Monday Mirthiness – More 'skeptical science' kids scienz

Josh writes: Nic Lewis has a very amusing comment over at Lucia’s about a paper written by Gavin Cawley, Kevin Cowtan, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Ari Jokimäki – all part of the ‘SkepticalScience.com’ team . There’s also a post at BishopHill Sans science, sans maths, sans everything.

Treehut_consensus_scr

Cartoons by Josh

 

0 0 vote
Article Rating
94 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sweet Old Bob
January 12, 2015 7:14 am

Love the socks….SOCK it to em , Josh !

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
January 12, 2015 8:49 am

The whole toon is a good one. One of his best if you know what it is about. It is just too cute. 🙂

John Boles
January 12, 2015 7:31 am

Climate alarmism is really shrinking away, people obviously do not care about it, and that is a good thing. Funny to watch the last of them cry wolf louder and louder, now fully ignored.

Eustace Cranch
Reply to  John Boles
January 12, 2015 8:46 am

people obviously do not care about it
It doesn’t matter. “Climate change” policies are running full speed ahead, even if the public doesn’t care. Or even if we’re overwhelmingly against it.
Another case in point: immigration amnesty.
Elections becoming irrelevant.

Jason Calley
Reply to  Eustace Cranch
January 12, 2015 12:03 pm

“Elections becoming irrelevant.”
Perhaps the point of mass media propaganda is not to actually convince the masses. Perhaps all it has to do is to convince the masses that some given proposition (like CAGW, or immigration amnesty) is merely plausible — even if it does not rise to the level of being correct.
That way, when our politicians vote to support legislation for CAGW or immigration amnesty, everyone says, “Well, those idiots in Washington have done it again! When are they going to wise up?” We blame their votes on poor judgement on their part — instead of blaming it on corruption, greed, and sociopathy.
People will put up with perceived incompetence; after all, we all make mistakes. On the other hand, people who KNOW they are being cheated, lied to and stolen from, are less forgiving. Popular press propaganda gives our politicians plausible justification for their “mistakes.”

Reply to  John Boles
January 12, 2015 9:58 am

And yet the U.S. is poised to spend more money and pass more regulations based on that than every before.
Shameful that they can continue to get away with this.

more soylent green!
Reply to  jimmaine
January 12, 2015 12:59 pm

On the other hand, we are pretty busy catching up with “Game of Thrones” and there’s a lot of new streaming content on Netflix. With all this to keep us busy, how can we be concerned about how our tax dollars are wasted?

Reply to  more soylent green!
January 13, 2015 5:54 am

Not sure it has to be either/or…many of us can multi-task 😉

Editor
Reply to  John Boles
January 12, 2015 12:03 pm

Wake up! Climate alarmism isn’t shrinking away, it has just about won. We here all know that the science is a crock, but the common sense doesn’t reach the MSM (mainstream media). People have gone into a dull acceptance of the alarmist message, and its perpetrators can now do what they like, with unlimited government funding.
Everyone here needs to redouble their efforts – or start making the effort – to get journalists to report reality and to get their political representatives to understand and promote reality.
Otherwise we all go under. George Orwell’s 1984 is with us now, just 30 years late.

Mac the Knife
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 12, 2015 1:13 pm

Well said, Mike!

bunnicummi@inbox.com
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 12, 2015 8:55 pm

[Please use a real email address. ~mod.]

bunnicummi@inbox.com
Reply to  Mike Jonas
January 12, 2015 9:23 pm

thanks mod
did you bother to try the email address, or did you just arbitrarily declare it was fake?
ah yes, intellectual honesty indeed, nowhere is it quite as amusingly violated as it is by climate-change-denialists.
except religion, of course.
amen, right? 😀
[Reply: Yes, I checked on two different email validators. Both of them say your email address is bad. Just use a good email address; end of problem. ~mod.]
[And figure out which user_id you are going to use. .mod]

M Courtney
January 12, 2015 7:34 am

I still can’t believe they could have got it so wrong.
It’s Lewandowsky levels of wrongness – Journal Ending.
It can’t be true.
Can it?

Reply to  M Courtney
January 12, 2015 10:32 am

Yes it can.
Even though I trust Nic Lewis, went and checked the paper. Sure enough, they got it upside down.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  M Courtney
January 13, 2015 7:44 am

Apparently it was Lew’s Bristlecone, Tiljander, or Yamal.

Michael 2
January 12, 2015 7:41 am

It will be interesting to see which is the Last Blog Standing.

Craig Loehle
January 12, 2015 7:45 am

I want to thank Nic for correcting these calculations and I plan to submit a comment on the SKS paper shortly.
Oh, and “its worse than we thought”.

Reply to  Craig Loehle
January 12, 2015 8:44 am

Aim for a corrigendum by them using the AR5. That way, their result using your method is that of the Lewis and Curry paper. What an ironic outcome.

kim
Reply to  Rud Istvan
January 12, 2015 9:13 pm

There may well be more than the chaos of irony circling that result.
===================

Ben U.
Reply to  Craig Loehle
January 12, 2015 7:58 pm

Three cheers for Loehle.
Be Charlie Hebdo against infallibilism. It’s the steepness of the achieved learning curve that counts for anything.

RH
January 12, 2015 8:10 am

Drinking the Koolaid. Funny.

January 12, 2015 8:48 am

Hmmmmmm. Dividing or multiplying? Common Core would have fixed this for them!

spetzer86
Reply to  markstoval
January 12, 2015 9:14 am

Sadly, not if they could explain how they arrived at their answer.
For in-depth Common Core history and current activities, see: http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/

Nick Milner
January 12, 2015 8:49 am

Those guys aren’t stupid (and you’d be foolish for believing that to be the case) so I can’t help thinking that all this mirth is somewhat premature. I guess we’ll find out. Intriguing.

Chip Javert
Reply to  Nick Milner
January 12, 2015 10:37 am

Kinda depends on how you define “stupid”; at the very least I think we can agree on irresponsible and unethical.
(NOTE: some people would consider that to be a definition of “stupid”).

JB
January 12, 2015 9:07 am

I tried to click on “a very amusing comment” and it is blocked. I attempted to access Lucia through another route and discovered that my IP address is now blocked from accessing the Lucia website…
That is ridiculous behavior on their part.

Chip Javert
Reply to  JB
January 12, 2015 10:42 am

Lucia website staff is probably in Paris for free speech demonstrations…
Or free speech for some people demonstrations…
Whatever.

Reply to  JB
January 12, 2015 11:43 am

Worked fine for me before and now.

January 12, 2015 9:14 am

What is sad is that they really do know how to multiply and divide.
The problem is that when they get the answer they expect, they stop looking. It is no different than proofreading a paper, the author always thinks it is correct.
Why they get angry when corrected is understandable too, it causes physical pain, not to mention destroying their belief system and what defines them as people.

Robert B
Reply to  Genghis
January 12, 2015 8:07 pm

Yep. I did that once but I went back and re-checked after celebrating. Forgot a pair of brackets and had to go back to the drawing board.

kim
Reply to  Robert B
January 12, 2015 9:04 pm

This one is so obvious I’m shocked it took Nic Lewis to find it. C’mon, there’s around seven billion people out there who can understand this.
=====================

kim
Reply to  Robert B
January 12, 2015 9:05 pm

If we double the number of people do we halve the chance of further such foolishness?
======================

David L. Hagen
January 12, 2015 9:32 am

What?! Climate Science requires an understanding of elementary school mathematics?
As Professor Kirk said:

“Bless me, what do they teach them at these schools?”

C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, & The Last Battle.

MCourtney
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 12, 2015 12:04 pm

I think he spoke the truth about the decline of academia in That Hideous Strength
Well worth a read.

David L. Hagen
Reply to  MCourtney
January 12, 2015 12:25 pm

They are indeed pulling “down Deep Heaven on their heads” that will result in their inevitable defeat.

kim
Reply to  MCourtney
January 12, 2015 9:09 pm

I was exposed on the rocks of ‘Abolition of Man’ at a vulnerable age.
======================

bunnicummi@inbox.com
Reply to  David L. Hagen
January 12, 2015 9:06 pm

[reply trimmed. duplicate id’s. .mod]

January 12, 2015 9:42 am

Good for you Craig. I posted elsewhere that I find your attitude to be refreshingly humble and mature. I look forward to seeing your future work as well. Go get em!

Reply to  Aphan
January 12, 2015 10:21 am

Aphan on January 12, 2015 at 9:42 am
– – – – – –
Aphan,
I also appreciate the calm, even toned and direct manner of Craig Loehle.
John

RACookPE1978
Editor
January 12, 2015 9:53 am

At the link above, I note that at least one author DID acknowledge the error (though admittedly only AFTER it was found by a skeptical independent reader AFTER initial discussion, initial writing, editing and concurrence review by the co-authors, initial review by the journal’s editors, multiple so-called “peer-review, final journal editing, AND publication … ) But “peer-review” IS, after all, the “only” absolute and final guarantee of exact and perfect “scientific truth” in today’s world. Right?

Craig Loehle (Comment #134432)
January 11th, 2015 at 7:28 pm
Nic Lewis: Thanks for commenting. What I was attempting in my paper was to use as few assumptions as possible. I am not a physicist, but I can do division and I believe your corrections are correct, that I overestimated TCR (given my approach being valid). It is also true that the journal should have given me the opportunity to reply at the time their paper was published, but did not. I may revisit this now. Thanks.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 12, 2015 10:08 am

RACookPE1978,

But “peer-review” IS, after all, the “only” absolute and final guarantee of exact and perfect “scientific truth” in today’s world. Right?

Don’t be silly.

ferd berple
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 1:10 pm

What peer review guarantees is that with 2 independent reviewer, there may be as many as 2 people in the whole world that read the paper before it was published.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 2:30 pm

ferd berple,
Ok, so do you want more peer review or none at all? Any constructive ideas on how to guarantee no error at all in any paper ever published?

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 6:19 pm

Brandon Gates January 12, 2015 at 2:30 pm
ferd berple,
Ok, so do you want more peer review or none at all? Any constructive ideas on how to guarantee no error at all in any paper ever published?
——-
Crowd source it. Make everything open and transparent including the data and the code. If you use data that has been adjusted, disclose it and document it, along with whether the adjustments have been independently audited and tested in the real world. Include error bars and disclose the limits of the accuracy and precision of the data. Take away funding and tenure from anyone who dodges reasonable FOIA requests. Refuse to publish any paper that uses weasel words like: may, might, could. etc. with timelines that stretch beyond our lifetimes.

clipe
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 6:29 pm

Reserving the right to be silly by yourself? Patent pending?

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 7:01 pm

Reg Nelson,

Crowd source it.

Who vets the expertise of the crowd?

Make everything open and transparent including the data and the code.

A lot of proprietary software developers would object.

If you use data that has been adjusted, disclose it and document it, along with whether the adjustments have been independently audited and tested in the real world.

Most data are adjusted. “Independent” audit is a fantasy.

Include error bars and disclose the limits of the accuracy and precision of the data.

Oh good grief.

Take away funding and tenure from anyone who dodges reasonable FOIA requests.

Who decides what is a “reasonable” FOIA request?

Refuse to publish any paper that uses weasel words like: may, might, could. etc.

That’s pretty much every paper ever published. If you are looking for absolute certainty in all things, study math or join a convent. There’s quite a rich tradition of doing both, and a lot of good work has come from it. If not, you need to get comfy with words like “may, might, could” because those are appropriate expressions of uncertainty, something all properly skeptical scientists are supposed to do.

… with timelines that stretch beyond our lifetimes.

Ah.

RACookPE1978
Editor
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 7:13 pm

Brandon Gates (replying to Reg Nelson)

Make everything open and transparent including the data and the code.

A lot of proprietary software developers would object.

Name any “privately funded” so-called climate scientist.
Better yet, name their anonymous “star chamber” so-called “peer review” people who vet the “climate science” now killing millions and harming billions with artificially-raised energy prices and deliberate policies of energy deprivation.
Why not list on publication and with full credit all three “peer reviewers” in every publication? Give credit where due for those who do properly review articles.
Expose for ridicule and laughter those who err.
Who decides a reasonable “Freedom of Information Request”? The taxpayers. Any taxpayer.

Reg Nelson
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 8:24 pm

Brandon Gates January 12, 2015 at 7:01 pm
Refuse to publish any paper that uses weasel words like: may, might, could. etc.
That’s pretty much every paper ever published. If you are looking for absolute certainty in all things, study math or join a convent. There’s quite a rich tradition of doing both, and a lot of good work has come from it. If not, you need to get comfy with words like “may, might, could” because those are appropriate expressions of uncertainty, something all properly skeptical scientists are supposed to do.
————
Are you trying say that if Einstein said E might = MC2, fifty or hundred years from now, you or I would be expected to believe it because other scientists theories were as equally as incorrect and vague? That is beyond ridiculous.
All of the climate models have been wrong for nearly two decades. That’s not absolute certainty; that’s no certainty. The burden of CO2 climate change is on them, not me. And sorry, but the burden of proof isn’t constructed of “may, could and might”.

Robert B
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 8:24 pm

@Brandon
Who vets the expertise of the crowd? The same people who vet the membership of a society, maybe?
How can you possibly not realise that a peer is not someone whose opinion is one that you must respect? His/her opinion gets recorded, published and possibly ignored when the paper is recommended for reading or retraction.
Flaws of commercial software get exposed. Code and data paid for the taxpayer should be available to the public.
Independent audit is a fantasy? Isn’t that how peer review is portrayed?
and then Brandon’s comment goes further downhill from there.

bunnicummi@inbox.com
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 9:10 pm

[reply trimmed. duplicate id’s. .mod]

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 10:06 pm

RACookPE1978,

Name any “privately funded” so-called climate scientist.

I don’t know of any so-called climate scientists. Real climate scientists are generally publicly funded. Proprietary commercial software is involved in some of their research. Universities have intellectual rights to the information they generate. This has been going on in ALL science for decades. Look around you. It works.

Who decides a reasonable “Freedom of Information Request”? The taxpayers. Any taxpayer.

Might make it difficult for any work to get done. I suppose that’s the idea, isn’t it.
Mob-review we’ll call it.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 10:17 pm

Reg Nelson,

Are you trying say that if Einstein said E might = MC2, fifty or hundred years from now, you or I would be expected to believe it because other scientists theories were as equally as incorrect and vague?

No, you are saying that.

That is beyond ridiculous.

That is the whole point of the strawman argument.

All of the climate models have been wrong for nearly two decades.

And they always will be. Any model will always be wrong. Always. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a model.

That’s not absolute certainty; that’s no certainty.

Model skill isn’t assessed in such binary terms.

The burden of CO2 climate change is on them, not me. And sorry, but the burden of proof isn’t constructed of “may, could and might”.

Then there will never be any convincing you of any scientific research you do not wish to believe in.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 10:31 pm

Robert B,

Who vets the expertise of the crowd? The same people who vet the membership of a society, maybe?

No idea. At this point I feel like I’m just the convenient target for WUWT’s collective moral outrage at …. whatever. You’re looking for some sort of special treatment in the halls of science when all you really need to do is roll up your sleeves and get to work helping solve problems.
Seems a foreign concept in these parts.

Flaws of commercial software get exposed.

Well sure, commercial software vendors … er, most of them … like return customers.

Code and data paid for the taxpayer should be available to the public.

I agree. But in the real world it’s obviously not always possible. Plus, a great deal of it is already publicly available. It gets posted here all the time.
Independent audit is a fantasy? Isn’t that how peer review is portrayed?
Apparently not, or you guys wouldn’t be complaining about peer review. Maybe you should describe what this “independent audit” really means. From where I’m sitting all it looks like is howling at the moon.

ironargonaut
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 14, 2015 1:08 am

Brandon Gates January 12, 2015 at 2:30 pm
ferd berple,
Ok, so do you want more peer review or none at all? Any constructive ideas on how to guarantee no error at all in any paper ever published?
Brandon, You asked for constructive ideas. You received them, of course the “guarantee no error” part intentionally set it up so it couldn’t be answered. Of course Fred never even implied that there was ever a guarantee of no error, but you set up the strawman anyway.
To quote Brandon Gates commenting on someone using a strawman argument.
“That is beyond ridiculous.”
“That is the whole point of the strawman argument.”
But, I digress.
“Apparently not, or you guys wouldn’t be complaining about peer review. Maybe you should describe what this “independent audit” really means. From where I’m sitting all it looks like is howling at the moon.”
Nice dodge, but his point was valid. All make it a little harder to dodge. Do climate scientists and the media portray peer review as an “independent audit”? Something which you state have stated is a fantasy.
” You’re looking for some sort of special treatment in the halls of science when all you really need to do is roll up your sleeves and get to work helping solve problems”
I see these guys throwing out ideas to improve the system, something you asked for. All I see you doing is trying to poke holes in their ideas. Which if done right is constructive. Some of your comments I agree with others just baffle me. “Oh good grief.” Nice to see your willing to roll up your sleeves and engage in explaining to help solve problems. What are your ideas for improving the peer review process, or do you think it is the best it can be? You’ve talked the talk, now walk the walk.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 14, 2015 3:13 pm

ironargonaut,

Brandon, You asked for constructive ideas. You received them, of course the “guarantee no error” part intentionally set it up so it couldn’t be answered.

Just so. I was making a rhetorical point there. It goes back to the charge that “may, might, could” are used in literature as weasel words. People who are not comfortable with the fact that no non-trivial science will ever be certain will not understand proper statements of uncertainty in literature.
By the same token, AOGCMs are always going to be WRONG. Always. Saying “the models are wrong” and leaving it there is a non-argument. Whenever I read WUWT, “the models are wrong” mantra is ringing in my ears even when it’s not been explicitly raised as a point of discussion.
So, sometimes I ask my own impossible to answer questions. Occasionally someone like you picks up on it.

Of course Fred never even implied that there was ever a guarantee of no error, but you set up the strawman anyway.

From my point of view the idea of “independent audit” as an improvement on existing peer-review processes is a rhetorical device in and of itself. I see it as nothing more than a whopping big case of special pleading, which is a bad-faith argument.

To quote Brandon Gates commenting on someone using a strawman argument.
“That is beyond ridiculous.”
“That is the whole point of the strawman argument.”

Well, was or wasn’t Reg Nelson’s argument a strawman in your view? Whether or not I’m being duplicitous should have no bearing on the reality of whether or not he contorted my actual argument.

Nice dodge, but his point was valid.

I stated my opinion that his position doesn’t hold water. That’s a challenge, not a dodge.

Do climate scientists and the media portray peer review as an “independent audit”?

For purposes of this conversation, I don’t care about portrayal, I care about what works and what doesn’t. Peer-review is about the science. The place to see whether peer-review works or not is in the primary literature, not the by mouth-frothings of clueless politicians and media types.

I see these guys throwing out ideas to improve the system, something you asked for. All I see you doing is trying to poke holes in their ideas.

Fair enough, I understand your perspective because … well … I have the same point of view, just in the opposite direction. As I see it, the subtext of this whole argument is that climate science is fundamentally broken and requires special oversight. Given the unprecedented policy implications of the science itself, that’s not a bad argument on the face of it.
I don’t object to the “independent audit” concept on principle. I’m challenging how that would work in practice. Namely, who does the independent oversight, and what further guarantee is there that it will be any more objective than the current process?

Which if done right is constructive.

Yes I agree. That’s exactly how I see it. To me, “doing it right” is doing original research and going through the process of peer-review to get the results published. Hence “roll up your sleeves and engage in solving problems”.

Some of your comments I agree with others just baffle me. “Oh good grief.”

That’s easy, I was fatigued, had a headache and was frustrated. I’m not at my most eloquent in those moments. Primary literature is filthy with error bars and other forms of quantified uncertainty. To allege otherwise is patently ridiculous. Argument by inference from anecdote drives me up the wall and I let my aggravation get the better of me in that case.

Nice to see your willing to roll up your sleeves and engage in explaining to help solve problems.

I don’t have the training to make a dent in the actual science issues. I know my place; an amateur opinionator.

What are your ideas for improving the peer review process, or do you think it is the best it can be?

Again I need to make it clear that I don’t do science for a living. I have to rely on what the people who do science tell me about what is broken in the peer review process. One thing which has been on my radar recently is the concept of double-blind peer review, where the authors don’t know who reviewed them, and the reviewers don’t know who the authors are. It’s not exactly new, here’s a good open access editorial article in Nature from 2008 on the subject: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7179/full/451605b.html
Here’s Nature’s general policy on the peer-review process: http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/peer_review.html
By contrast Nature tried something called “open peer reivew” in 2006: http://www.nature.com/nature/peerreview/debate/nature05535.html
Few authors chose the open option, those who did felt it didn’t add much to the quality of the responses.
I’ll wind up with an old paper from 1977 which talks about confirmation bias in the peer review process: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wstarbuc/Writing/Prejud.htm
So the direct answer to your question is that I do not think peer review is the best that it can be. My view, not just from the examples cited above but from other readings over the years, is that the research community itself is far more aware of shortcomings in the process than outsiders such as me. The fact that the problems are openly discussed in literature itself allows me a measure of trust in their ability to work it out amongst themselves with a minimum of sideline commentary from my position of relative ignorance.
That doesn’t mean I don’t keep a weather eye out for bullcrap.

ironargonaut
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 16, 2015 1:36 am

Brandon thanks for the response,
One quick point. You were not responding to the ” It goes back to the charge that “may, might, could” are used in literature as weasel words.” Those were from a post after the strawman.
Regardless,
I agree may, might, and could are not weasel words. To use definitive words would mean that the science is settled and not up for debate. What I personally find annoying is that the paper uses those words but the scientists on TV or in print don’t when discussing the paper. I understand the media are morons and for all their supposed ability to see and report nuances they can’t do that in science instead it’s Polar bears going extinct, Scientist says poles will be ice free in X years.
Double blind would not have worked for Climate Science the seminal papers where published when the number of persons publishing on the topic was very small and climate gate emails show they knew what the others were doing. They even asked authors, when reviewing papers critical of the author what response they wanted to the critical paper. Double blind would have just given them a shield to hide behind, at least until the emails leaked.
I like the massive peer review approach online. Yes, idiots will raise questions and comment. But, I think you would find that after a short time it will become obvious those that are sincere and those that are just being snarky. Look at the “Bush papers” for an example, CBS hires experts to verify. Within days, the web showed how the same paper was created by default Word settings. Experts pointed that no type writer had all those features at that time etc… Why not do both? Throw it onto the web, then have experts review. The experts can then look at the web reviews for items they may have not seen. Without the web though what happens is the same thing that would have happened with the “Bush papers” if Dan Rather had his way a last minute evidence is released, with “expert” review and an “unimpeachable source” causing a shift in public perception that by the time it is undone would have been too late.
The climate gate emails clearly show peer review has failed us. It is understandable some of the vehemence that posters have to it. Many have been saying this is flawed and doesn’t make sense, only to have the argument that of course it’s good it is peer reviewed thrown up time and time again. Then to read the emails that showed the peer review was being gamed and in some cases that they agreed Mann’s paper was worthless.

James Evans
Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 12, 2015 10:20 am

Craig Loehle isn’t one of the authors of the paper by Cawley, Cowtan, Way, Jacobs and Jokimäki. He’s one of the authors of the paper that Cawley et al’s paper was in response to.

ferd berple
Reply to  James Evans
January 12, 2015 1:06 pm

I was looking to see if anyone else picked that up. From what I read:
Loehle used the wrong number in his paper to estimate TCR and ECS for CO2. Cawley et al’s recognized this, and published a revised calculation.
According to Lewis however, Cawley et multipled when they should have divided. As a result, Loehle over-estimated TCR and ECR, and the Cawley et revision made the error worse.
Loehe then acknowledged that Lewis was correct.

kim
Reply to  James Evans
January 12, 2015 9:00 pm

It’s an own goal. Sadly, since the forcings, particularly aerosols, are so poorly known, it’s only supporting evidence, not proof, of lower climate sensitivity to CO2.
I’m enjoying watching TCR estimates approaching a limit of no feedback sensitivity. More and more it seems that the likely warming effect will just be the straight CO2 effect, and that’s all, folks.
================

Reply to  RACookPE1978
January 12, 2015 6:27 pm

Open-Review Journal launched February 13, 2013. It doesn’t eliminate error, but should enable error to be discovered more quickly.
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34367/title/Open-Review-Journal-Launched/
Top 10 retractions of 2014:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41777/title/The-Top-10-Retractions-of-2014/
The Git’s favourite:

5. Two major publishers were caught out after having published more than 120 bogus papers produced by the random text generator SCIgen. French computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble catalogued computer-generated papers that made it into more than 30 published conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013. Sixteen appeared in publications by Springer, and more than 100 were published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE).

bunnicummi@inbox.com
Reply to  The Pompous Git
January 12, 2015 9:11 pm

@git.
“30 published conference proceedings”
conference proceedings are rarely peer reviewed.
some are, some are not, but suffice to say your information you present here is insufficient for us to share in your hilarity.
[PLEASE use a legit email address. ~ mod.]

kim
Reply to  The Pompous Git
January 12, 2015 9:18 pm

Well, I laughed ’til I peered. Look at this mess, Git.
===============

Reply to  The Pompous Git
January 13, 2015 3:52 pm

@ bunnicummi@inbox.com
It’s OK to publish bogus papers if they’re not peer reviewed then.
@ kim
You’re correct. It’s a mess.
@ Duster
Thanks for the laugh 🙂

Joel O'Bryan
January 12, 2015 10:16 am

Once those New Liberal kids learn that 2 + 2 does sometimes = 5, then the Climate War is lost, and Big Brother has won.

DirkH
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
January 12, 2015 2:45 pm

No; it just means they won’t get engineering jobs.

Walt Allensworth
January 12, 2015 11:26 am

So in summary, Pal review gave this paper a scant review and a free pass. It then took an unpaid “Denier” to spot a critical and simple math error, but Climate Deniers should be jailed for their heresy?

bunnicummi@inbox.com
Reply to  Walt Allensworth
January 12, 2015 9:15 pm

[reply trimmed. Still using duplicate id’s, false email addresses. You don’t learn very quickly, do you? .mod]

Justthinkin
January 12, 2015 11:55 am


Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 at 10:08 am
RACookPE1978,

But “peer-review” IS, after all, the “only” absolute and final guarantee of exact and perfect “scientific truth” in today’s world. Right?
Don’t be silly.
Errrrrrr….forget yer sarc pill this AM, Mr.Gates?
So if Anthony is getting funding from “big oil” to run WUWT, just who is funding SkS?

MCourtney
Reply to  Justthinkin
January 12, 2015 12:06 pm

…just who is funding SkS?

And why?
It can’t be performance based.

Reply to  Justthinkin
January 12, 2015 1:02 pm

Big Stupid.

ferdberple
Reply to  Aphan
January 12, 2015 8:30 pm

Big Dope more like it.

kim
Reply to  Aphan
January 12, 2015 8:44 pm

Big Stupendous. Beware the wrath of stupid scorned.
===========

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Justthinkin
January 12, 2015 2:34 pm

Justthinkin,

Errrrrrr….forget yer sarc pill this AM, Mr.Gates?

My prescription is for anti-sark pills.

So if Anthony is getting funding from “big oil” to run WUWT, just who is funding SkS?

I didn’t realize Anthony got funding from big oil to run WUWT … oh look, squirrel!

David Ball
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 3:58 pm

Answer the question, Brandon Gates.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 4:40 pm

David Ball,
I’ve no idea who funds SkS or Anthony Watts and no clue why that is relevant to the discussion of peer review or my medication(s). Follow the money is a zero-sum argument from my point of view, go grind that axe with the people who actually do accuse Anthony of taking funding from the fossil fuel lobby. I’m not your boy.

kim
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 8:45 pm

Beware the wraith of stupid past.
=============

David Ball
January 12, 2015 4:53 pm

Precisely the dodge I expected.

Brandon Gates
Reply to  David Ball
January 12, 2015 6:39 pm

The question you need to be asking yourself is why the question was raised to begin with.

kim
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 8:48 pm

Let it be. Fools and their monies are soon parted. They shoulda bought a clue with all those uniforms and stuff. I mean, really now.
=================

kim
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 8:50 pm

I’m sorry for the Way Robert’s gone. From his Climate Audit input, there’s value in that there boy.
=================

Brandon Gates
Reply to  Brandon Gates
January 12, 2015 11:20 pm

Kim, such cryptic comments, but somehow interesting.

Barry
January 12, 2015 5:46 pm

Kind of silly to publish a climate paper in an ecology journal, if you ask me, unless you are hoping for unqualified reviewers.
In any case, the Cawley et al. paper presents other assumptions (besides forcing ratios) that can lead to a TCR of 1.5 – 2.5 C. Can anyone discuss those?

angech2014
January 13, 2015 12:32 am

kim January 12, 2015 at 8:50 pm
“I’m sorry for the Way Robert’s gone.”
I’m sorry that he is such a good friend of Mosher’s but a welded in deep SKS guy.
He obviously believes in his cause to the extent of letting his colleague Cowtan argue that places that are further apart are actually more similar than places that are close together in their temperature responses. If it gives the answer you want
If you throw away the stations that must be wrong because they show cooling.
Still he and Mosher will have to lie in that bed .
When the temp drops in those ‘warm stations C and W will show a decline not a pause exacerbated by the fact that if it warms extra in the Arctic when it gets hot it must get a heck of a lot colder when it cools.
[unless you change to picking the closer stations]

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  angech2014
January 13, 2015 3:58 am

Actually, any cooling will also likely have been exaggerated — by poor station microsite. Bad microsite exaggerates trend (sic) in either direction, up or down.

kim
Reply to  Evan Jones
January 13, 2015 10:15 am

Nice points, angech and evan.
===================

January 13, 2015 2:21 am

Josh, your cartoons are excellent and drive the alarmists crazy – as they cannot stand being mocked. Keep up the great work, we all appreciate it but do not say it enough.

Joe Born
January 13, 2015 8:20 am

Just in case morbid fascination motivates you, I’ll mention that those folks’ massively open online course : https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x#.VLVC5yvF9nE.

Brad Rich
January 13, 2015 9:10 am

The climate models have a problem with causation, especially with respect to clouds. They are programmed to reduce clouds with increasing temperatures, when it is the decreasing clouds that causes increasing temperatures. Just like in the cartoon of the little boys wondering if it’s “dividing” or “timesing”, then they mess it up and call it good.

kim
Reply to  Brad Rich
January 13, 2015 10:16 am

Backwards from the gitgo.
=========

Reply to  kim
January 13, 2015 3:56 pm

+1

angech2014
January 14, 2015 2:50 am

Posred this at Lucia’s Thought people might like reading it here.
“Why are they laughing? That thread at Lucia’s is, in places, venomous.” Found the quotes, 2 different articles at ATTP
ATTP January 12, 2015 at 5:26 pm Re cartoon
BBD, Yes, I had wondered if while Nic Lewis is happy to refer to others as “SkS activists” I should allow people here to refer to him as a “GWPF stooge”. Maybe we could even get some kind of cartoon drawn.””
WebHubTelescope says:January 12, 2015 at 5:58 pm
“Why are they laughing?”
ATTP January 12, 2015 at 5:26 pm cartoons that simply mock others with whom you typically disagree is a little infantile.
Joshua says: January 12, 2015 at 6:23 pm
What’s juvenile about cartoons that simply mock others with whom you typically disagree?
WebHubTelescope says: January 12, 2015 at 6:56 pm
“It is only going to get worse:”
IN REFERENCE TO
“http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/12/monday-mirthness-more-sceptical-science-kids-scienz/”
BBD says: January 12, 2015 at 7:29 pm
” NL intended the term pejoratively. Second, since he is indubitably an activist himself, he is demonstrating a remarkable lack of self-awareness.”
BBD says: January 12, 2015 at 7:31 pm
“And you can stuff the tone-trolling. That thread at Lucia’s is, in places, venomous.”
Pekka Pirilä says: January 13, 2015 at 7:33 am
When you think that something that you read is wrong, you develop eagerly counterarguments and are even ready to publicize them using arguments that are actually very weak and do not show at all what they are claimed to show is common. Trying to make the arguments simple and strong makes them actually wrong.
russellseitz says:January 13, 2015 at 8:42 pm
“While the Tyneside coal baron’s court jester ,Josh, has drawn a literally juvenile cartoon celebrating this gaffe,”
BBD says: January 13, 2015 at 8:46 pm
“Here’s Nic Lewis commenting on the error at Lucia’s. Not sure where else this has got to, but doubtless there will be much premature and inappropriate noise.”
…and Then There’s Physics says:January 13, 2015 at 8:49 pm
“Yes, someone on Twitter pointed out that Josh can draw but doesn’t seem very bright.”
Victor Venema (@VariabilityBlog) January 13, 2015 at 9:03 pm
“Was is necessary to write a reply to a paper like Loehle et al. (2014)? It is not as if such a paper could trick a real scientist into thinking it was legit, ”
…and Then There’s Physics January 13, 2015 at 9:43 pm
” Picking on inconsequential mistakes and suggesting that they are important is indeed ClimateBall and is not the behavior one would expect from a scientist. Indeed.
Richard Tol (@RichardTol) January 13, 2015 at 10:02 pm
“Just because X made a silly mistake doesn’t invalidate the rest of their paper.”

ironargonaut
Reply to  angech2014
January 16, 2015 1:01 am

They did also give a formula that was different from the Bishop’s website gave, and Then there’s physics agreed it was better formula.
Can someone with better knowledge of IPCC methods state which is accurate. Here is the relevant quote.
“Because people took the Nic Lewis bait and apply a misguided approach for estimating TCR.
It is not as they say:
TCR = Temperature change/change in forcing
It is actually
TCR = Temperature change/doubling of CO2”
Although, I don’t know even if correct it changes the point much, it still means they used the wrong formula.

Slywolfe
January 14, 2015 4:32 am

“Peers” of the incompetent…? Let’s think about that.

%d bloggers like this: