McLean et al and icecap.us's attempt to defend it

[icefisher]

Apr 4, 2010 15:54:51 GMT socold said:

Under your idea of peer review people would be able to publish anything. Any attempt to decline publication would in your eyes be an act of "suppression".

Should McLean be able to publish logically invalid arguments like If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation? No. If peer review is working properly then such arguments should be suppressed from publication.

Free speech isn't such a bad concept Socold. What you are arguing for is a system of publication that scientists can take as gospel without verification.

Its a noble idea but it only works if the process is immune to politics. And since no human process is immune to politics it doesn't work.

Seems to me the jig is up. Panels are recommending wholesale release of data, computer codes, everything for wideopen peer review. Then and only then will the journals be held to a standard of real nonpolitical peer review.

As it stands now there is no valid model predicting global warming.

As the codes get released and publicly reviewed there might be in the future and the journals will not be prevented from becoming repositories of the best of the best that people can take as gospel, just that only then will the gospel be truly tested and the politically motivated journals exposed for what they are.

In my view this is irresistable. The journals that do not take an active role in ensuring data and code is released will fall behind the curve of those that do.

It really does not matter whether there has been collusion to deceive or not. What Climategate revealed was the appearance of collusion and appearance always trumps.

[hunter]

socold,
Obfuscate all you want. It is already quite clear that you are not interested in what your opponents say, but will rationalize any attempt to silence them.
Pretending an author to a paper has no right to respond to critiques is ridiculous on its face.
But 'ridiculous' and 'AGW true believer' go together quite well.

[socold]

"Pretending an author to a paper has no right to respond to critiques is ridiculous on its face."

Noone has a "right" to get anything published in a peer reviewed journal. The whole concept of peer review means there is a filter that means some things might not be accepted! To claim there is a right to have anything published is basically stating that peer review, operating in all fields, is wrong.

"free speech" and "rights" don't apply to science. it isn't a democracy. If something is obviously wrong, that's what peer review is supposed to stop.

Back to topic though: McLeans reply didn't pass peer review.

[magellan]

Apr 4, 2010 22:58:15 GMT socold said:

"Pretending an author to a paper has no right to respond to critiques is ridiculous on its face."

Noone has a "right" to get anything published in a peer reviewed journal. The whole concept of peer review means there is a filter that means some things might not be accepted! To claim there is a right to have anything published is basically stating that peer review, operating in all fields, is wrong.

"free speech" and "rights" don't apply to science. it isn't a democracy. If something is obviously wrong, that's what peer review is supposed to stop.

Back to topic though: McLeans reply didn't pass peer review.

socold, what field of work are you in? I'm wondering because you are making no sense and are only injecting personal views. What makes you think "peer review" is pure as the wind driven snow?

Explain this to us:

sites.google.com/site/rossmckitrick/

We found out in February that it has been rejected. Interestingly, it turns out that the IJOC had sent Schmidt's paper, which focuses on defending Phil Jones' CRU data against its various critics, to be reviewed by none other than Phil Jones of the CRU. As you can imagine the review was rather enthusiastic and uncritical. The IJOC didn't ask deLaat or me to supply a review, nor did they invite us to contribute a response. And they have rejected the response we did submit, on the basis of some loopy referee reports to which Nico and I were not given a chance to reply (though we did anyway). Nice way they run a journal over at IJOC. The paper is being upgraded and submitted elsewhere.

It is politics and insider networking to quash opposing scientific research. Phil Jones reviews a paper written in his favor? You think that should be a normal part of the "peer review" process?

As for your unsubstantiated statement the stratosphere is cooling in a another thread, I have posted on several occasions the following provocative graph:


Recent Stratospheric Temperature Observed from Satellite Measurements

Abstract

Some important recent findings in climate studies
are the warming trend in the troposphere and the
cooling trend in the stratosphere. However, the evidence
for the cooling trend in the stratosphere may need to be
revisited. This study presents evidence that the stratosphere
is slightly warming since 1996. Using long-term
Stratosphere Sounding Unit (SSU) measurements at
channels 1 and 2 before 1996, we did obtain a cooling
trend in the middle and upper parts of stratosphere
similar to the findings for the lower stratosphere in literature
(Ramaswamy et al. 2001; Fu et al. 2004). But, we
also found that the temperature trend in the middle and
upper stratosphere has alternated to warming since
1996. We also analyzed a time series of the Microwave
Sounding Unit (MSU) channel 4 brightness temperatures
between 1978 and 2006 and found the same reversing
trend in the lower stratosphere. The reversing
trend may relate to a possible recovery of stratospheric
ozone concentration.

Fu et al. 2004 was shot down by Spencer and Christy. It should not be cited.

"may", "possible"......they don't know. We can place their speculation firmly in the orange category below. What was not considered is the "possible" long term effects that volcanoes "may" have on the stratosphere that just coincidentally occurred prior to each cooling step change (it is not a trend). There is no evidence CO2 from burning fossil fuels was responsible. Also, it can be shown no cooling since 1994 as well. In any event, the stratosphere is not cooling per AGW (caused by rising CO2 levels).



Next time don't come to a gun fight with a knife.

[hunter]

All socold can do is to obfuscate.
Saying that an author responding to criticism is 'letting everyone say anything' is bogus and socold knows it.
The filter as applied to climate science is letting those who agree with AGW say anything they want, and to stop anyone who disagrees.
That is the antithesis of ethical science.

[socold]

Apr 5, 2010 2:26:17 GMT magellan said:

socold, what field of work are you in? I'm wondering because you are making no sense and are only injecting personal views. What makes you think "peer review" is pure as the wind driven snow?

I didn't say or even imply it was perfect. That you have to resort to a strawman in response to my clear posts, and that you now try and cahnge the subject suggests you are evading.

The fact is that peer review is supposed to result in "suppression" of results that are wrong. The fact that McLean's results were wrong, indefensibly wrong, led to the fact that his reply was justifiably "suppressed".

Appeals to "freedom of speech" and "rights" are laughable and show people on here have no idea what peer review is, even though they are willing to lecture on what they think it should be. In no field of science do people have a "right" to a reply in a journal. In no field of science do journals operate a "freedom of speech" policy. Science is not a democracy.

[icefisher]

Apr 5, 2010 2:59:58 GMT socold said:

Apr 5, 2010 2:26:17 GMT magellan said:

socold, what field of work are you in? I'm wondering because you are making no sense and are only injecting personal views. What makes you think "peer review" is pure as the wind driven snow?

I didn't say or even imply it was perfect. That you have to resort to a strawman in response to my clear posts, and that you now try and cahnge the subject suggests you are evading.

The fact is that peer review is supposed to result in "suppression" of results that are wrong. The fact that McLean's results were wrong, indefensibly wrong, led to the fact that his reply was justifiably "suppressed".

Appeals to "freedom of speech" and "rights" are laughable and show people on here have no idea what peer review is, even though they are willing to lecture on what they think it should be. In no field of science do people have a "right" to a reply in a journal. In no field of science do journals operate a "freedom of speech" policy. Science is not a democracy.

Pals get the opportunity to patch things up. Enemies are summarily executed.

Back in the day when the current system of confidential peer review was invented the world of research funding was highly diversified.

As we have moved towards a single payor system (federal government), politics like Soviet politics are beginning to infect our processes making virtually all of science to toe the political line.

You speak against the orthodoxy the next thing you know you have no more grants as the activists behind the politics du jour make it difficult for you to get funding. Science has nothing to do with it. Its entirely based upon how good of a soldier you are.

Despite this seachange in funding you ignore it suggesting you are a good soldier not interested in good science.

[slh1234]

Apr 5, 2010 2:59:58 GMT socold said:

Appeals to "freedom of speech" and "rights" are laughable and show people on here have no idea what peer review is, even though they are willing to lecture on what they think it should be. In no field of science do people have a "right" to a reply in a journal. In no field of science do journals operate a "freedom of speech" policy. Science is not a democracy.

When this "Science" of yours is being used to guide governments in things such as "cap and trade" in the US, or other variations of carbon taxes elsewhere, then freedom of speech becomes no laughing matter. If the peer review process cannot openly and honestly deal with differences of opinion and answer why a particular point of view is not dealt with, but expects their "peer reviewed" conclusions to become the basis for use of our money, then the peer review process needs to become something more than what you portray it to be.

When you want to play in your own field with your own money and your own resources, then you can play by your rules. When you want me to spend my resources and base my actions on what you are doing, then:

1. Stop the BS and rhetoric.
2. Stop the appeals to "rules" that you've written yourself.
3. Be prepared to answer real questions from people who genuinely disagree with you.
4. Be prepared to answer with real substance against research that does not support your conclusions.
5. Convince me why I should pay attention to your research. If it is really sound, then it will stand against scrutiny. If it can't, well, even if you're right, then don't expect me to believe it until you can make it stand against scrutiny.

You can research all you want by your own rules, but if you can't deal openly and honestly, and with substance with the different viewpoints, then don't expect me to spend my resources on your work.

It seems to me that if the peer review process which you profess to know so well is in fact to do what you say it is, then it may not be appropriate for the shaping of public policy. As in engineering, when one process is found to not be appropriate, or insufficient to consistently and repeatedly achieve the desired results, then the process needs to be modified and improved. It seems like the same thing can be applied to the "peer review" process. If you want to shape public policy, then get free speech back into it. If you want peer review that actively suppresses opposing views, then the science should not be shaping public policy.

[sigurdur]

Remember Alfred Wegener ? He never passed peer review either. But he certainly was correct.

[socold]

Apr 5, 2010 3:35:31 GMT slh1234 said:

If the peer review process cannot openly and honestly deal with differences of opinion and answer why a particular point of view is not dealt with

How do you deal with the situation where someone just refuses to accept their paper contained errors? If they submitted defenses that were bogus would you just publish them anyway?

And if you are willing to publish bogus replies, why not bogus papers?

Peer review isn't perfect, but what's the alternative?

[slh1234]

Apr 5, 2010 3:52:02 GMT socold said:

Apr 5, 2010 3:35:31 GMT slh1234 said:

If the peer review process cannot openly and honestly deal with differences of opinion and answer why a particular point of view is not dealt with

How do you deal with the situation where someone just refuses to accept their paper contained errors? If they submitted defenses that were bogus would you just publish them anyway?

And if you are willing to publish bogus replies, why not bogus papers?

Peer review isn't perfect, but what's the alternative?

Let me also ask you: How do you deal with a situation where those in charge of the peer review have become politicized and manipulate the peer review process to achieve a political end?

If peer review cannot deal with that, it is worthless.

[socold]

How do you deal with a situation where those in charge of the peer review have become politicized and manipulate the peer review process to achieve a political end? If peer review cannot deal with that, it is worthless.

Bias does get dealt with. Not immediately, but valid science is unsupressible. If that wasn't so we wouldn't have a theory of plate techtonics.

Having some form of peer review is important or otherwise papers titled "is the moon made of cheese?" would end up in Nature.

[icefisher]

Apr 5, 2010 4:18:53 GMT socold said:

How do you deal with a situation where those in charge of the peer review have become politicized and manipulate the peer review process to achieve a political end? If peer review cannot deal with that, it is worthless.

Bias does get dealt with. Not immediately, but valid science is unsupressible. If that wasn't so we wouldn't have a theory of plate techtonics.

Having some form of peer review is important or otherwise papers titled "is the moon made of cheese?" would end up in Nature.

Tap, tap Socold articles the quality of the moon is made of cheese do show up in Nature Magazine. Take Mann's Hockey Stick article for example.

[hunter]

In climate science, and who knows how many other science disciplines, peer review has been replaced by 'true believer syndrome'
www.skepdic.com/truebeliever.html
Look how our true believers here dodge anything that gets to the core questions of AGW.
Any rationale is OK if it keeps the true faith protected.

[socold]

This is not specific to climate science. Peer review exists in all fields. In all fields a lot of submitted papers are rejected. Peer review enforces a necessary standard. It's not perfectly enforced - for example McLean et al managed to get published in the first place. The errors were pointed out in a response by other scientists. The main error that drew attention in the first place was where the McLean paper made an unsubstantiated wild claim in it's conclusion. It was also paraded around certain venues as proof that recent warming could not have been caused by co2, at least one of the co-authors said as much in the media too.

This claim could not be scientifically defended. McLean didn't try to defend it. He could have and could have issued a correction. Instead he evaded. The editor was having none of it. That's the difference between science and Internet discussions - standards - someone is there to insert some common sense and stop the messing around.

As explained here:
www.skepticalscience.com/McLean-de-Freitas-and-Carter-rebutted-by-McLean-de-Freitas-and-Carter.html

McLean argues that "If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation". And yet despite McLean's attempt to hide the incline, his own analysis shows a strong divergence between temperature and the El Nino Southern Oscillation. Thus, the attempt to blame global warming on El Nino activity suffers from a serious divergence problem.