Over the past decade, we have seen many examples of what would be categorized as” team science” when it comes to suppressing ideas that are considered inconvenient or contrary to belief systems in climate science. Over at the blog Bishop Hill, one such example was illustrated today by an academic who describes himself as a statistician, who attracted the attention of “team science” by simply doing a straightforward and honest statistical analysis on ice core data.
He and his students did an analysis on Vostok ice core data, eliminated noise and seasonal variation, did the usual tests for statistical significance, noted what they had discovered and presented it to”a noted society”. The response of the society was shocking to say the least, so much so that this statistician considered leaving academia. Here are some excerpts:
During the analysis, we noticed many interesting features, especially during the present interglacial, which seems to have a ‘seasonality’. We estimated the seasonality and proceeded to remove it, using a technique I teach in their course, in order to find the underlying trend.
Having done this, we noted that not only was there underlying further seasonality and cycles, but that firstly the temperature according to the proxy record was considerably below its maximum and also secondly that the temperature was rapidly decreasing.
Next we looked at the carbon dioxide content. The CO2 data was quite sparse, and certainly not enough for a final year student to conduct any form of correlation with the temperature, which followed each other. On researching this correlation, we were surprised to learn that the change in CO2 lags the change in temperature by between 200 and 1000 years.
These findings were presented at a small conference at one of the major learned societies.
…
Several months afterwards, the society’s ‘newsletter’ was published. It contained a special section on the conference at which I had spoken, with a brief description of each talk, the work behind it, and with thanks offered to each speaker. I searched for my name – nothing. My presentation was ignored in its entirety.
Climate skeptics are often described by the proponents of global warming as being” anti-– science”. Yet, here we have probably the most blatant example of anti-science behavior on display.
You can read the entire article at the Bishop Hill blog here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/6/16/on-entering-the-climate-arena.html
It is well worth your time.
It is unfortunate though, that this academic has chosen not to identify himself and to speak up to his colleagues about this treatment and behavior. Doing so is the only way to push back against this sort of censorship of science.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is unfortunate though , that this academic has chosen not identify himself….
No , he is not stupid .You don’t enter a crosswalk if the bus is bearing down on you ,even though you have the light…
I hope he learnt a good lesson. In climate science, never let the data get in the way of a good hypothesis.
Nice climate data you have there. It would be a shame if something *happened* to it.
The discrepancy regarding the CO2 lag in that ice core has been being raised for years – together with the fact that it clearly showed temperatures falling during periods of high atmospheric CO2 levels.
It was “answered” then by the speculation that things are different now than they were then – for some unspecified reason. I presume that that “answer” is past it’s sell-by date, given the “hear no evil” approach meted out to this academic.
I know in these politically charged times it’s easy to assume censorship, but the omission could have been an incompetent oversight – the scientist should have queried the omission of his presentation.
A few years ago, I statistically analyzed ice core data and came to similar conclusions. http:///www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf.
Sorry about that. Try http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf.
[Please add a few words of explanation when posting a link. ~mod.]
There are honest mistakes and then there are deliberate errors. In climate “science” there seems to be about twenty deliberate errors for every honest mistake.
If, at our universities, climate science did not exist the people doing it would not have the talent or ability to hold a job in any other branch of academia — except, perhaps, administration.
The science is settled, only the data is uncertain.
Cooking tip it took me fifty years to figure out.
To make hot cocoa I had always bought milk and some type of chocolate powder or liquid and mixed them together and then heated them. My great discovery is — after fifty years of doing that?You can buy chocolate milk and just heat that in the microwave.
With great interest i will be watching what appears on JONOVA over the next few weeks.
Eugene WR Gallun
“but the omission could have been an incompetent oversight”
Just like the IRS “accidentally” lost all of Lois Lerner’s emails. Riiiiggghhhhtttt….
(and that’s not off topic, since it’s the same ideology doing the same kinds of things in both cases)
The significance of a scientific finding can best be judged by hostility of the reception it receives from other scientists.
If they welcome you, it is because your work confirms their own. If they are indifferent, it is because your work is not significant. If they are hostile, it is because your work contradicts their own.
In 1931, a book was published, “100 Authors Against Einstein.” Albert Einstein’s response: “If I were wrong, then one would be enough.”
“This is a guest post by “Lone Wolf”, who is an academic at a UK university”
Opening sentence at http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/6/16/on-entering-the-climate-arena.html
No names are given. So this story could easily be a fairytale.
fhhaynie says:
Sorry about that. Try http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf.
=====
Excellent study. I started to look at this daily data but you have really gone to town on it and to good effect.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=721
” we were surprised to learn that the change in CO2 lags the change in temperature by between 200 and 1000 years.”
Hardly a revelation, the same thing was pointed out in Al Gore’s original scare campaign.
The Chinese learned quickly not to speak up against the tactics of Mao’s Cultural Revolution but to praise him and the effort. The same learned behavior goes on today in China with the anniversary of the Tiananmen massacre.
The hostility of the reaction “Lone Wolf” received is an indication that:
1. the work contradicts established scientists
2. the work is significant
3. the work should be published.
This seems a rather weak story. We aren’t told anything that could be verified – eg what is the society, or the conference.
But what seemed oddest is that none of the findings seem in the slightest bit controversial. CO2 lagging temperature was noted even in AR3, and has been observed many times since. The downward drift of temperature was noted in Marcott et al, amongst others (if that is the time period involved). I don’t know who he thinks would be trying to suppress him.
Good point Nick. Even to 200-1000 range on the lag is old hat now, unless “lone wolf” found this much earlier and it has since been published by him or others.
To Nick Stokes
He is talking about a long past incident.
Eugene WR Gallun
“It baffles me how scientists can hold such faith in a model that disagrees so much with the actual phenomena it is supposed to be representing.”
I too would like name, date and conference. The story does appeal to everything we want to believe without providing verifiable information.
Eugene WR Gallun
“this statistician considered leaving academia”
——————————————————–
Sounds like a plan.
Academia is collapsing of its own weight in any case. Find some better paid work in the real world rather than getting paid like a slave as an adjunct professor, instructor, post-doc, etc. with a year contract renewable annually and no benefits.
fhhaynie:
Very many thanks for this link
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf
that you provide in your post at June 16, 2014 at 6:36 am.
It provides a report of your analyses of ice core data. I had not seen it before and in my sincere opinion it deserves much, much more dissemination. Perhaps you could divide it into a series of shorter articles (similar to Tisdale’s articles) that you could submit to our host with a view to his considering them for publication on WUWT.
You may know that for many years I have been seeking evidence that the observed recent rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration has a mostly anthropogenic or mostly natural cause. Your article is the strongest evidence I have yet seen and it suggests a natural cause of the rise.
Your assessment of isotope ratio changes concludes
Again, thankyou for the link and I commend others to read it, too.
Richard
Gee, Nick. The sellers of the AGW Crisis haven’t “…told [us] anything that could be verified”. Does that make their claims “a rather weak story”, as well? I suppose it does!
While the information presented at the conference wasn’t anything new or ‘controversial’, it is till information that AGW supporters want to ignore. They know that this data does not support their theory and that their excuses for this data in the past have been particularly lame. They hate to be reminded of just how fragile their money making scheme really is. You may not know who is trying to suppress him, but it is hardly a mystery to those who have been suppressed.
Climate skeptics are often described by the proponents of global warming as being” anti–science”.
Greenland ice melt may be ‘worth’ suppressing by the status-quo science of whatever persuasion.
“Nature abhors coincidence; it’s ruled by cause and consequence.”- vuk