Another example of 'team science' suppression

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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Sweet Old Bob

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…

Bloke down the pub

I hope he learnt a good lesson. In climate science, never let the data get in the way of a good hypothesis.

NikFromNYC

Nice climate data you have there. It would be a shame if something *happened* to it.

WFC

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.

Cheshirered


[Please add a few words of explanation when posting a link. ~mod.]

Eugene WR Gallun

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.”

Robbie

“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.

Greg Goodman

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

old44

” 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.

Resourceguy

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.

Greg Goodman

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.

Eugene WR Gallun

To Nick Stokes
He is talking about a long past incident.
Eugene WR Gallun

ren

“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.”

Eugene WR Gallun

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

BioBob

“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.

richardscourtney

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

This analysis is strong evidence that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide have not measurably contributed to accumulation in the atmosphere. The half life of any carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a gas is short, a matter of days rather than years. It is readily adsorbed by an abundance of condensed moisture in clouds, fog, and dew. It readily reacts with basic materials such as limestone, slate, marble, concrete, and galvanized steel. It is returned to the atmosphere as a gas when moisture droplets evaporate.
Much of it will go through many of these cycles before it returns to the ocean or reacts with some material on land. Of course plants consume carbon dioxide, but in a mature forest, they produce as much as they consume.

Again, thankyou for the link and I commend others to read it, too.
Richard

Jim Clarke

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.

vukcevic

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

Coach Springer

Surprised? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srw3RdiIlrQ
[Add a few words of explanation, please. ~mod.]

Man is the only creature that bites the hand that feeds it.
They are just being animalistic in nature. They will not go against the body that supplies their funding – the government.

Coach Springer

The fact that they chose suppression rather than examination / debunking is revealing of their understanding of the issue. The understand that many facts do not support and actually undermine their position. When they make that choice, they are actually conceding the fact while trying to hide it. Denial?

hunter

The insincerity of those demanding that Lone wolf reveals his name and the other specifics takes away from whatever point they are trying to make.
It is well established, both from cliamtegate emails and recent history that the so-called team are ruthless bigots who will harass and seek to damage anyone with the temerity to openly stand up to their dogmatic extremism.
Lone Wolf’s story at the very least fits in well with how climate obsessed true believers behave.
It is disappointing to see less than sincere behavior by believers posting here.

emsnews

My father, Dr. Aden B. Meinel, founder of many observatories including the McMath Solar Observatory on Kitt Peak, was CENSORED too, in the last years of his life when he began to warn everyone that the sun was going into a Maunder Minimum or worse.
All the major publications including Scientific American and Nature refused his articles about this. He was shocked. He couldn’t believe the malice they showed. One editor from Nature magazine wrote an email which my father showed me, saying, ‘We CAN’T let this information out because it would upset TOO MANY PEOPLE.’

phlogiston

Eugene WR Gallun on June 16, 2014 at 6:48 am
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.

Thanks, I’ll try that. Our girls like hot chocolate last thing as a BDT (bed delaying tactic).

Confused

This does not add up: sparse + not enough = we were surprised to learn
It’s a trap!
“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.”

Matthew R Marler

fhhaynie:
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf

Thank you for the link. Have you published or tried to publish the work?
I second rhchardscourtney’s suggestion that you break it into parts and post it here.

Greg Goodman

“certainly not enough…to conduct any form of correlation….On researching this correlation….”
Yes, I found that a bit self-contradictory too.

markx

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.
Eugene WR Gallun

Nope. It ain’t the same. I am a great fan of chocolate milk, dating back to the days when milkshakes were made using unpasteurized milk and in metal containers. (Yum!)
I’d often wondered why I could only drink a small bottle of ‘bought chocolate milk’ before feeling very unsatisfied, and sometimes slightly nauseated, but could easily down a couple of good cold freshly made milkshakes. (Yes, they are still good in the more recent ‘pasteurized’ times).
Then, one day, I was set a task looking for markets for seaweed based products. In the process I learned about Carrageenans (or carrageenins) “…a family of linear sulfated polysaccharides that are extracted from red edible seaweeds. They are widely used in the food industry, for their gelling, thickening, and stabilizing properties…”
….has undergone many long-term dietary studies under defined regulatory conditions en route to its current global regulatory status. While some indicate that carrageenan safely passes through rat GI tracts without adverse effect when it is a dietary ingredient,…other animal dietary studies have observed colitis-like disease and tumor promotion…. In the late 2000s, some scientists raised concerns about whether the amount of “degraded carrageenan” (poligeenan) in food-grade carrageenan may lead to health problems, leading to a debate in the research literature….. It is yet to be determined whether such observations are pertinent to dietary safety considerations….
Europe prohibits the use of carrageenan in infant formula, organic or otherwise, for precautionary reasons,[5] but allows it otherwise. In the U.S., it is permitted in organic foods, including juices, chocolate milk, and organic infant formula, as well as other types of foods.
(all from Wikipedia for quick ref: For those who like to sneer at Wikipedia, you can go there and look up the original refs if you wish.)
Listed in foods as E 407. It is in almost all packaged flavoured milk/dairy and some soy products. Sometimes it is listed as a ‘natural stabilizer’.
There are some claims online that carrageenan causes nausea and bloating. I’d agree.
I’m not too worried about the health aspects of it. I just find now I never bother to buy the packaged milk drinks any more: I realized I don’t enjoy them, and I suspect I have found the reason.
My recipe? (Don’t use “Chocolate Milk Drink” powders, they are likely to have it in there as a thickener). Two (yep) teaspoons of cocoa powder, 1.5 teaspoons of sugar, 1 teaspoon of milo – a splash of hot water, stir then throw in two ice cubes and keep mixing (mixes smoooooth, I don’t know why!) Then top up with hot or cold milk as required. When you have finished drinking it, make a second one, and drink that too.
[The mods can figure out what “cocoa” and “ice cubes” are, but what is “milo”? 8<) .mod]

SIGINT EX

Very similar to the shenanigans by the editors and reviewers at AAAS and AGU these days. After all AGU expunged the word Geophysical and derivatives from its hallowed (now hollow) by-laws. And then one should not be surprised because both AAAS and AGU are political instruments of the U.S. President and D.C. culture-think.

Eugene WR Gallun says:
June 16, 2014 at 6:48 am
The JONOVA post that is causing a stir:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-ii-for-the-first-time-a-mysterious-notch-filter-found-in-the-climate/

richardscourtney

Moderator:
You say;
[The mods can figure out what “cocoa” and “ice cubes” are, but what is “milo”? 8<) .mod]
Please try not to press your question because that will only encourage them to debate the mysteries of Bovril and Marmite. And then the Scots may join in to extol Irn Bru. Followed by ….
Richard

markx

[The mods can figure out what “cocoa” and “ice cubes” are, but what is “milo”? 8<) .mod]
I am glad you asked! (…and thank you for not snipping such an important comment)
Milo: Very popular in Oz, and much nicer than vegemite.
Milo /ˈmaɪloʊ/ is a chocolate and malt powder which is mixed with hot or cold water or milk to produce a beverage popular in many parts of the world. Produced by Nestlé, Milo was originally developed by Thomas Mayne in Sydney, Australia in 1934. "[1] It is marketed and sold in many countries around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_%28drink%29
Most commonly sold as a powder in a green tin, often depicting various sporting activities, Milo is available as a premixed beverage in some countries, and has been subsequently developed into a snack bar and breakfast cereal. (Wikipedia …. again…) 😉

Brent Seufert
markx

Oh, this needed a 😉
…I am glad you asked! (…and thank you for not snipping such an important comment) ;-D

emsnews says:
My father… was CENSORED too… All the major publications including Scientific American and Nature refused his articles about this. He was shocked. He couldn’t believe the malice they showed.
I was recently censored by ScAm when I tried to post this, verbatim:

The following are a few scientific facts and comments regarding scientific evidence [please note that scientific “evidence” has a specific meaning. ‘Evidence’ means raw data, and verifiable empirical (real world) observations. Peer reviewed papers, IPCC reports, and computer climate models are not scientific evidence. Rather, they are assertions] :
Global warming STOPPED, 17+ years ago. [We cannot call it a “pause”, unless it resumes.] No computer climate model was able to predict that event. They were all wrong.
Further, it is a scientific fact that the climate Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. That means that the climate parameters being observed now [temperatures, extreme weather events, etc.], have ALL been exceeded in the past — when CO2 [“carbon”] was lower.
Current global temperatures have been exceeded in the past by a large degree. Therefore, nothing currently being observed is either unusual, or unprecedented. The fact is that we are currently living in a “Goldilocks” climate: not too hot, not too cold, but just right. There is no evidence that global temperatures are rising, as was incessantly predicted for many years — until it didn’t happen. Global warming has stopped. That is a fact that even NASA/GISS acknowledges.
Next, to put the “carbon” scare into perspective: CO2 has increased from about 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half.
The recent rise in global temperatures, beginning around 1980 and ending around 1997, was only temporarily coincidental with the continuing, steady rise in CO2 — and the only verifiable correlation shows that ∆CO2 is CAUSED by ∆T; not vice-versa. Effect cannot precede cause, therefore CO2 is not the cause of any measurable global warming.
CO2 is a very tiny trace gas, currently just 0.000397 of the atmosphere, but it is essential to all life on earth. At current and projected concentrations, more CO2 is better. There is no scientific evidence proving that CO2 is anything but a completely harmless trace gas, which is very beneficial to the biosphere.
CO2 has been up to 20X higher in the past, when life on earth flourished. The current rise is of no concern. Certainly, some of the rise is due to human activity. However, if CO2 was the cause of any measurable global warming, then the recent large percentage rise would have forced temperatures up sharply. But as we know, global T stopped rising many years ago.
Finally, the unspoken agenda is to pass a huge new carbon tax. That is the motive behind the “carbon” scare. As if hard-bitten taxpayers are not paying enough already.

The ScAm moderator deleted that comment, specifically for “name calling”. But where was there any name-calling?
I view ScAm as simply a propaganda organ. It is owned and run by German greens, and they allow no contrary opinion. Very much like the Daily Worker.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

From philjourdan June 16, 2014 at 8:02 am:

Man is the only creature that bites the hand that feeds it.

I take this to mean you have insufficient experience feeding many common animals like dogs, cats, hamsters, gerbils. Chickens would be pecking the hand. Does it only count when the hand is actively trying to feed the creature? You could try holding a chunk of raw meat while you approach a shark, or alligator or crocodile, or a furry cuddly possum. Give a dead mouse to a viper. Offering a cricket to a tarantula is also interesting, although technically that wouldn’t be biting.

@kadaka
I guess you have never heard the cliche. It does not refer to the actual action of feeding, but of helping. I have not tried to feed sharks and alligators – perhaps that is why I am not known as lefty.

Aphan

I just read fhhaney’s link with joy and complete comprehension! Its not only an amazing demonstration of scientific inquiry and dedication, it’s written in terms that anyone can understand and is thus freaking brilliant!
This needs publication. And spreading! And liking! And other such modes of transfer!

Jimbo

I’m secptical about this. This is not new, thus not Earth shattering. Why would this be suppressed?

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.

Why was he “surprised to learn”? Maybe someone can help me get a better picture on this dubious story.

This post is yet another example (must be millions by now) of the climate alarmists using underhanded and immoral tactics rather than try to debunk any analysis that goes against their religion. What is weird is that this is old news to many who have followed the climate debate from the beginning.
We know that warming comes first and then a rise in CO2 and that CO2 has been has been 10 to 20 times higher in the past than it is now. The reason is very clear and the mechanism is known. Seems that a warmer ocean gives off more CO2 due to decreased solubility (1), and more warmth also gives rise to more vegetation growth which gives off CO2 as part of its nature: facts that argue well for having more atmospheric CO2 because the world warms. Now the “scientists” could try to debunk these things or they could do their best to ignore or otherwise conflate them with other issues. I think it is telling that they went for hiding the issue.
(1)

Any water soluble gas becomes more soluble as temperature decreases because, in and of themselves, gas molecules have little affinity for each other — after all, that is why they are gases. When dissolved in water, CO2 forms weak bonds with the water molecules. The lower the temperature, the stronger the bonds, the greater the amount of CO2 that can be dissolved.

john robertson

Tales such as this will become ever more common as the Cause unwinds.
The petty authoritarianism, arrogant deletion of comments and inquiries that countered the belief and the vile name calling that make up the academic wing of the Cult of Calamitous Climate, starring the magic gas, have left many abused and shell shocked citizens.
Toward the end, as public demands for retribution grow, the henchmen will be citing examples of their own “scepticism” and blaming their colleges for “making them” behave unethically.

Pamela Gray

Milo tastes like malt balls which is a defilement of chocolate. Give me chocolate or give me death.
By the way, how is the newsletter’s decision to not thank the presenter and his students in any way encouraging young scholars to decide on a science career???? I’ve got some great potential scientists coming your way (students who would rather find some amazing substance in a lab than fritter away the afternoon engaging in mindless social blathering). It rightly rankles me red feathers to find out a “learned society’s” newsletter on the conference would do such a thing.
And don’t mix malt with chocolate. Ever.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7

fhhaynie says:
June 16, 2014 at 6:36 am

Sorry about that. Try http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf.

I haven’t studied this in detail but one question which jumps out fairly early is: how do you infer a 305-year cycle from CO2 flask data going back to just 1958 (your presentation pages 5-7)?

Bill

Chocolate and malt–a marriage made in Heaven! Almost the equal of a good BLT.