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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This might be a modern version of a letter sent a couple hundred years ago from a courtesan to a far away friend… Like they say, it’s the same tune, just slightly different words…
Dear Thadeus,
I’m writing regarding recent events here in the New World. As you are aware, Professor James Hansen was the first Pope of the Church of Climate Change. But in 2006, our esteemed Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences held important meetings, peer reviewed all the candidates, and then nominated Al Gore for the next Pope of Climate Change. Finally, after months of deliberation, the esteemed academy released three puffs of white smoke (some say purple haze), and anointed Al Gore the Second (Jr.) as the new Pope of the Church of Climate Change. It was quite a spectacle, replete with all the grandeur befitting a Hollywood celebrity! But the glitz, champagne, and easy hollywood money will entertain the Pope of Climate Change only for so long…
For starters, our new pope appears to be far better at extracting the tithe than the previous Pope of Climate Change. Using a variety of newly appointed apostles (Saint Jones, Saint Briffa, Saint Lovelock, et al), the Church of Climate Change has beseeched the US Congress for Billions in tithing — and got it. And the Church is putting it to good use. His Green-ness has developed a symbol of the faith, much like the Cross the Christians use: the Windmill. The Church is making sure to install these symbols of 17th century Green-ness atop every hill in the nation, as a calling for all the sheeple, er, people.
After the procurement of the tithes, and the fostering of the Churches new symbol, the new Pope of Climate Change took to other important tasks fairly quickly. While Pope Gore the Second knew the Catholics would never allow him to co-opt the word “sin” or “sinners”, the Church carefully calculated they could steal the word “Deniers” from the children of Judea, who were politically weak. Pope Gore also knew that co-opting this word would bolster his credibility with the mullahs in the middle east, and worked toward building a church propaganda media outlet / beachhead he could sell to his new found friends from overseas.
And now as we approach today, in keeping with green orthodoxy, his Green-ness Al Gore the Second has accelerated the pace of the renouncement and persecution of scientists who disagree with the Churches dogma. The Church of Climate Change does not do this arbitrarily or cavalierly, nay. Many Church fellows, expert in the subject of the Church, have carefully peer reviewed the letters and writings of these heretics around the globe, carefully compared them with Church Orthodoxy, and all came to the same consensus. Deniers, one and all.
There was talk of burning the deniers at the stake, but alas, the carbon footprint would have been a sin (woops, not supposed to say that word out loud).
I’ll write again soon (if they don’t ban paper over here).
Sincerely,
Cain Abel
tonyb;
You have made a key point. Those who matter in deciding our future is as a high cost, intermittent energy society, paying reparations to those who now emit more co2 than we do, will not read blogs and rely on their science to make decisions, no matter how good they might be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Tony, I’d encourage you to continue on with your work and to get it published in peer reviewed journals because I think very highly of your research and I think it has value. But on the statement above, I must disagree.
Blogs are having a major effect on the political discourse. Just examine the before and after graphics in the blog post I linked to above (I’ll repeat it here):
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/04/no-matter-how-the-cmip5-ipcc-ar5-models-are-presented-they-still-look-bad/
The version that appeared in the SOD was essentially built in an echo chamber. Had it not been leaked, and subsequently ridiculed far and wide in the blogosphere, would the second version have been created in a blatant attempt to obscure the obvious conclusions of the first one? I cannot prove that one way or the other of course, but one can certainly surmise that the cause and effect exists, and is supported by other changes that were made to the final draft to deal with valid criticism of the SOD (more on that at some later date when time and inspiration coincide).
Point being that the world is changing. Just as newspapers, radio, TV and the blogosphere have forced the political discussion to evolve, they are forcing the intersection of the politics and science to similarly evolve.
Rational Db8,
That was an excellent synopsis. Good info there. In fact, this thread is packed with good commentary.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Steve R W says:
“How much has the earth warmed since humans have burnt fossil fuels? Is it 0.8c?… Can anyone tell me what the problem is? ….I’ve yet to see it.”
I can’t see any problem either: click
What say you, climateace? Where is the problem?
Steven Mosher says:
December 30, 2013 at 1:01 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well I have provoked a response from Mosher. Better than that, a multiple paragraph response!
Of course Mr Mosher, the models are based in part on known physics. It would be silly to suggest that they were completely wrong on all aspects of the science that is incorporated into them. The point of all models however is to figure out what they have right, and what they have wrong, and then refine them to the point where they are accurate enough (which will never be 100%) to make decisions on.
In that regard, the models fail. You asked which of them I analyzed, and to show my work. The answer is that I analyzed none of them. I simply looked at the model results as presented by the IPCC, and no more analysis than that is required to see that they are not accurate enough to make decisions upon.
I don’t need to go through 2000 years of medical journals to falsify each and every one of the articles on bloodletting to conclude that bloodletting is simply harmful in the vast majority of cases. (Amusingly, I am one of those exceptions to the rule myself).
Similarly, I need not analyze each model. The IPCC already did. Trenberth and Meehl (sp?) and Cowtan and Way have done it for us. The mainstream peer review literature shows that the models are wrong.
It is not up to me to prove that any given model is wrong. It is up to the proponents of the models to show that any of them, just one, demonstrates the accuracy required to make decisions on.
David
I don’t disagree at all with you. Blogs should become a short cut for peer reviewed quality work.
However that is not the general route at present by which those making decisions on our behalf will gather the data on which to make those decisions. Sceptics will have a much stronger hand if those things we point out contrary to ‘proven science’ are backed up by material that has been itself ‘proven’ to a standard that will mean something.
Tonyb
re: Steve from Rockwood says: December 30, 2013 at 8:03 am
It was pounded into my head time and again by many different professors in both grad school and undergraduate that peer review should NEVER attempt to “decide” if a paper’s conclusions are or are not correct. That’s not the purpose of peer review. Peer review is solely to determine if the scientific method was followed reasonably, and to only take issue where it clearly was not. And to catch typo’s as an aside.
So for example, where it would be a misuse of peer review to decide if a paper’s conclusions are correct or not, it’s totally proper to note where a paper’s conclusions goes beyond what the data in the experiment actually supports. Peer review should NEVER be about rejecting a paper ;for publication simply because it’s conclusions run contrary to one’s own beliefs. Any who use it simply to reject paper(s) counter to one’s own theories is abusing the system, and this ought to be easily recognized by editors and that peer reviewer no longer used.
In other words, peer review was specifically designed to avoid any false groupthink consensus, and only to detect errors in the application of the scientific method, contrary to your claim.
Excellent post, David Hoffer. Most do not realize that a good portion of inputs in the models are WAGs anyway. Then the output is used as data. How quaint.
Would also like to thank Stephen Mosher who once again unwittingly provides the best arguments against the use of models. Does he even read what he writes? You just have to laugh.
Steven Mosher says:
December 30, 2013 at 1:01 am
“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?”
Any claim that the models which fit are more likely true is basically an assertion of the Texas Sharpshooter’s Fallacy, drawing the target around the cluster of holes after the shots have been fired. Rationalization after the fact is often a trivial exercise in self-delusion.
Had Sir Isaac Newton put the following proposal before a commission of astronomers familiar with the system of Copernicus with Kepler’s modifications they would have sent him packing with a lot of instructions as to how orbits are interpreted and modeled –
“That the fixed stars being at rest, the periodic times of the five primary planets, and (whether of the sun about the earth, or) of the earth about the sun, are in the sesquiplicate proportion of their mean distances from the sun” Newton
This is supposed to be the observation that connects modeling of objects on a celestial scale with modeling on a experimental or human scale (,the apple and the moon notion ) or the ‘theory of gravity’ as it is more commonly known. I have never encountered a person from Newton’s strain of empiricism that understood the nuts and bolts of Sir Isaac’s modeling even though they are not shy in attaching significance to Kepler’s work as an extension of the original insights of Copernicus. Newton’s statement is not so much a pale imitation of Kepler’s approach,it would be laughable were he to present it to Kepler ,Galileo or any of the great astronomers familiar with the work of Copernicus.
“The proportion existing between the periodic times of any two planets is exactly the sesquiplicate proportion of the mean distances of the orbits, or as generally given,the squares of the periodic times are proportional to the cubes of the mean distances.” Kepler
All that statement of Kepler’s refers to tracking orbital periods from a moving Earth and then correlating time for each orbital period with distance from the Sun,it has nothing to do with explaining planetary orbits so it is quite a stretch to associate the fall or trajectory of an apple with the motions of the moon and planets.
“And so if any one take the period, say, of the Earth, which is 1 year, and the period of Saturn, which is 30 years, and extract the cube roots of this ratio and then square the ensuing ratio by squaring the cube roots, he will have as his numerical products the most just ratio of the distances of the Earth and Saturn from the sun. 1 For the cube root of 1 is 1, and the square of it is 1; and the cube root of 30 is greater than 3, and therefore the square of it is greater than 9. And Saturn, at its mean distance from the sun, is slightly higher than nine times the mean distance of the Earth from the sun.” Kepler
What Newton tried to do was interesting if one wishes to appreciate why speculative/predictive modeling took off the way it did in the late 17th century at the expense of interpretative sciences. It was then that ‘laws’ began to appear like ‘Hooke’s law’ or ‘Boyle’s law’ so Sir Isaac went for the big one and the world ended up with a clockwork solar system without his followers actually knowing how he did it. They only really cared that they could draw conclusions out of assertions without waiting to take into account physical considerations but rather could distort any reasoning to make it appear that it was a natural extension of the works of the great astronomers and they still do.
The most spectacular example of Newton’s distortion was his tragic version of retrograde resolution which defy the astronomical affirmation that the Earth moves –
“For to the earth planetary motions appear sometimes direct, sometimes stationary, nay, and sometimes retrograde. But from the sun they are always seen direct,…” Newton
That forms Newton’s notions of absolute/relative time,space and motion where observations (relative space and motion) are modeled on the basis of a hypothetical observer on the Sun (absolute space and motion) but such a drastic use of observed motions and their translation into the orbital motion of the Earth never required such an ideology of absolute/relative space or motion.The only person I have ever encountered who recognized this was Leibniz –
“I don’t find in the eighth definition of Newton’s Mathematical Principles of Nature,or in the note attached to it,anything that proves or could prove the reality of space in itself. I do agree that an absolute genuine motion of a body is different from a mere change of its location in relation to another body. When the immediate cause of the change is in body x,that body is truly in
motion, and in that case the locations of other bodies in relation to x will be changed as a result, though the cause of that change is not in them” Leibniz
The guys in the early 20th century were desperate to escape Sir Isaac’s clockwork solar system but were in so deep that they were forced to cobble together a ridiculous story to keep the scheme going and they have been doing it ever since.That is why peer review is a vicious circle – if it does anything it assures continuity from generation to generation ever when common sense should intervene.
This is the outlines of a fascinating and compelling story should anyone wish to take in the wider view where the older and more stable interpretative approach was overtaken by a more aggressive speculative modeling or the ‘scientific method’ as it became known.
.
The best rejoinder I have ever heard to the supposed infallibility of peer review was a title to an obscure satire by Sherman and Larsen published in about 1960: “Fifty Million Commies Can’t Be Wrong.”
Re: Michael Palmer says: December 30, 2013 at 9:09 am
and
Rob says: December 30, 2013 at 9:58 am
Well said!
I’m also increasing bothered by the use of the word “troll” imply to describe those who we disagree with, or those who are simply wrong. It’s not the meaning of the world, and describing those as trolls encourages demonization and censorship – even tho I fully recognize it’s an awfully convenient shorthand for those we disagree with or who are pretty clearly wrong. I hope some pushback will help avoid that trap, however.
Re: dbstealey says: December 30, 2013 at 10:47 am
Thanks for the compliment!
Re: kwinterkorn says: December 30, 2013 at 9:51 am
BINGO!
I’ll only add the minor note that I have read some proposals for modified peer review systems that sound as if they might be an improvement over the conventional peer review system which certainly has been better than any prior alternatives at least… and which has clearly become more and more perverted over time by things such as “scientists” who adhere to “post normal science” rather than actual science. And unfortunately that apparently applies not only to researchers, but peer reviewers and editors also.
toxmin: If you had any real experience with academic/scientific journals, you would know that most of the published material is trash.
There is evidence that as many as 40% of the results reported in medical journals are non-reproducible, and even most of those are good studies (analogous to the high failure rate of new drugs in human clinical trials.) There is no evidence that “most of the published material” in academic/scientific journals is “trash”.
What do you count as real experience? I get updates every week from research gate on the papers of mine that have been cited, and one of them has been cited more than 800 times.
davidmhoffer: Now would you care to comment on the article?
The author, David M. Hoffer, is wrong: most of the peer-reviewed literature, including ironically the peer-reviewed papers that he considered good, represents good scientific research.
davidmhoffer says:
December 29, 2013 at 10:13 pm
. . . Was hoping for a rollicking debate with one or more of them on that point. I’m now conflicted. I’m not sure if I should feel disappointed or vindicated.
Not that it wasn’t obvious, but the irony of your confessing that you were trolling for a response with this article is moderately humorous in context.
Matthew R Marler says:
December 30, 2013 at 12:30 pm
davidmhoffer: Now would you care to comment on the article?
The author, David M. Hoffer, is wrong: most of the peer-reviewed literature, including ironically the peer-reviewed papers that he considered good, represents good scientific research.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I never commented on the validity of the research. I commented on the fact that current peer reviewed literature has abandoned proving the models right, and is now instead focused on explaining why they are wrong, contrary to the assertions of “trolls” who cannot discuss the science itself and instead cite their belief in peer review literature which, as it turns out, doesn’t say what they think it says.
How about Lister and sepsis from unsterile medical practices — especially surgery? American doctors, who often performed surgery in their street clothes, scoffed at the idea of antiseptic surgery.
That’s not “to the point.” In the discipline of logic, there are eternally true statements. And, in logic, a false statement can imply true conclusions (IIRC), but a true statement will not imply a false conclusion. Therefore, a false conclusion means that the statement that implied it is false. (Things get quite a bit fuzzier and relativistic in informal logic.) That is the “root,” as Eiting said, of Popper’s test. Popper went further, but Eiting was correct as far as he went.
There have been several suggestions posted on WUWT over the years on ways to create a better “knowledge filter,” as Henry Bauer called it, One of them is the institution of a Science Court, to adjudicate, or at least clarify, disputes like the one over AGW. Another is the greater use of an online structured dialog format, with invited main participants, and a roped-off section for uninvited participants to make comments from the sidelines. The Dutch Climate Dialog site works this way, and if it had been adopted 20 years ago, it would have done a better job of filtering and clarifying than peer review in climatology.
Another is the adoption of online “pre-review, as proposed by Hoffer. There are others I could mention, but I’m not trying to write a review-paper on the topic, just to prove that improvements are not unthinkable.
@Steven Mosher says, December 30, 2013 at 1:01 am
The modelers need to show their work and show their models are correct, not the other way around. You don’t just show an output and say “prove this is wrong.” That’s completely backwards and contra-scientific.
climateace says:
December 29, 2013 at 11:30 pm
I see that the personal abusers have come out from under their rocks.
Yes, you have… but I’d rather you went back under it…
really.
Look, your “style” is 100% Troll. (Looking to thread hyjack by injecting spurious and disjoint points that deflect from the actual topic at hand with the intent to cause emotional responses. Working to disrupt, not to enlighten. Casting snark and insult.)
You regularly post comments devoid of any technical content, but rich in inuendo, snark, and “baiting”. Your use of non-logic is profound, but wasted on a largely logic centric audience. Frankly, I wonder why you waste your time here. You can recrute empty headed numpties anywhere; folks here are generally bright and informed enough to not fall for your tripe and nonsense.
Then you run around insulting people and doing personal abuse. Oh Well… at least you can serve as a bad example for others to see and a stellar example of the typical AGW Troll Class. May you continue to enlighten others as to what not to be / do… by example.
Per the article main point: I found it quite useful. The rush to “peer review” as a stamp of truth is a clear badge of failure of reason. It is only a stamp of minimal Q/A and political acceptance.
And yes, the failure of the models demonstraites the failure of the “science” under them. An excellent point.
Rational Db8
What a lovely collection of information. Hopefully climateace will will read and understand it and
even be a convert.
I have been a skeptic ever since Michael Mann’s Hockeystick was first published by the Media.
No Holocene, Roman Warming, Medieval Warming, Little Ice Age etc.The Media picked it up and ran with it, because it is bad news.
EM Smith says, “Yes, you have… but I’d rather you went back under it…really.
Look, your “style” is 100% Troll. (Looking to thread hyjack by injecting spurious and disjoint points that deflect from the actual topic at hand with the intent to cause emotional responses. Working to disrupt, not to enlighten. Casting snark and insult.)”
150 mentions of that moniker on one thread alone, recently.
Other threads have been completely destroyed by one hobby horse yahoo, like the moon landing denier on Christmas.
At one point I wrote and, I thought, saved, a fully documented rebuttal of the claim that “believe” is exclusively a term of religion. But I can’t find it in my files. So here’s the short version, from The Cassell Concise Dictionary (others are similar):
EM Smith says, “Yes, you have… but I’d rather you went back under it…really.
Look, your “style” is 100% Troll. (Looking to thread hyjack by injecting spurious and disjoint points that deflect from the actual topic at hand with the intent to cause emotional responses. Working to disrupt, not to enlighten. Casting snark and insult.)”
150 mentions of that moniker on one thread alone, recently.
Other threads have been completely destroyed by one hobby horse yahoo, like the moon landing accuser on Christmas.
@Allan J:
I’ve pondered that. Best I could come up with was “Peer Commenting”. Have a site (blog) where a paper is published to a limited audience. Only folks “in the field” can see it (perhaps even just a subset – but a broad one- such as folks with Ph.D. after their name). They can comment. After a review period (6 months?) with the author ineracting with the comments, the resultant (changed and hopefully improved) “paper” gets re-posted to the broader audience of “anyone with a degree” for another round of comments (prior Peer Review comments now hidden, or anonymised if desired). Then after another 6 months, that posting and comments are opened to public view.
Nothing gets hidden except some of the early Peer Names (if needed) and some of their comments if they or the author finds them too painful (i.e. the present rough comment chopping block can still happen). Things have a chance to be “beaten up” by a selected group prior to going more public. Anything reaching the end (public) is pretty well vetted OR has a string of scathing attacks showing where it is broken and the author is seen as a bit slow to realize they are wrong… or least likely but possible, it’s clearly a radical idea that the attacks can’t quite defeat.
Seems to me like this still preserves the value of peer review, while breaking some of the pal review and rejection of new ideas for political reasons.