Turbo Peer Review is the new normal it seems. Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit writes:
Bishop Hill draws attention to the publication of Trenberth’s comment on Spencer and Braswell 2011 in Remote Sensing. Unlike Trenberth’s presentation to the American Meteorological Society earlier this year (see here here here), Trenberth et al 2011 was not plagiarized.
The review process for Trenberth was, shall we say, totally different than the review process for O’Donnell et al 2010 or the comment by Ross and me on Santer et al 2008. The Trenberth article was accepted on the day that it was submitted:
Received: 8 September 2011 / Accepted: 8 September 2011 / Published: 16 September 2011
CA readers are well aware of long-term obstruction by the Team not simply regarding details of methodology, but even data. Trenberth objects to incompleteness of methodological description in Spencer and Braswell 2011 as follows:
Moreover, the description of their method was incomplete, making it impossible to fully reproduce their analysis. Such reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.
Obviously these are principles that have been advocated at Climate Audit for years. I’ve urged the archiving of both data and code for articles at the time of publication to avoid such problems. However, these suggestions have, all too often, been resolutely opposed by the Team. Even supporting data, all to often, remains unavailable. I haven’t had time to fully parse Spencer and Braswell as to reproducibility but note that Spencer promptly provided supporting data to me when requested (as did Dessler.) In my opinion, Spencer and Braswell should have archived data as used and source code concurrent with publication, as I’ve urged others to do. However, their failure to do so is hardly unique within the field. That Trenberth was able to carry out a sensitivity study as quickly as he did suggests to me that their methodology was substantially reproducibile, but, as I noted above, I haven’t parsed the article.
Trenberth observes that “minor changes” in assumptions yielded “major changes” in results, concluding that the claims in Lindzen and Choi 2009 were not robust:
read the rest here: More Hypocrisy from the Team
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
UEA whistles
FOI cough
From the Trenberth paper conclusions:
“Consequently, our results suggest that a range of model skills in replicating the regressions of SB11 exists, but rather than stratifying them by climate sensitivity as done without basis by SB11, one should stratify them by their ability to simulate ENSO… Moreover, the degree of model fidelity is not directly relevant to their climate sensitivity.”
Those are some of the same conclusions Dessler came to. Hmm…
Good grief!
The hypocrisy really is worse than we though.
It is a travesty.
Trenberth, Jones and the Team see it differently of course. To them, obfuscation is allowed when it’s those evil sceptics wanting to know how you’ve conjured up the papers that form the basis of the biggest tax grab of all time (and records stretch back further than 32 years for that). Reason? They know they’re right, they’re just right, OK?
One for Josh perhaps, when he’s recovered: Jones, Mann, Trenberth, Santer and Steig unmasked by the guys from the Climate Mystery Machine – Watts, McIntyre, Spencer, Lindzen and Eschenbach. “We would’ve got away with it too, if it hadn’t been for you meddling sceptics”
Oh my…… Anthony, this is my vote for the quote of the week. “Numerous attempts have been made to constrain climate sensitivity with observations.”
This is the beginning sentence of the “Travesty’s” response.
I forgot, observation is secondary in science now and in no way should observing reality constrain our thoughts of climate sensitivity. Just let them run wild and free without the hindrance of observation.
I’m not sure I can read more, but I’ll try……..
Only an author with peer review in his pocket can accomplish a one-day turnaround. This dramatically shows there is effectively NO pier review process–either because it was completely dispensed with, or the peer reviewers agreed completely with the paper and simply rubber-stamped it. Something smells to high heaven in this whole sordid affair!
One just sits there dumbstruck. No matter who’s wrong or right but turnaround of 1 day versus the norm of a couple of months even for like minded papers shows a degree of arrogance beyond belief. Arrogance to assume that nobody catches on how this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt the peer review process has been totally corrupted.
It really is a case of ‘it’s Not about what you know but who you know’.
One thing I’ve noticed is that all these new taxes and economic levies on industry, all seem to be planned years ago and now there has been a large push to implement these destructful green economies and expensive energy regulations before we enter into a period of cooling.
Don’t forget. According to some study, the number of peer-reviewed publications you have is a accurate measure of how reliable and competent you are.
So to sum up. The more peer-review publications you have, the more qualified you are. Also, don’t forget it is a crime when your friends review your publication, unless your friends agree that AGW is real. It takes a publication a long time to be reviewed when is anti-AGW, but reviews that are pro-AGW can be reviewed in as little as 1 day. Despite all this, it is those who are against AGW that are considered corrupt and paid-off by Big Media and the vocal environmentalists (which for some, like Al Gore, is a misnomer because he really isn’t an environmentalists).
I am now convinced that science is now more corrupt than politics and some religions.
ONE day, eh? Astonishing. Someone turned over the climate pal review rock.
Compare that instantaneous turnaround to this, which is more the norm in professional journals.
They are relentless are these Dessler and Trenberth;et al. Absolute experts on the “climate” they create with their computer models; with their thinly veiled contempt for Spenser and Braswell et al.. If computers existed 200 years ago there would be someone who would shreik: Horse manure will be 20 feet thick in Manhattan by 1900. little would they have known that it took another 111 years for it to get that deep, in places. Am I alone in my astonishment that everybody doesn’t see the hypocrisy of the Global Warming, Climate Change-disruption, “establishment”?
I wonder if it’s warm in the models today, ‘Cause it’s a bit cool here in South Florida,75F this morning, only 80’s at 1PM. “Chamber of Commerce Weather” is what they call it.
Regards.
Moreover, the description of their method was incomplete, making it impossible to fully reproduce their analysis. Such reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.
Trenberth needs to have a chat with Mann about openness. It seems like he is one of those that Trenberth needs to get after.
so does anyone have any comments on the actual content of the Trenberth comment, or just allegations of conspiracy?
UK Sceptic says:
September 16, 2011 at 9:04 am
UEA whistles
FOI cough
———————–
Very well said.And you know who the champion of the UEA (CRU) is, don’t you? Come on, who pays a visit to offer his support of the sterling work they are doing should they ever run into choppy waters. You know.
The whole US Academy / British Royal Society thing is stinkingly corrupt, and the learned journal publications and much ‘research’ coming from universities is part of the same system. Not to mention the media and their obvious complicity.
But no, there’s no conspiracy, no back-room deals, no dark overlords. No, it just all happens by accident and coincidence. That’s it. Ah, that’s better… what’s on the telly?
It is clearly labelled “Commentary.” Thus it is not regarded as a peer viewed article.
It must be nice to get service so quickly when everybody else has to wait. It’s like a Speed Pass.
Is your paper supporting our scam? OK, fast lane.
Are you a member of the Team? Good, go right on through, no speed limit.
That is some story. I thought parts of it had been fictionalized, until, at the end, I read the testation. I was really bothered by the suggestions that content of a comment had been leaked, which allowed authors an opportunity for a quick erratum. I have decided that this has happened to me a couple of times also, but I have no proof.
I have generally found peer review to be helpful, but it takes forever and sometimes we run into idiots along the way that make it, well, idiotic. So I have decided to write no more professional papers forever. Life is too short for peer review.
Definition of “rubber stamp” (various sources):
1. “to process, approve or decide matters routinely rather than through careful consideration“, 2. “a person who echoes or imitates others, a mostly powerless yet officially recognized body or person that approves or endorses programs and policies initiated usually by a single specified source”
Synonyms (from various sources):
“vouch, okay, certify, accept, confirm, re-echo, sign, endorse, undersign, affirm, validate,
subscribe, authorize, corroborate, echo, accede, acknowledge, acquiesce, admit, adopt, affirm, agree to, approve, assent, assume, avow, bear, buy, comply, concur with, cooperate with, give stamp of approval, give the go-ahead, give the green light, give the nod, go for, lap up, okay, recognize, rubber-stamp, set store by, sign, sign off on, take on*, take one up on, thumbs up, undertake”
I would add: “Buy off”
Rubber stamp (politics):
Per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_stamp_(politics)
.
.
It seems the best way to get published would be to spoof one of the team’s email addresses and submit via that route. Sine the “Peer Reviewers” don’t appear to actually read the paper, you could publish the Wizard’a Assistant by Walt Disney et al with impunity.
It might actually work.
If we take the lower bound of uncertainty in the climate models with the lowest sensitivity (or individual model runs that have no warming trend), these are consistent with observations.
In other words, no warming is consistent with the global warming models. Models that exhibit no warming for periods of time are the only accurate ones.
If you ask me, this type of uncertainty range (as Trenberth and Santer are using in recent papers/comments) should be disallowed. How can no warming be consistent with a 3C per doubling global warming theory.
Putting aside conspiracy theories, it may just be that the scientific community was so embarrassed to have Spencer, Braswell hanging out there unrebutted that it acted quickly to debunk a patently shoddy paper that had somehow been published. If this was any other area of science than climate change, that would be the logical conclusion to be drawn by both the editor’s resignation and the Dessler and Trenberth papers. What if that is all there is to it here?
If there was ever a doubt that politics has corrupted climate science, this is surely exhibit A. Trenberth needs to be able to ignore SB11 in AR5 in order to manufacture the results that the UN has commissioned. By placing this reply in Remote Sensing (after allowing 1 day for peer review), Trenberth can claim that SB11 has been refuted. I imagine that Trenberth has also issued orders to the now fully compliant editorial board of Remote Sensing to hold up any responses from Spencer of Lindzen until after the AR5 publication deadline.
Over to Roy Spencer. One assumes that the editors of Remote Sensind will grant him the same sort of treatment they have accorded to Kevin Trenberth. One wonders what the status of the Dessler paper in GRL is now.
Why can’t it just be as simple as the fact that the Spencer, Braswell paper was fatally flawed, and the scientific community would have been undermined if it was left hanging out there unrebutted. That seems to be the truth, as expressed by the resigning editor.
Cognitive dissonance in action:
Buzz Belleville says:
“Why can’t it just be as simple as the fact that the Spencer, Braswell paper was fatally flawed, and the scientific community would have been undermined if it was left hanging out there unrebutted.”
See what cognitive dissonance does to the alarmist crowd? This article is about a ONE DAY turnaround. IIRC, it took Prof Richard Lindzen a year to get his last paper published. But then, he’s not in Trenberth’s climate pal-review clique.