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.
KR;
Those are some of the same conclusions Dessler came to. Hmm…>>>>
Yup. If you just ignore the fact that Spencer discredited Dessler on this very site the next day, prompting Dessler to retract many of his comments and to agree to work with Spencer to correct the errors in Dessler’s own paper…then that would hold water.
Buzz whatever;
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?>>>>
Well Buzz, let’s examine the sequence of events so far:
1. Spencer and Braswell publish a paper showing that actual meaured data shows that considerably more energy escapes to space than the various climate models base their assumptons on in the journal “Remote Sensing”.
2. Wolfgang Wagner, the figure head Editor-In-Chief of Remote Sensing, resigns in “protest” over the paper. He states in his resignation that SB11 was properly peer reviewed by well qualified reviewers, at prestigious American universities, and despite being unable to point out a single scientific flaw in the paper itself, nor in the process by which it was published, he resigns anyway. His reason? “Modelers”, people who create computer programs to attempt to simulate the climate, hadn’t been consulted. Question: Why would any scientist need to consult programmers of artificial models on actual observed data?
3. Kevin Trenberth, king of the modelers, instantly starts bragging that he received a personal apology for allowing SB11 to be published from Wolfgang Wagner. Questions: Since Wagner said in his own resignation that the scientific process including peer review was followed, why should he apologize to Trenberth for allowing SB11 to be published? Why would Trenberth publicly gloat about it? What does Wagner fear from Trenberth so much that he would resign and apologize to Trenberth for allowing a paper to be published despite it being scientifically sound and properly peer reviewed according to Wagner himself? What power does Trenberth yield that he can publicly gloat about forcing the Editor-In-Chief of an academic journal to resign AND apologize to Trenberth PERSONALLY for daring to allow a paper based on actual measured observations to be published for the one, and only reason, that it disagreed with artificial computer models.
4. Upon investigation, it became apparent that Wolfgang Wagner heads up a program at the Vienna University of Technology where he is responsible for the intersection of remote sensing with climate modeling. His resignation in that context is clearly an apology to the climate modelling community in general for allowing SB11 to be published at all, as was his personal apology to Trenberth. Further investigation turned up this little gem: Wagner heads an effort to create a database of soil moisture on a global basis that is dependent upon a larger UN initiative called WEGEX for data, and that organization’s science committee is chaired by…none other than Kevin Trenberth. Question Buzz: Does preventing actual data from being published because it disagrees with computer models that don’t even agree with each other sound like science to you?
5. In his glee about forcing Wagner’s resignation and apology, Trenberth bragged that a soon to be published paper by Dessler would discredit SB11. Desller’s paper was published, and in a day or so Spencer had documented the clear errors and assumptions in it, as well as the fact that much of it was ad hominem attacks rather than an actual rebuttal of SB11’s science. Dessler soon backed down, agreed to remove the disparaging (and irrelevent) remarks, and to correct any errors in data analysis between their two papers…which for the most part turned out to be errors in Dessler’s work, not SB11.
6. So…now Trenberth HIMSELF (Dessler having failed miserably) take up the battle and writes a comment to Remote Sensing that is published the same day. He opens his critique of SB11 with the most astounding comment:
“Numerous attempts have been made to constrain climate sensitivity with observations.”
Trenberth’s non peer reviewed “comment” asserts, as did Wagner in both his resignation and hisw apology to Trenberth, that actual data has no right to displace the conclusions of artificial computer models. He complains that Spencer is just modeling ENSO, carefully ignoring the fact that if so, 18 of the 22 models published by the IPCC as being “factual” don’t model ENSO at all, not even close. In his “rebuttal”, Trenberth chooses data that is contaminated by other factors instead of the data that Spencer and Braswell used which was based on the PREVALENCE of the data signal they were measuring in the first place.
So my dear friends KR and Buzz, does any of this sound like “science” to you? Can you justify in any way one scientist resigning and apologizing to another for allowing properly peer reviewed measured data to be published just because it disagrees with the all mighty, all knowing, Travesty of the Missing Heat Trenberth? For publishing actual data in the face of results from mostly wrong artificial computer models?
I’ll tell you what it sounds like to me. It sounds like prostitution has been displaced as the world’s oldest profession.
I flew over the Sierras last week. Amazing amount of snow still on the ground from last winter. This year’s base will be last year’s snow.
Glaciers are not a result of cold winters, rather a result from cool summers that don’t melt the snow from the prior year. Whether they form or not, if we have a protracted (several year) period of these recent conditions, people will start to notice. A quiet sun, over a couple of cycles, may have something to do with that.
I understand that the EPA CO2 regs have now been shelved along with the new proposed ozone standard. That’s election politics, but a very good result.
Such reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.
As others have noted, incredible hypocrisy.
Policyguy says: September 16, 2011 at 7:47 pm I flew over the Sierras last week. Amazing amount of snow still on the ground from last winter. This year’s base will be last year’s snow.
The Rockies are looking the same. We got our first snow last night, looks like it stuck at 10K feet and up.
davidmhoffer says:
September 16, 2011 at 7:42 pm [ … ]
David, great post. I look forward to Buzz Belleville answering your questions. But my gut feeling is that he is totally incapable – without completely destroying his CAGW belief system.
With this kind of turnaround, all they really need for this journal is a drive-through with a speakerbox and perhaps a mail slot. A 15 year old could sit at the window and man the computer, and also deal with any questions that may arise.
davidmhoffer says:
September 16, 2011 at 7:42 pm
Nice clear summation, however, one quibble……
“I’ll tell you what it sounds like to me. It sounds like prostitution has been displaced as the world’s oldest profession.”
No, prostitution hasn’t been replaced, just replicated. While there are several examples to see in the warmista team, none made it any clearer than Wagner. he showed a willingness to do just about anything for a shot at some of that grant money and a little academic bling. Well, we all have goals in life, apparently his is to be the Travesty’s b***h. I’m not sure who disgusts me more. A worm such as Wagner, who has no qualms about displaying that he has no character, or the unwarranted megalomania of Trenberth, who has the audacity to attempt to lecture about correlation/causation and stating “reproducibility and openness should be a benchmark of any serious study.” This has got to turn any warmista pale. I’m going to use that one from now until they beg me to stop, and even then, I won’t. This little chapter in the ongoing saga of the climate wars removes any doubt about the character of these wormy bastards in their entirety.
Did anyone send that to Mann? Or any of the other FOI blocking SOBs? But, his opening sentence was indeed a beaut!
The Team is not made up of stupid people. The team knows that one of the principle reasons they have lost credibility since climategate is the perception that the peer review process has been rigged in their favor. They also know that these lightning turnarounds that we have seen in response to Spencer and Braswell will only reinforce that perception. The question is, Why didn’t they arrange for a normal turnaround time so as to not exacerbate the credibility problems with their peer reviews? The obvious answer is they are getting desperate and making the sort of mistakes that even very smart, desperate men typically make. Time will tell.
A quote in the article is: “The RECENT WORK suggests that 20 years or longer is needed to begin to resolve a significant global warming signal in the context of natural variations.”
Is this correct? Or would it have been more accurate to have said: “”The LACK OF WARMING SINCE 1998 suggests that 20 years or longer is needed to begin to resolve a significant global warming signal in the context of natural variations.” (Emphasis mine)
T or S&B? All bets are off! The Fat La–Prophet has yet to weigh in!
Friends:
I am appalled at the one-day-approval of the Trenberth paper by the journal Remote Sensing. A potentially controversial paper that passes review in less than months can only be a demonstration of bias by the Editor and publisher of the publishing journal.
I am on the Editorial Board of ‘Energy & Environment’ (E&E).
E&E is excoriated by AGW supporters because it publishes papers which refute the AGW hypothesis (E&E also publishes papers that support the AGW hypothesis). Indeed, E&E published the first peer reviewed papers that showed significant flaws in the method used to generate the MBH ‘Hockey Stick’, and the Climategate emails prove the Team responded by attempting to get E&E’s Editor (Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen) removed from her university position.
E&E calls on members of its Editorial Board to be Guest Editors for Special Editions on individual themes. Last year I was Guest Editor for a Special Edition on Renewable Energy. Some aspects of this subject are controversial; e.g. windfarms. So, I obtained four appropriate reviewers for each potentially controversial paper; two reviewers were known to be pro and two were known to be anti. The review process for each such controversial paper took more than six months. (Incidentally,the Special Edition satisfied E&E’s Editorial Board and publisher but was attacked by others as being “bland”. It seems that my views on ‘renewables’ had induced some to expect the Special Edition would be biased and they were disappointed.)
Hence, I know with absolutely certainty that the one-day-approval of the Trenberth paper is a travesty of peer review.
Richard
A quick return is normal in ping pong, but the balls are pithy and hollow, with out much substance.
Smokey says:
September 16, 2011 at 8:47 pm
davidmhoffer says:
September 16, 2011 at 7:42 pm [ … ]
David, great post. I look forward to Buzz Belleville answering your questions. But my gut feeling is that he is totally incapable – without completely destroying his CAGW belief system.
I agree – remember Buzz Belleville’s legal reputation and integrity are closely tied to the CAGW belief system.
His ultimate “fall back” position will probably be to claim that he “was just following orders”. After all, “they” were saying it is all man’s fault and how could he possibly know they were misleading him all this time?
Many of us know that the answer to “how could he possibly know?” is to simply ask reasonable questions that any reasonable person would and you quickly see how unreasonable the CAGW by CO2 adherents are.
Quick, pour some more antisceptic on the wounds, stat. We are haemorrhaging dogma here. If any reality gets in were doomed.
Which, of course, should be we’re doomed
No, prostitution hasn’t been replaced, just replicated.
—————————————————–
Grossly unfair to the average hooker. She is not selling her principles.
johanna says:
September 17, 2011 at 11:26 am
No, prostitution hasn’t been replaced, just replicated.
—————————————————–
Grossly unfair to the average hooker. She is not selling her principles.
=========================================================
You may have a point, but you’re assuming the team had principles to sell to begin with.
Sorry James, I have to contradict myself and support johanna.
No prostitute ever got that kind of money that these jerks get for doing their job WRONG.
I think the comment from Phil Jones to Michael Mann over the death of John Daly sums up these people – Jones said “In an odd way this is cheering news”.
To my way of thinking a group of people who derive pleasure from the death of a person who disagreed with them and frequently frustrated their agenda are beneath contempt and so full of their own importance they lack any credibility and their “science” is highly suspect if they feel the need to kill of opposing points of view – obviously their “science” is not robust enough to survive logical criticism.
Thankfully the majority of the human race grow out of these character flaws by the time they commence social activities – ie during the first year of primary school.
I am of the opinion that the IPCC is itself corrupt, and have recently found (credible) other’s with the same opinion.
…….. an IPCC expert reviewer has recently come out and said he believes: “The IPCC is fundamentally corrupt. The only ‘reform’ (of the IPCC) I could envisage would be its abolition.”
The PUSH is strong in Australia for a Carbon (dioxide) Tax…… Heaven needs to help us!!
http://justmeint.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/have-the-tame-scientists-told-bob-and-julia/