Peer Review; Last Refuge of the (Uninformed) Troll

Current peer review science, by attempting to explain away model failure, in fact confirms that the science is wrong

Guest essay by David M. Hoffer

It has become a favorite tactic amongst trolls to declare their belief in peer reviewed science.  With this simple strategy, they at once excuse themselves from the need to know anything about the science, and at the same time seek to discredit skeptic arguments on the grounds that, not having been published in peer reviewed journals, they may be dismissed out of hand.

A retreat to authoritarian arguments in the face of dead simple observations is not new.  It is a repeat of history.  Not having learned from it, we appear to be condemned to repeat it.  But both history and the current peer reviewed science are, if one steps back and looks at the big picture, on the skeptic side.

In the fifth century BC, Empedocles theorized that one could see by virtue of rays emanating from one’s eyes.  Falsifying this notion required no more than pointing out that one cannot see in a dark room.  Despite this simple observation, his theory enjoyed substantial support for the next 1600 years.

Galileo died while under house arrest for supporting the notion that the earth orbited the sun.  His was convicted in part on the basis of peer reviewed literature of the time insisting that the movement of the planets as observed from the earth could be explained by the planets simply reversing direction in orbit from time to time.  For nearly two thousand years, into the early 1800’s, when people fell ill, the peer reviewed literature confirmed that the best course of action was to let some blood out of them.  The simple observation that death rates increased when this treatment was applied was dismissed out of hand on the premise that, if it was true, it would appear in medical journals.  Sound familiar?

History is replete with examples of what seems today to be utterly absurd ideas.  Ideas which stubbornly refuse to die, sustained in part by the equally absurd notion that evidence to the contrary was not to be accepted simply because it hadn’t appeared in the “right” publications.  But is the notion of climate science today as easily falsified by simple observation?  I submit that it is.  We have the climate models themselves to upon which to rely.

For what are the climate models other than the embodiment of the peer reviewed science?  Is there a single model cited by the IPCC that claims to not be based on peer reviewed science?  Of course there isn’t.  Yet simple observation shows that the models, and hence the peer reviewed literature upon which they are based, are wrong.  We have none other than the IPCC themselves to thank for showing us that.

The leaked Second Order Draft of IPCC AR5 laid bare the failure of the models to predict the earth’s temperature going forward in time.  In fact, if one threw out all but the best 5% of the model results…they would still be wrong, and obviously so.  They all run hotter than reality.  Exposed for the world to see that the models (and hence the science upon which they are based) had so utterly failed, the IPCC responded by including older models they had previously declared obsolete as now being part of the current literature:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/04/no-matter-how-the-cmip5-ipcc-ar5-models-are-presented-they-still-look-bad/

Even with those older and supposedly obsolete models included, the models look to be complete failures.  In other words, confronted with the data showing that thousands are dying from bloodletting, the IPCC is resurrecting old studies showing that three or four patients recovered once in an old study from a long time ago.  They are point blank asking you to believe that planets reverse direction in orbit quite of their own volition.  They’ve contrived a theory that you can’t see in the dark because the rays from your eyes must interact with light to work.

As ridiculous as that may seem, for the IPCC, it is (literally) even worse than that.  For this we have the foremost climate scientists on the planet to thank.

Kevin Trenberth, arguably the most politically powerful climate scientist on earth, famously lamented in the ClimateGate Emails that we cannot account for “the missing heat”, a tacit admission that the models are wrong.  Since then we’ve seen multiple papers suggesting that perhaps the heat is being sequestered in the deep oceans where, conveniently, we cannot measure it.  If true, this also invalidates the models, since they predicted no such thing.

Dr Roy Spencer’s paper suggests that the heat is escaping to space.  If he’s right, the models are wrong.  More recently we have the paper by Cowtan and Way, which tries to make the case that the heat is hiding in places on earth where we have no weather station or satellite data.  Pretty selective that heat, going where nobody can measure it, but not where we can.  If they are right, then not a single model predicted any such thing, and so, once again, the models would be wrong.  Spencer’s paper stands apart from the others because it doesn’t twist itself into absurd contortions in a blatant attempt to preserve the CAGW storyline.  But make no mistake about it, all these papers are being published, not because the models (and the science they are predicted upon) are right, but because they are wrong, and obviously so.

No longer is the debate in regard to if the models are wrong.  The debate is now about why the models are wrong.  The models having fallen, the peer reviewed science they purport to represent falls with them.

But you need not believe me in that regard.

Just the peer reviewed science by the foremost climate scientists on earth.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
GlynnMhor

‘Peer review’ may become ‘pal review’, or less politely a ‘circle jerk’ of like-minded colleagues boosting one another’s fortunes.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

Responses that I get when I present peer-reviewed research that runs counter to what the True Believer ‘knows’:
‘cherry-picking’
‘out-of-date’
‘fraud’
and more!
Witness some of that here, from a person who claims to be a ‘journalist’ http://scythemantis.deviantart.com/journal/MEEERRY-KAJMSMAS-422842842
(note: his claims that I mention him all the time? … come to about 11 words over the past year. Narcissism, pure and unadulterated)

TheOldCrusader

I think the post would be stronger without the Galileo reference.
Recall that Galileo (and Copernicus) were technically mistaken. They maintained that the planets orbited the Sun in circular orbits. As Kepler showed, this was not the case. Because of the desire for circular orbits, the Copernican theory of the time also required resort to ‘epicycles’. Galileo’s problem with the authorities was as much or more due to personality issues than his doctrine – after all Copernicus went unmolested.
Without Newtonian ‘Universal Gravitation’ there was no good way to explain the motion of the planets. Tycho, the greatest observational astronomer of that era, also did not believe that Earth orbited the Sun, though he did believe the planets orbited the Sun. With the information available to educated men of that time, I have a feeling I’d have been an adherent of the Tychonic system myself.

In a recent modeling project, it takes 72 hours of computing time to generate 1/3 of a second of a simulated worm movement :
http://www.engadget.com/2013/12/26/openworm-project/
How many hours of computing time does it take for a climate model to produce one second of simulated earth climate? What is missing from climate models in order to create simulations that span years?

Janice Moore

Well done, David M. Hoffer (if I may, smile). Glad to see an article by you. When I saw you were this post’s author, I even came off my WUWT vacation to read it. You (and other WUWT science giants) certainly provided irrefutable demonstrative evidence of your above assertion in your valiant attempt last week to educate that troll-of-contrived-ignorance whose name I will NOT give the benefit of even mentioning ( = home for a legion of rabbits, going nicely with Monckton’s hive metaphor in the post below which your comments appeared).

Thanks, David. Well put!

I agree. Not only that but most of the so-called science authors and the peer reviewers are incompetent. I saw on another blog that (Dr ) Gavin Schmidt was asked about the the Schmidt number. He looked it up on Wiki then responded “what use was that”. By that admission he has no understanding of heat and mass transfer (which is an engineering discipline not understood by the so-called scientists). When peer reviewers (Gavin Schmidt has been one many times) do not understand the basics of what they are supposed to be reviewing one gets junk being published. Do any of the so-called climate scientist understand air conditioning, fluid dynamics, reaction kinetics (eg formation of ozone & ozone reactions) etc. or even simple thermodynamics? So-called climate science is political science in disguise.

GlynnMhor

OldCrusader is quite right.
The Copernican-Gallilean heliocentric system offered exactly zero improvement over the Ptolemaic geocentric one in predicting planetary positions. It gave the exact same errors for the exact same reasons.
Kepler’s revolutionary heliofocal system, in contrast, yielded planetary positions more accurate than the margin of measurement error of the time.
Yet Kepler gets very little credit or fame, while the other two bask in historical glory for their failed hypothesis.

Warmist “peer review” is as dishonest as their pseudo-scientific religion. Now we have thousands of Shaman desperately searching for the missing heat. It’s got to be here somewhere, otherwise it all falls apart, along with our reputations and grant money. We should be reaching the tipping point for AGW theory soon. However, that won’t dissuade the true believers, who will just develop a new theory (probably AGC).

cd

Anthony Watts
I try to actually introduce as many of my friends to your excellent website as a focus of general science (which it does a better job than fully dedicated ones) but when ironic S@*te like this appears it dilutes some of the excellent pieces posted here.
BTW, your recent post on the moon landing and the words of those who landed – EXCELLENT. Compared to an age of giant achievements, and perhaps the words of those of the greatest of all, expressing such humility, it should shame our age that has nothing more to offer than hubris from the rather vacuous underachieving generation that makes a living from of their [all those of NASA pre-1970] great achievements.

Rex

If Mosher makes one of his lightning raids here, please please ignore him.

jorgekafkazar

TheOldCrusader says: “I think the post would be stronger without the Galileo reference.
Recall that Galileo (and Copernicus) were technically mistaken. They maintained that the planets orbited the Sun in circular orbits. As Kepler showed, this was not the case. Because of the desire for circular orbits, the Copernican theory of the time also required resort to ‘epicycles’. Galileo’s problem with the authorities was as much or more due to personality issues than his doctrine – after all Copernicus went unmolested…”
Nonsense. Copernicus went unmolested not for his political correctness, but because he was dead before his work was published. Galileo (and Copernicus) were essentially correct: The planets do revolve around the Sun and most of the (then-known) planets do have fairly circular orbits. Mars and Mercury were two exceptions because of their higher orbital eccentricities, which resulted in more epicycles in the Copernican theory than the Ptolemaic. Kepler did not reject the Copernican theory as “mistaken” or “technically mistaken.” He merely used Tyco Brahe’s data to add eccentricity to the orbital theory.

Bob Weber

“So-called climate science is political science in disguise.” Couldn’t have said it better.
Peer-review is not always the first line of action for innovators, for whatever reason.
“Dr Roy Spencer’s paper suggests that the heat is escaping to space. If he’s right, the models are wrong.” – Given a choice as to where that heat went to on a cold cloudless winter night, even the least educated man in the street would go with “into space” over “into the oceans”.
The problem is the lack of common sense among some highly educated and overpaid government dependents, and the belief in computer simulations as the truest reflection of reality for everything.

Mark Bofill

David, thank you.
All too often it seems that the only understanding people have of the models is ‘they predict warming’. All too often, any argument that any warming has occurred satisfies such people. A reminder that, no matter the answers to these questions; is the heat in the oceans, is it at the poles, is it not there at all, is natural variability greater than we thought, etc. the models did not project what was observed, and they failed to do so in a statistically conclusive way is clearly overdue.

Andrew

Kepler’s Laws are taught in schools in detail as the working model for planetary movements even today (the relativistic ones are a bit tricky) – Galileo gets a passing mention. I think Kepler does OK.

dp

David – you don’t have to go so far back in history to find the ignorance of consensus you seek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods
What he alone knew changed everything once everyone else saw the light. It wasn’t that long ago.

There aren’t many issues of controversy out there where one side can win its argument by actually using the data of the other side. It no longer matters whether or not Warmists listen to our side of the argument (not that they did anyway). No, all they have to do now is look at their own arguments to see that they are wrong.

I do hope that Mr. Hoffer is not misremembering George Santayana when he says, “It is a repeat of history. Not having learned from it, we appear to be condemned to repeat it.”
History is written by the victors that are ignorant of the fallacy of historicism or that are trying to legitimize some claim. Santayana dictated that we remember our past, those that cannot are damned to repeat it. Read The Poverty of Historicism and it’s foundations in The Logic of Scientific Discovery.

Khwarizmi

Galileo’s problem with the authorities was as much or more due to personality issues than his doctrine – after all Copernicus went unmolested. – OldCrusader
In 1484, Pope Innocent VIII decreed that cats were evil creatures to be burnt with witches.
I guess cats just didn’t have the right kind of “personality” for the Catholic Church, huh?
Thankfully, the Church is no longer the authority on what we can think and say.
Welcome to the enlightenment…
= = = = = =
Galileo, perhaps more than any other single person, was responsible for the birth of modern science. His renowned conflict with the Catholic Church was central to his philosophy, for Galileo was one of the first to argue that man could hope to understand how the world works, and moreover, that we could do this by observing the real world.
Galileo had believed Copernican theory (that the planets orbited the sun) since early on, but it was only when he found the evidence needed to support the idea that he started to publicly support it. He wrote about Copernicus’s theory in Italian (not the usual academic Latin), and soon his views became widely supported outside the universities. This annoyed the Aristotelian professors, who united against him seeking to persuade the Catholic Church to ban Copernicanism.
Galileo, worried about this, traveled to Rome to speak to the ecclesiastical authorities. He argued that the Bible was not intended to tell us anything about scientific theories, and that it was usual to assume that, where the Bible conflicted with common sense, it was being allegorical. But the Church was afraid of a scandal that might undermine its fight against Protestantism, and so took repressive measures. It declared Copernicanism “false and erroneous” in 1616, and commanded Galileo never again to “defend or hold” the doctrine. Galileo acquiesced.
In 1623, a longtime friend of Galileo’s became the pope. Immediately Galileo tried to get the 1616 decree revoked. He failed, but he did manage to get permission to write a book discussing both the Aristotelian and Copernican theories, on two conditions: he would not take sides and would come to the conclusion that man could in any case not determine how the world worked because God could bring about the same effects in ways unimagined by man, who could not place restrictions on God’s omnipotence.
The book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, was completed and published in 1632, with the full backing of censors – and was immediately greeted throughout Europe as a literary and philosophical masterpiece. Soon the pope, realizing that people were seeing the book as a convincing argument in favor of Copernicanism, regretted having allowed its publication. The pope argued that although the book had the official blessing of the censors, Galileo had nevertheless contravened the 1616 decree. He brought Galileo before the Inquisition, who sentenced him to house arrest for life and commanded him to publicly renounce Copernicanism. For a second time, Galileo acquiesced.
Galileo remained a faithful Catholic, but his belief in the independence of science had not been crushed. Four years before his death in 1642, while he was still under house arrest, the manuscript of his second major book was smuggled to a publisher in Holland. It was this work, referred to as Two New Sciences, that was to be the genesis of modern physics.
– Stephen Hawking
= = = = = =

climateace

D Hoffer
Oh dear – a paper which starts by defining anyone who dares question the views of the author as a ‘troll’. The beauty of this bit of sophistry is that the author virtually sets up, and automatically ‘wins’, a circular argument: trolls are wrong and bad. Hoffer is not a troll. Therefore D Hoffer is right!
Verbal alchemy – logical dross into gold!
D Hoffer goes on to assert:
‘Galileo died while under house arrest for supporting the notion that the earth orbited the sun. His was convicted in part on the basis of peer reviewed literature of the time insisting that the movement of the planets as observed from the earth could be explained by the planets simply reversing direction in orbit from time to time.’
Galileo was done for heresy (ie breaching matters of faith and morals) by an organisation that bases itself on being the sole and divinely-directed arbiters of those well-known pieces of peer-reviewed scientific literature – the gospels. In other words, according to those who defined this stuff at the time, at the core, Galileo’s transgressions were theological.
And if you think that the Roman Catholic Church has subsequently 100% rehabilitated Galileo, not quite – there are still (somewhat thin and scanty) currents of thought that Galileo was a heretic, regardless of modern scientific progress on heliocentrism.
The RC church organised an exhibition on Galileo on his 400th anniversay in a church not far from the Rome railway station. It was quite open in some ways, but remarkably grudging in others. Inter alia, the exhibition went to some extent to demonstrate that Galileo was a believer, he really was.
They can’t even agree amongst themselves on whether to erect a statue to him in Vatican City!
D Hoffer may also consider that there is an internal contradiction to his position on Galileo. It was the peer-reviewed literature that was mostly right. It was the religious science-deniers of the day who refused to accept the peer-reviewed literature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei#Church_reassessments_of_Galileo_in_later_centuries

PaulH

I agree that the Galileo reference might be a bit misplaced, as the Galileo persecution is probably more lore than fact. In it’s place, one might include William Harvey. Harvey shattered the accepted wisdom put forth by the great physician to gladiators and Roman emperors, Galen. Galen had written, in the 2nd century AD, that there were two kinds of blood carried by essentially two different vascular systems. And all the assorted fluids in a human body were imbued with invisible pneuma, “spirits” if you will. Galen’s system was taught in medical schools for 1,400 years before being successfully challenged by Harvey’s studies.

Michael Check

The general public who get their news from the networks and NPR will never have their minds changed by what is reported here and elsewhere. In the people’s republic of Ann Arbor, it’s just not news if it’s not from these select sources. I’ve done everything I can to enlighten, illuminate, refute, and nothing works. I suspect this somewhat willful ignorance is widespread. Unless they’re interested in the subject, they just take the word of John Stewart, Diane Rhem or Brian Williams as fact.

And now for a public service announcement. If you live in the Great Lakes or upper Midwest, you have one week to prepare for “history making cold”. If you have livestock or pipes that need protecting, if you have any malfunctioning heaters, cranky furnaces, a broken window somewhere in a barn, a vehicle that won’t start in severe cold, you have about one week to get it in good order. Places like WI, IL, IN, ND, MN, IA are going to see temperatures possibly 50 degrees below normal according to the latest forecast model runs. Chicago might see -30F.

David: Good article! Thanks for posting.
crosspatch: I recall minus 21ºF in Ohio in the ’60’s. You realize how many nerve endings are in your nose and ears when that happens!
With all of California’s problems, at least the lack of global warming isn’t one of them!

DAV

Galileo died while under house arrest for siupporting the notion that the earth orbited the sun.
Popular idea but not entirely true. What got him in trouble was his total lack of tact. He went out of his way to insult the pope who had encouraged him to write up his ideas. You might say he was one of the first nerds.

Peer reviewed climate science seems to be little more than the art of ignoring one’s ignorance for the greater good of the clique. Maybe five percent of the hydrosphere has been visited? Never mind. Almost all of the hot, plasticky ball called Earth unvisited, unexamined? Bor-ing. Get to all that later. Gotta publish.
Why, if everybody waited to know stuff before they published stuff there wouldn’t be any “findings” to dismiss after ten years to make way for new publications. And in this electronic age it should soon be possible to discredit old tripe and publish fresh tripe with a five-year max turnaround. That’s including full peer review of all new tripe!

climateace

If the comparison is between peer-reviewed science and blog posts, give me the peer-reviewed stuff any time. It is not they are right all the time. It is that they are more likely to be right more of the time than the bloggers.
Peer-reviewed science gives you clinally-tested medicines, model-based weather forecasts, safe aircraft travel and so and so forth.
Bloggers gives you magic stone cures, 400 different (literally) conspiracy theories for who really killed Kennedy, divining rods for finding water, astrology, more Noah’s arks on Ararat than you can poke a stick at, perpetual motion machines, star signs, aromatherapy and other fantastical and untested wonders of the fertile human imagination. These guys just make stuff up and then move right along when logical heat is applied.

Brian H

dp says:
December 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm
David – you don’t have to go so far back in history to find the ignorance of consensus you seek.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Harlen_Bretz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods
What he alone knew changed everything once everyone else saw the light. It wasn’t that long ago.

He evidently felt the need for extra clout to fend off his detractors. His daughter revealed that he was really “Harley”, and invented “J Harlen” as a more impressive moniker.

Aphan

Climateace-
Assumption-“Oh dear – a paper which starts by defining anyone who dares question the views of the author as a ‘troll’. ”
Fact-Essay begins- “It has become a favorite tactic amongst trolls to declare their belief in peer reviewed science.”
There is no definition made by the author as to what constitutes a “troll” to him. At all. Your attribution to him that he defines it as “anyone who dares to question his views”, is truly a piece of….er…um…sophistry, which is gloriously ironic and hypocritical in it’s context. It’s called a STRAWMAN.
“D Hoffer may also consider that there is an internal contradiction to his position on Galileo. It was the peer-reviewed literature that was mostly right. It was the religious science-deniers of the day who refused to accept the peer-reviewed literature.”
Maybe your sophistry gets in the way of your reading comprehension, maybe it blocks the view.
“But both history and the current peer reviewed science are, if one steps back and looks at the big picture, on the skeptic side.”
You see, he made it clear that, because MOST of the peer-reviewed literature today does not support the AGW theory, there is no internal contradiction. The vast majority of actual scientific research contradicts AGW outright, (unless your name is Cook or Nuccitelli and you think everyone else on the planet is too gullible to actually check your work) and shows a complete lack of consensus on the matter. It is the ” AGW religion/ science pretenders” of our day who refuse to accept the REAL peer-reviewed literature. In attacking Mr. Hoffer with logical fallacies and appeals to authority, you only solidify his argument and make him a “heretic” in your eyes.

Khwarizmi

In the fifth century BC, Empedocles theorized that one could see by virtue of rays emanating from one’s eyes. Falsifying this notion required no more than pointing out that one cannot see in a dark room.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Incredible. But true– no optics for the next 1500 years.
In the 4th century BC, Anaxagoras argued that the sun was a fiery stone, larger than the Peloponnese. He must have seen the relationship between fire and light. But he was banished from Athens for heresy.

Thanks David. An interesting article.
Happy New Year to all that help making WUWT!

Brian H

Even sceptics fall into the trap of regarding peer review as a verification and testing of a paper. Much better to think of it as unpaid copy editing, a quickie once-over to check for obvious slip-ups — with the “payoff” that one gets to greenlight views that agree with yours, and put stumbling blocks and caltrops in the way of those that don’t. Not to mention requiring citations of papers your name happens to be attached to, for valuable Index points.

Thanks crosspatch, I’m glad to be far away to the SE.
See http://www.weatherbell.com/saturday-summary-december-28-2013 (Joe Bastardi @ Weatherbell).

Juice

Is there some law that says if you’re having an argument about science and you compare yourself to Galileo you automatically lose?

True, Galileo’s regrettable censorship in the 1630-1650’s occurred, but it is memorable most in the collective socialist memories of those who deliberately want to propagandize skeptical attitudes with their “flat-earth” denialism and tarnish all skeptics with a fervid anti-religious framework of distortion and exaggeration, compared of course, to the “truth” and “knowledge” purported to be exampled by the “Science” of their peer-reviewed (in pal-edited) journals paid for by government-granting money. Recall, at the time, there was no real evidence of motion around anything. Only dots of light criss-crossing back and forth over a round image of Jupiter through a blurry telescope. It is to Galileo’s credit that he WAS able to “see” that circular motion as he looked at the image sideways!
Today, ALL of the “evidence” points to the fallacy and exaggerations-for-money/power/profit/publication/promotions/politics of CAGW across the entire “scientific” horde of consensus-seekers and tax-suckers.
More accurately, more timely is the utter disdain and hatred expressed AGAINST the continental drift theory first proposed in the mid-1920’s, not plotted until September 1952, and not accepted until the mid-60’s with satellite data and magnetic field information by the “consensus” of geologists.
Or the Royal Society “consensus” authorities that opposed using chronometers, that falsely tested chronometers against their “favorite” moon-offset calculations – that were deeply flawed, more difficult to use, but employed “LOTS” of Royal Society clerks and book makers and which promised great rewards … to the Royal Society “leadership” … Bias? Nah.
Rather, I would challenge “climateace” to name ONE scientific principle now taught that did NOT first have to “break through” the “scientific consensus of its time” to show that EVERY contemporary expert in every field at every breakthrough – at the time of the evidence and the proposal itself – was “dead wrong.”

Bravo! The journals and their “peers” have been allowed to frame the debate.
http://geosciencebigpicture.com/2013/12/16/science-and-government/

Steve Case

crosspatch said @ 5:50 pm
“…you have one week to prepare … Chicago might see -30F.”
Not as outrageous as 5 meters of sea level rise by 2100, but outrageous nevertheless.

climateace

‘Khwarizmi says:
December 29, 2013 at 6:39 pm
In the fifth century BC, Empedocles theorized that one could see by virtue of rays emanating from one’s eyes. Falsifying this notion required no more than pointing out that one cannot see in a dark room.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Incredible. But true– no optics for the next 1500 years.
In the 4th century BC, Anaxagoras argued that the sun was a fiery stone, larger than the Peloponnese. He must have seen the relationship between fire and light. But he was banished from Athens for heresy.’
Which particular heresy? The one where he reckoned that the Earth is flat?

climateace

Aphan
‘It has become a favorite tactic amongst trolls to declare their belief in peer reviewed science.”
There is no definition made by the author as to what constitutes a “troll” to him.’
I have just read the first two lines of your post and that was enough, methinks.
D Hoffer defines a troll as ‘someone who declares their belief in peer reviewed science’.

climateace

‘RACookPE1978 says:
December 29, 2013 at 6:54 pm
True, Galileo’s regrettable censorship in the 1630-1650′s occurred…’
Um, parts of Galileo’s work was on the index of banned books well into the 19th Century. I am not sure exactly when the last of Galileo’s work was unbanned.
In any case, you are out by around two centuries of Roman Catholic Church censorship of Galileo’s works.

Quote- climateace says: December 29, 2013 at 5:41 pm
“Galileo was done for heresy (ie breaching matters of faith and morals) by an organisation that bases itself on being the sole and divinely-directed arbiters of those well-known pieces of peer-reviewed scientific literature – the gospels. In other words, according to those who defined this stuff at the time, at the core, Galileo’s transgressions were theological.”
Religions speak with one voice on climate policy
Many religious groups – Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Uniting Church, Baptists, Salvation Army, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, Baha’i – have statements upholding humanity’s responsibility to protect the environment on which life depends. While these statements are often not well known or widely proclaimed, increasingly these traditions are beginning to appreciate the importance of protecting the environment, and especially facing up to the urgent question of climate change caused by carbon pollution.
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/06/27/3791330.htm
Not much has changed, climateace.

Box of Rocks

Does anyone here have a clue on what problem Galileo and other astronomers where trying to solve anyway?
History anyone?

climateace

Mark McGuire
An interesting post.
The erstwhile head of the Roman Catholic Church in Australia, and now close advisor to Pope Francis in the Vatican Curia, Cardinel Pell, is a vociferous anti-warmist.

Jim Cripwell

I have been beating this drum for about 7 years. The denizens of Climate Etc are probably, and justifiably, tired of my continually saying that I only trust hard, measured, empirical data, and nothing else. It is a pleasure to see what I so firmly believe set out in such an eloquent paper. Thank you very much indeed.
I should note that in discussing CAGW with warmists, on ANY subject they can invariably quote a pal (peer) reviewed reference that “proves” the CAGW side is correct. It is simply impractical to show that the science in pretty well all of these papers, leaves a lot to be desired.

climateace

‘Steve Case says:
December 29, 2013 at 6:57 pm
crosspatch said @ 5:50 pm
“…you have one week to prepare … Chicago might see -30F.”
Not as outrageous as 5 meters of sea level rise by 2100, but outrageous nevertheless.’
Well, looking at the probabilities, I suggest you pack your kayak and bathers in the cellar, and get your fur parkas, snow-shoes and cross country skis out of the attic.

Carl M

“Let the light that shines in your eyes, shine on me …”
http://umeshmadan.wordpress.com/tag/empedocles/

Khwarizmi

climateace,
Anaxagoras was charged with “impiety” and banished from Athens for promoting several speculative ideas, including the burning stones hypothesis for the stars and sun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaxagoras
But you cheery pick the flat earth portion of the picture as if doing so justified the persecution, in the same way that some people invoke Galileo’s insubordination to the Catholic “authorities” to justify his persecution.
Please stop bombing threads with your deluge of disruptive trolling posts.

GogogoStopSTOP

Great essay, David. But, isn’t it a stretch to say the GCM’s are models? Aren’t they really just elaboate curve fitted equations that attempt to predict outside the bounds of the data? Yes, all GCM’s have a verification phase, but then they have a hard wired predictive phase.
But each model has one common, basic assumption: when CO2 goes up, temperture will go up. So all GCM’s “models” force CO2 to rise & voila: temperature goes up.
Where’s the “model?” There’s no other assumption that would allow temperature to fall… ever!
Yes, there may be some intermediate step, like clouds & albedo, but all the models merely predict outside the bounds of their data, according to an assumption that says, higher CO2 causes higher tempertaures.

dp

His daughter revealed that he was really “Harley”, and invented “J Harlen” as a more impressive moniker.

That is probably important in some bizarre context not obvious to the rest of us.

lgp

Peer review does not ensure the veracity of a scientific conclusion, just that the researcher made no blatant flaws, as far as the peer reviewers could see, in his/her research. The best example I know is Hubble vs Van Maanen on whether spiral nebulae were external to the milky way. Both were “authorities, both were “peer” reviewed, both published in the same prestigious journals sometimes in the same issues. But time and falsification would show that one was irredeemably wrong, and the other was unassailably right.
http://www.aip.org/history/cosmology/ideas/bad-evidence.htm
So anytime one quotes “peer” review, just snort and say, well that just means someone checked for typos.