E is Found at 43 libraries worldwide, at universities and the library of congress. Including an additional 79 in electronic form.
The science in journals is not a popularity contest. This is about peer-reviewed journals – E&E is peer-reviewed and thus you still have nothing.
Herman L (06:38:22) : edit
If you have not heard of the contention surrounding the use of the pejorative “denier”, don’t blame us.
Next, you say
How about “scientist”? Have you been following the IPCC revelations? They lied to get certain papers included. They cheated to keep certain papers out. They ignored the recommendations of their own reviewers. Despite Pachauri and others saying it is built 100% on peer-reviewed science, about 40% of their references are to newspapers, books, press releases, and propaganda. When asked to follow their own guidelines on transparency, they refused. They treat model results as if they were evidence.
But the real problem is that they don’t have any evidence to support their conclusions. So I have a word for those who do accept the IPCC conclusion … unscientific.
Since the hypothesis is that humans caused the warming, the null hypothesis is that the warming is within the natural variation. If you are so convinced of their conclusion, please point me to some evidence that it is true. Not model results, but you know, facts. Data. Measurable stuff. Because as near as I can see, there is nothing unusual about the post-1950’s warming. It is neither longer, nor larger, nor steeper than past warmings. Nor do we see anything unusual in the arctic warming, the number of hurricanes, the snow area, the outbound longwave radiation, the number of floods, the sea ice, or the sea level rise.
See my post here, and then come back and give your evidence in rebuttal.
Herman L (06:38:22) : edit
Here’s a protip, Herman. When you come in to a blog and immediately start calling people unpleasant names, they are not likely to describe you in glowing terms. And if you expect them to then apologize to you for describing your actions accurately, you will continue to be disappointed.
Rather, most of them presume AGW. They talk about the effects of a warmer global temperature on the Sahara, on the reefs, etc.