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.
“Khwarizmi says:
December 30, 2013 at 3:18 am
Jarmo – Just as a test, how many of you would like to be treated for the rest of your natural lives according to peer-reviewed medicine?
= = = =
1/2 a million Americans had their natural lives terminated prematurely thanks to peer-reviewed Vioxx. Evidence-based choices, not peer-reviewed prescriptions for me.”
I believe Merck (manufacturer of Vioxx) was tried and found guilty for trying to suppress and downplay information from research that indicated Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks.
” Merck MRK +0.14% & Co. agreed to pay $950 million and plead guilty to a criminal misdemeanor charge to resolve government allegations that the company illegally promoted its former painkiller Vioxx and deceived the government about the drug’s safety.” http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204531404577054472253737682
Steven Mosher says:
December 30, 2013 at 1:01 am
Yes Steve, but this seems to have become the latest piece of sophistry thrown about to paper over the fact that the climate models do in fact perform extremely poorly, not because of any physical laws but because of the many variables which are either omitted or whose true effect is unknown or incalculable.
You could just as well argue that astrology incorporates sound scientific laws. It predicts the position of the planets and which constellation they will be in quite accurately – and the outcome is still a load of junk.
Models of course can be useful, but it is necessary to aware of their limitations. The first step in that awareness is recognising that at present their predictive record is dismal.
It is interesting how many of the posts here dive into the specifics of historical characters. The more interesting issue discussed by Mr. Hoffer is the quality of peer review. Science progresses largely by accepting prior work as a foundation and building on it. Peer review is supposed to strengthen the foundation. In general it works. In some cases (perhaps current climate science is one) it goes off course.
None of the prior comments suggest a way to build scientific foundations better than is done by peer review. I can’t think of one. Lacking an alternative to peer review perhaps we can suggest ways to improve it. My only suggestion, at this early hour, is to identify the “peers” openly and encourage the “peers” peers to comment on their reviews.
It has been said that the making of laws and sausages are processes one should not observe on an empty stomach. Perhaps we could add science to that list. But how can we do it better?
Steven Mosher says:
December 30, 2013 at 1:01 am
“The models are found[ed] on known physcial laws ( gravity for example) and radiative physics”
The question is the proportions, not the existence.
Most things will kill you but it is the deviation from the ‘normal’ that most often determines if they will or will not.
The models may have all of the physics right and correct. If they are not in the right proportions though the answers will be meaningless.
Poorly sub-sampling a domain in space and time and then trying to propose a field (and the future projections of that field) from such an under-sampling is always going to be more ‘art’ than ‘science’ and subject to very wide interpretation.
It would be foolish, in my opinion, to ignore that.
AllanJ: Right on the money.
Climateace,
It’s obvious to me that you’re a clever and knowledgeable guy. Rise above Hoffer’s troll/Gallileo distraction and demolish his main points – points that he reiterated in his own comment.
“Steven Mosher says:
December 30, 2013 at 1:01 am
7. The models are found on known physcial laws ( gravity for example) and radiative physics.”
Interesting because almost all alarmists I blog with claim gravity is just a unproven theory.
I did not get past Moshers point number 1 ‘1. you assert it but do not show your work’
the point of the article is that the modellers themselves are providing excuses and reasons why their own models do not work
A Model is simply an Hypothesis. It is an Hypothesis of how the climate works. If the data does not agree with the Hypothesis from high school science we must reject the Hypothesis. Therefore we must reject the Model. It is that simple.
Jarmo
A bigger modification than Kepler’s is the partitioning of inner and outer planetary retrograde resolutions which is really only possible using contemporary imaging power,time lapse footage and animated graphics.This new approach is a lot of fun, easily understandable and nothing like the hoops Copernicus had to jump through in his time even if it lacks any sort of astronomical authority to recognize the partitioning and how it is done (there are historical reasons for this much the same as Piltdown man disrupted anthropological studies).
I did say I was leaving the group but it would be unfair to leave without at least drawing attention to the resolution of the inner planetary retrogrades but perhaps a teacher might encounter this explanation and pass it on to their students.
The apparent retrograde motion of the outer planets are easy enough to resolve in that the faster moving Earth overtaking these slower moving outer planets temporarily causes the planets to fall behind in view much like a faster car overtaking a slower moving car in an outer lane on a roundabout –
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap011220.html
Galileo explains this observation but when it comes to the faster moving Venus and Mercury he goes astray –
“Now what is said here of Jupiter is to be understood of Saturn and Mars also. In Saturn these retrogressions are somewhat more frequent than in Jupiter, because its motion is slower than Jupiter’s, so that the Earth overtakes it in a shorter time. In Mars they are rarer, its motion being faster than that of Jupiter, so that the Earth spends more time in catching up with it. Next, as to Venus and Mercury, whose circles are included within that of the Earth, stoppings and retrograde motions appear in them also, due not to any motion that really exists in them, but to the annual motion of the Earth. This is acutely demonstrated by Copernicus . ” Galileo
Again,it is not faulting Galileo as such but rather praising 21st century technology which allows observers here and now to appreciate what Galileo himself fell short of as the apparent retrogrades seen in Venus and Mercury rely very little on the motions of the Earth as with the outer planets but rather due to their own motions hence the partitioning resolutions.
It just takes people who are more curious than they are afraid to venture into interpreting imaging hence an open forum is more suitable for this material rather than academics with reputations,salaries and pensions to protect.
“3. You realize that some of the models perform better than others. Which performs the best?
and on what tests? Of the 2 or three models that cannot be rejected by statistical tests
how did you “falsify” them?”
It’s up to those producing these models to validate them. In the absence of such validation, there’s nothing to “falsify”.
How can a post titled “Peer Review; Last Refuge of the (Uninformed) Troll” hope to achieve anything constructive! I fear it is only because I’m holding on to the hope that WUWT is principled, that I’m not admitting too the sinking feeling that it is really just about politics. ;-(
Such a provocative heading, should to be backed up with careful argument, otherwise you risk offending everyone. While I am sympathetic to the presumed intention of this article, I find it embarrassing and as far as I’m concerned, it is not defensible.
Climateace
I am an astronomer because I am a Christian hence it is easy enough to move through the actual
technical and historical details we inherited from other generations without having to consider lowly terms such as ‘science vs religion’ or ‘faith vs experience’. Even Augustine copped out when it came to this question and it has always been present until the Church itself voluntarily jettisoned its astronomical heritage after the Galileo affair .Here is St Augustine commenting on stellar circumpolar motion –
“Some of the brethren raise a question concerning the motion of heaven, whether it is fixed or moved. If it is moved, they say, how is it a firmament? If it stands still, how do these stars which are held fixed in it go round from east to west, the more northerly performing shorter circuits near the pole, so that the heaven (if there is another pole unknown to us) may seem to revolve upon some axis, or (if there is no other pole) may be thought to move as a discus? To these men I reply that it would require many subtle and profound reasonings to find out which of these things is actually so; but to undertake this and discuss it is consistent neither with my leisure nor with the duty of those whom I desire to instruct in essential matters more directly conducing to their salvation and to the benefit of the holy Church.” St Augustine
When Copernicus produced his discoveries he basically ignored stellar circumpolar motion and relied on the observed behavior of the planets to extract the Earth’s orbital motion and relied on the daily return of the Sun to account for daily rotation.In the late 17th century they tried to account for stellar circumpolar motions using the motions of the Earth and this is a big astronomical no-no even though it is still mainstream policy.
Naturally people want to believe that the Church required the Earth to be at the center of the Universe when clearly it did not,,Augustine took the sensible view and classified it properly that it takes subtle reasoning to determine what motion belongs to what cause. The great fault of present day denominational Christianity is that it takes the same view as Augustine even though that period around Copernicus was alive with Christians deeply engaged in structural and timekeeping astronomy so the decisive strategy to leave science to one side has wrecked havoc and led to this absurd notion that people of spirit are at odds with physical phenomena or ‘science vs religion’ as it is now called. Where are the practical Christian people who can at least take something from Augustine’s comments ? –
“If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation, not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.” Augustine
DaveS says: December 30, 2013 at 5:03 am “It’s up to those producing these models to validate them. In the absence of such validation, there’s nothing to “falsify”.”
Falsification turned on its head! If it is not falsifiable in principle then it is non-science. If it is validated then it is mere technology and subject to infinite adhockery.
Oh my that calender thingie really get the panties bunched up I’d say….
As for –
AllanJ says:
December 30, 2013 at 4:09 am
It is interesting how many of the posts here dive into the specifics of historical characters. The more interesting issue discussed by Mr. Hoffer is the quality of peer review. Science progresses largely by accepting prior work as a foundation and building on it. Peer review is supposed to strengthen the foundation. In general it works. In some cases (perhaps current climate science is one) it goes off course.
***************************************************************************************************************
Your last sentence says it all. Unfortunately those that believe in AGW have turned into a religion and have violated the principle you eschew.
AGW ‘science’ lives in an echo chamber where people who question the science are condemned to be treated as heretics.
The left believes that man is bad and they hold they keys to his salvation,,, sound familiar?
Bingo.
The great thing about the normal peer reviewed literature is we aren’t subjected to long redundant nonsensical pieces that are pretty normal on blogs.
That’s the combination of editors, rules, and the reviewers.
And reviewers normally help to point out the scientific flaws and thus strengthen the work.
And, to date, anonymous peer review (of manuscripts and grant applications) has been the most successful method of determining the best work.
DavidHoffer, in addition, regular people had reported “stones” falling out of the sky for centuries, but it was contemptuously dismissed by the authorities — those were volcanic rocks they said. It wasn’t until a few centuries ago (can’t remember exactly when) when a “rockfall from the sky” was observed by hundreds in a French village & samples were recovered that the authorities finally admitted it. Simple observations can trump authorities.
Aphan says:
December 29, 2013 at 6:37 pm
…
You nailed climateace perfectly.
+10
It’s unfair to call them trolls, liars or deniers, ad hominem and insults belong firmly in their camp and we shouldn’t lower ourselves to their level.
Lawrence Krauss, of ‘The Universe from nothing ‘-fame, says that most peer reviewed science he reads is rubbish. There you go. Read his Wiki if you don’t know him. – might just learn something…
@ur momisugly Richard M
RE: what Aphan said on December 29, 2013 at 6:37 pm
I agree.
What is even better is that Aphan did not engage climateace further.
Why waste time with a troll, especially one who has demonstrated a lack of reading comprehension in his/her first post?
It seems to be part of the human condition that we can find ourselves, as a species, engaged in forms of herd behaviour: this can particularly apply where there is some perceived threat (CAGW) as well as financial incentives (research grants, green subsidies etc) reinforcing the behaviour.
This behaviour is essentially irrational while it takes place – appeals to reason do not help: the only way is to let the stampede run its course until the herd slows down, individuals take stock and start becoming rational once again.
I think the CO2 scare essentially started with Hansen’s testimony before the US Congress in 1988 – just over 25 years ago now. Let’s hope that this 25th anniversary, coupled with the absence of warming for over half the period, now actually causes people to slow down, look around and start thinking and behaving critically once again.
As long as there is free money granted without accuntabilty by our democratic or liberal governments, no amount of correct or truthfu science seems to fix this science without morals . As we saw with the Summary for Policymakers meeting in Stockholm,even the policymakers participated at hiding the truth from the public , a truth that said , if there has been no global warming for 17 years , so why are we giving away all these billions of dollars to special interest groups. In US this is about $21 billion dollars yearly and world wide it is nearly a one billion dollars per day business. Some of these people seem to be willing to go to any length to keep this gravy train of free money coming. United Nations want their cut at 100 billion dollars yearly.
I’ve said it before: “Peer reviewed” is the weasliest of weasel words