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:
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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 @ur momisugly Weatherbell).
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/
crosspatch said @ur momisugly 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.
‘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?
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’.
‘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.
Does anyone here have a clue on what problem Galileo and other astronomers where trying to solve anyway?
History anyone?
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.
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.
‘Steve Case says:
December 29, 2013 at 6:57 pm
crosspatch said @ur momisugly 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.
“Let the light that shines in your eyes, shine on me …”
http://umeshmadan.wordpress.com/tag/empedocles/
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.
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.
That is probably important in some bizarre context not obvious to the rest of us.
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.