Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Memetrics
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktA long discussion of climate change continues on a two-day old thread, so I figured I would bring it forward and link to this, an article that appeared in yesterday’s WSJ about a project out of Berkeley attempting to clean up the rather messy historical records on temperature.
Calculating a global temperature is necessary to track climate trends because, as your TV meteorologist might warn, local conditions can differ. Much of the U.S. and Northern Europe has cooled in the last 70 years, Berkeley Earth found. So did one-third of all weather stations world-wide, while two-thirds warmed. The project cites this as evidence of overall warming; skeptics aren’t convinced because it depends how concentrated those warming sites are. If they happen to be bunched up while the cooling sites are in sparsely measured areas, then more places could be cooling.
The risk with models is that scientists can become enslaved to one they have chosen, says Mr. McIntyre. “The best antidote is for authors to make all their data available at the time of publication together with scrupulous documentation,” he says, crediting Berkeley Earth with attempting to do this.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
On the earlier thread, BB wrote:"I'm specifically thinking of Ken Cuccinelli's legal assault on UVa. The professor in question is highly respected and his research was peer funded and reviewed. The attempt to subpoena his emails is nothing more than an attempt to."One of the things we discovered from Climategate is the manipulation of the peer review process and the intentional permanent deflation of emails and data to prevent the inspection of said materials.
LikeLike
Deflation = deletion.. Point is, the process by which you judge scientific legitimacy has been corrupted in some parts of Climate Science.
LikeLike
Fairlington said:The policy prescriptions advocated as a result of scientific conclusions are appropriate for politics. Scientists are being attacked by on the basis of the science by people without a clue.Yes.McWing: "Climategate"?? Climategate???Six investigations of the controversy have all come to the conclusion that you are misrepresenting the facts here. In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame.
LikeLike
Oh, and I'm going to phrase this very facetiously, although it is a serious point: I don't think the words "peer review process" mean what you think they mean.Just as lawyers and financial folks use language in a very specific way, so do scientists. "Peer review" does not mean you've proven your point beyond a shadow of a doubt. It means that a jury of your peers (also known as reviewers or referees; I'm a reviewer for two different scientific journals and I'm sure Fairlington and Mike are reviewers, also) has decided that you've formed a legitimate hypothesis, have experimented and generated data to forward that hypothesis, and you have placed it in a niche within the broader basis of your field. You haven't necessarily proven that your hypothesis is true, just that it is supported by your data. Where scientists usually get into trouble is when they hypothesize ahead of their data, and that's what the peer review process is supposed to prevent; what, in effect, climate change deniers are saying is that the scientists publishing the data have hypothsized ahead of their data, while the peer review process (and presumably the researchers who know way more about this than any of us) have said that they haven't.As I said, I've reviewed manuscripts and published in peer reviewed journals. I think the words mean something different than you're thinking.
LikeLike
Mich:Six investigations of the controversy have all come to the conclusion that you are misrepresenting the facts here.What facts has he misrepresented?
LikeLike
"As I said, I've reviewed manuscripts and published in peer reviewed journals. I think the words mean something different than you're thinking."No, that's my understanding as well.And losing the raw data doesn't increase my confidence in them or an investigation that can no longer determine the validity of their work? It's hard to understand how anyone can think they're cleared.
LikeLike
Mr. Troll, with all due respect, you are making michi's point. You cite to nonscientific, speculative and political critique — and really old critique, at that — to what you call by the term "climategate." As an aside, I consider that term to be unnecessarily biased. What say you about the scientist who recently overtly set out to discredit the GW science but ended up agreeing with it? Got any credible, i.e., would pass peer-review muster, critiques of the science behind GW beyond speculative suspicions? Please go beyond political talking points. IMHO, lms has it exactly right that we who are not in that field must seek out trusted and recognized experts, which is not what you are citing here. (Ha ha. Here I go, when I have intentionally stayed out of this discussion because I am not a scientist.)
LikeLike
Keep in mind you are not arguing for mutually exclusive positions. I.e. both of these can be true:1. Global Warming/Climate Change is actually occurring.2. The researchers at East Anglia manipulated the data to improve their case for #1.
LikeLike
okie:You cite to nonscientific, speculative and political critiqueSorry…are you saying that the claim that CRU no longer holds the original raw data upon which it based some of its claims is nonscientific, speculative, and political?
LikeLike
scott, no. But I am saying that presuming a nefarious purpose is speculative and political, as is an assumption that it means the data is in fact corrupted.
LikeLike
Climategate was a James O'Keefe style attempt to refute climate change theory by destroying the credibility of the researchers. As such it was a political and public relations attempt rather than a scientific endeavor. There was on alternate hypothesis, no published journal article, no peer review. It was just a failed hatchet job that in no way altered the underlining science.You can't change facts by attacking the people finding the facts. But now Climategate is an arrow in the quiver of deniers, and I use that term instead of skeptics, because true skeptics are open to reason and evidence, not calumny and misdirection. Anyone using the 'evidence' of Climategate as proof that climate change is not occurring or does not have an anthropogenic component has an agenda and is not making a serious inquiry.
LikeLike
Scott: this statement by McWing:One of the things we discovered from Climategate is the manipulation of the peer review process and the intentional permanent [deletion] of emails and data to prevent the inspection of said materials.has been found to be factually untrue. That's what I said was what he was misrepresenting.
LikeLike
Hey! okie's Sooners are winning! (Just got back from running errands for a couple of hours)Yea, MSU! Boo, Iowa! Sorry, MrJS. . .
LikeLike
Michigan's up-down performance is no longer a surprise to us, Michi.OK, got a question….Just about all of us link to other sites and often post a some portion of said article in our comments. The question is, what if the link is to a subscription-only article? I just ran across a situation in which the poster copied the entire article into his comment.I advised him to review the policies of both the source publication and the destination website and that his posting the entire article may well be a no-no. Am I hopelessly behind the times on stuff like this?
LikeLike
It is technically a violation of the terms of service but snitches get stitches.
LikeLike
Yello, I didn't say anything about 'snitching', only that he might likely be in violation of both site's stated policies. Is there something inherent in my pointing this out that implies I'm inclined to take it further?
LikeLike
It does come off slightly school-marmish. He did explicitly mention that it is not his usual pracitce and that he does so only because the paywall makes it unavailable to the general public. He is clearly aware that he has transgressed some ethical standard. At some level this could be seen as information-wants-to-be-free civil disobedience.I have a long running feud with someone who habitually cuts and pastes entire articles by a popular humorist into comment sections even though said articles are freely available on the web and by e-mail list. My protests that this was a violation of both the copyright and the terms of service fell on deaf ears so I have abandoned my crusade.
LikeLike
I'll push back on one point, that of peer review. I've been an active scientist for twenty years now (the date of my first paper) and reviewer of hundreds of articles as well as editing a dozen or so proceedings.Articles submitted to journal (and proposals submitted to funding agencies) are going through the same peer review process that they always have. The flood of (crappy) articles coming out of China has caused editorial boards to stiffen up standards.Equally virulent charges are being hurled by the few diehards who believe in cold fusion. Poor souls, these. You may be making valid political points, but they have little to do with global warming research being treated differently than other climate research.I spent the better part of four months working on our paper submitted to Physical Review Letters. This included a vigorous debate amongst the co-authors. I'm pushing for a new interpretation of the results of a particular technique. This meant convincing my co-authors who are steeped in that technique. And, yes, I think there's some profoundly wrong conclusions and needed to talk frankly with my co-authors. We've come to a consensus. Cuccinelli publishing those emails (and you damn well know his office would leak like a holed battleship) would be very much like publishing client attorney conversations. That's his intent. To attack scientists whose conclusions he dislikes.Don't talk to me about football tonight. Northwestern? NORTHWESTERN?? Sheesh.BB
LikeLike
Go Wildcats! (as a kid, fall meant going to lots of NU football games).OK yello, maybe it can be interpreted by some as a bit school marmish. I'll probably continue to simply point it out, though.
LikeLike
As the newbie in the Big Ten, FB, it was your turn to fall to the doormat. . . 🙂
LikeLike
BTW, I'm putting up a nice, relaxing, Saturday night food post. . .
LikeLike
Love to participate more, alas, it's been a busy weekend and will continue to be busy into the first of the week. However:about a project out of Berkeley attempting to clean up the rather messy historical records on temperatureIt's that cleaning that makes people feel like the data is being massaged towards a particular outcome. Yet, it the data is messy . . .BB: Equally virulent charges are being hurled by the few diehards who believe in cold fusion. Because cold fusion would be totally awesome. So would a miniature arc reactor, like in Iron Man.
LikeLike
David Brin, scientist and author, writes frequently and eloquently on the War On Science.
LikeLike
"Scott: this statement by McWing:One of the things we discovered from Climategate is the manipulation of the peer review process and the intentional permanent [deletion] of emails and data to prevent the inspection of said materials.has been found to be factually untrue. That's what I said was what he was misrepresenting."The problem is that it's not factually untrue, as Phil Jones admits to intentionally deleting emails""The inadvertent email I sent last month has led to a Data Protection Act request sent by a certain Canadian [presumably McIntyre], saying that the email maligned his scientific credibility with his peers! If he pays 10 pounds (which he hasn't yet) I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get anything I've written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very little – if anything at all. This legislation is different from the FOI – it is supposed to be used to find put why you might have a poor credit rating!"The source for the quote and more information on why they (and I) think data was intentionally deleted is at this link.
LikeLike
Troll – I've shifted from Iowa State Univ. to Univ. of Utah to Sheffield Univ. to the Draper Laboratory to NRL. I'm supposed to keep every email I ever sent or received to satisfy you of my scientific integrity? If I take this snippet at face value, a highly paid scientist is supposed to put everything aside to let someone snoop through his hard drive.As it happens, I store emails that I've sent or received as I sometimes need to check something from awhile ago. I used to delete what I considered unimportant information and then found I needed a contact email. Based on what you just wrote, I might want to revisit that policy.By the way, I'd put the responsibility for handling a FOIA request on the people who run the server. If all emails (including spam) need to be preserved for all perpetuity, then it's the responsibility of IT, not the end user.So, what about that email you sent on March 23, 2004?BB
LikeLike
FB,The problem is that Dr.Jones knew at the times of these emails that he had to keep them and was obligated to turn them over if they were requested via the UK's FOIA law. I also find it bothersome that he co-opted the person in charge of these requests at EA, "When the FOI requests began here, the FOI person said we had to abide by the requests. It took a couple of half hour sessions – one at a screen, to convince them otherwise showing them what CA was all about. Once they became aware of the types of people we were dealing with, everyone at UEA (in the registry and in the Environmental Sciences school – the head of school and a few others) became very supportive. I've got to know the FOI person quite well and the Chief Librarian – who deals with appeals. The VC is also aware of what is going on – at least for one of the requests, but probably doesn't know the number we're dealing with. We are in double figures."As well as designed a strategy to prevent the honoring of the FOIA request, which is outlined in this posting, but is to long to quote (but not to read!)Finally, the CRU was designed to (and partially funded by our EPA) to preserve a comprehensive history of temperature data from weather stations. It just defies logic that historical temperature records would be destroyed rather than moved to a site designed to preserve them.
LikeLike
McWing–that is such a biased source document that I gave up fact checking it after the first five mistatements in the Examiner's article. It's a Saturday night and I really don't feel like hashing this out. . . can you accept that scientists sometimes know what they're talking about, and purely innocent comments, when the language involved is not completely understood, can be misconstrued by those with the purest of intentions, let alone those trying to score political points?I'm not a climate scientist, so it would take me a lot of reading to lay out a fully coherent and cogent explanation of why nothing nefarious actually happened. They were discussing algorithms for analyzing data and the like, and I still haven't found anything in that article that makes me believe that data has been erased. Interpretations of data, possibly, but the data itself, no.
LikeLike
Mich/Fairlington:What did Phil Jones mean when he said of skeptics:"[we] will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
LikeLike
Michi,What I demonstrated with the links is an admission from Phil Jones of intentionally deleting emails he knows he should not as well as proof that historical data was intentionally destroyed. Jones' reasons for deleting his emails were to avoid having anybody outside his approved circle read them. The links also demonstrate an argument (I beleive) that builds a case for the historical temperature data's destruction being done for reasons other than storage space constraints.
LikeLike
What did I write that you found to be factually untrue?
LikeLike
And if this isn't a demonstration of the peer review process, , I don't know what is. Certainly a reasonable person could reach that conclusion, no?While the Guardian is indeed biased, I was able to get through the whole thing. 😉
LikeLike
McWing: manipulation of the peer review process and the intentional permanent deflation of emails and data to prevent the inspection of said materials.Honestly, it hasn't happened to the best of my (and those six independent reviews noted above) knowledge. OK, e-mails were deleted, but the data hasn't been. We're tying ourselves in knots here, guys, and Scott I'm not going to delve into Phil Jones' statements or those of Mr McIntyre tonight (at least). Suffice it to say that scientists on the whole (like, dude, 99% of us)(whoa–we're the 99%!!!!) don't have a problem with climate change/AGW/whatever you wish to call it, but that's a dog bites man story so it don't get much play. And we really are the experts in this.
LikeLike
Mich: I still haven't found anything in that article that makes me believe that data has been erased. Interpretations of data, possibly, but the data itself, no.According to The Times in the UK (subscription required, so no link, but the link and the quote can be found here) they did precisely the opposite, deleting raw data and keeping the "revised" data."SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”[…]In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
LikeLike
Mich:Scott I'm not going to delve into Phil Jones' statements or those of Mr McIntyre tonight (at least).That's fine, but it seems to me that if you are going to assert that they did not attempt to manipulate or corrupt the process, you need to explain statements such as that which I have presented.
LikeLike
Scott:And maybe you could take the "For" side in a debate on "Resolved: Climate Change Deniers are Fighting a Losing War" (as opposed to my original title that they're full of it 🙂 ) and explain them. . . but I'm being facetious again.Thunderstruck arrived today with perfect timing: I had to produce a document for my boss by Monday reconciling four different databases to give her a list of about 30 samples that we want to submit for testing next week and I finally got it pulled together about three hours ago, so I'm ready for a major diversion. Yippee!
LikeLike
From The Guardian article McWing linked to above:The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, as a top expert in his field, was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers criticising his work.When Goldman Sachs advises its clients regarding securities that it has an undisclosed interest in, it is called a conflict of interest bordering on criminal fraud.When climate scientists advise journals regarding studies that they have an undisclosed professional interest in, it is called peer-review "science".And this is supposed to be a respected process? Really?
LikeLike
Mich:And maybe you could take the "For" side in a debate on "Resolved: Climate Change Deniers are Fighting a Losing War"Um…as I have pointed out repeatedly, almost no one is a climate change denier. Perhaps a more relevant debate would be "Resolved: Climate change alarmists are unwilling to address their critics honestly."BTW, I've asked this of alarmists before, but have never gotten an answer. In what year was the world's climate last at the "right" level?
LikeLike
Scott, that's exactly what I was referring to when I told McWing "I don't think 'peer reviewed process' means what you think it means."If you think anybody–editorial board, managing editor, authors, anybody–didn't know what Phil Jones' interest was you're high. It's why we all try to game the system a bit when it comes to who's reviewing our papers. There's ALWAYS going to be a Big Name involved who has the opposite opinion. If you get "blackballed" it simply means you haven't convinced the Big Name that your data supports your hypothesis to the point you're trying to support it. I'm involved right now in a review of a paper that I'd be more than happy to see published so that we can hash the problems out in public, but the Big Name reviewing it is being an asshole. The rest of us will eventually be able to bring enough weight to bear to get the paper out of the review process, but sometimes it isn't pretty.Phil Jones had no undisclosed interest.
LikeLike
That Guardian article is far less of a smoking gun than claimed. While it does delve into the personality conflicts and few of the scientists come out looking good, it doesn't show any crime other than rather heavy-handed politicking. There is nothing impugning the research itself. In fact, the contremps seems to have started, if I am following the article correctly, when a particularly shoddy article sponsored in part by the American Petroleum Institute somehow slipped through.One of the articles linked to within the story is a different article titled How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate skeptics' lies details how the quotes used by skeptics have been taken out of context and manipulted. Even it takes to task the "even if we have to redefine what the peer-reviewed literature is" quote which was a very stupid thing for anybody to say.In a wider view, the skeptics seem to be using the same tactics pioneered by the tobacco industry to obfuscate the health effects of smoking.
LikeLike
"Right" level?Big Bang.
LikeLike
Mich:Phil Jones had no undisclosed interest.I thought the reviews were anonymous.
LikeLike
Scott – Means he was talking out of his asterisk. Editors are like the Agents from the Matrix series. Mess with the system and you will be crushed. I had a paper that I deeply believed in that I submitted to Physical Review Letters (the top journal in physics). I had four referee reports. All were enthusiastic about the work. Two favored publication, two said too specialized. We appealed. The divisional editor's decision letter made it sound like we were doing freshman physics. Badly.I reviewed a paper that was recently submitted to Physical Review B. It's a good, solid journal for solid state physics. I've published there more than in any journal (probably 10 – 20 papers) and referee for them quite frequently. This particular paper used a technique that I know thoroughly. It also suggested that all previous work was flawed. I think the authors were full of it. However, I was a co-author of one of the papers they explicitly criticized. So, I sent an email to the editor saying that I could referee the paper and had a negative view of it. However, the authors did attack work on which I was a co-author and this presented a potential conflict of interest. In the past, I have recommended papers for publication that have conclusions with which I disagree.The editor decided to keep me as a referee and I recommended that the paper be rejected. The authors have since revised the paper and held to their conclusion. At this point, I've contacted the editor and recommended four potential referees with a better grounding in theory of this phenomenon than I have.That's how the process should work. However, scientists are human and grudges develop. We also hang out and drink at conferences. Sometimes, A LOT (after our talks). If your reading of the global warming controversies has enlightened you to this, that's all for the better. Because, my friend, the same thing happens in field after field. This one is being played out under the krieglights.And Alan Heeger is still full of it. Then again, he has Nobel and is rich. I've got an 835 sq. ft. townhouse in Alexandria. He wins.BB
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
Scott,You have said a couple of times that hardly anybody denies climate change. Do you think that there is a anthropogenic component to the current documented warming trend?And fixation on temperatures is only one part of the climate change issue. The core of the AGW theory is that the widespread use of fossil fuels is affecting atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, pushing them past historic levels of variation. CO2 create the greenhouse effect. Temperature measurements document if and by how much CO2 is affecting the environment. Carbon dioxide levels are at record levels, outpacing current predictions.
LikeLike
Mich:If you get "blackballed" it simply means you haven't convinced the Big Name that your data supports your hypothesis to the point you're trying to support it.Really? There is no other possible reason why the Big Name would put the kabosh on an article? Like that he doesn't like the idea of his theories being challenged? That's just impossible?BTW, you may be correct that those of us not involved in it have been misled (by scientists themselves, of course) about the significance of the peer-review process. If it truly is as political as you suggest (and certainly if it is as rife with conflicts of interest as The Guardian suggests), there is little reason that we should necessarily respect studies that make it through the process, nor dismiss those that that have been rejected by it.And, I would note, if the normal process is as political as you say, we can imagine how much moreso it would be for a field in which so much money and true political power is at stake.
LikeLike
Scott:I thought the reviews were anonymous.HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhaahaahaahahaha Hee. Heeheehee.Yes, the authors aren't supposed to know who's reviewing them, but the editor and managing editor know who they are. They pick them, after all, and pick them for a reason. And authors can usually figure it out by the way the comments are written, given that every human being who writes has a distinctive writing style. It's a small world, after all (despite the temptation, I won't link to the Disney song).FB put it better than I could: However, scientists are human and grudges develop. We also hang out and drink at conferences. Sometimes, A LOT (after our talks). If your reading of the global warming controversies has enlightened you to this, that's all for the better. Because, my friend, the same thing happens in field after field. This one is being played out under the krieglights.
LikeLike
"University politics are vicious precisely because the stakes are so small." – Henry Kissinger
LikeLike
"That's how the process should work. However, scientists are human and grudges develop. We also hang out and drink at conferences. Sometimes, A LOT (after our talks). If your reading of the global warming controversies has enlightened you to this, that's all for the better. Because, my friend, the same thing happens in field after field. This one is being played out under the krieglights."What other fields of science are being used to fundamentally alter the way life is lived in this and many other countries? If the conclusions of said science are employed for the justification of taking things by threat of force, shouldn't the process be purer than Ceasar's wife? There have been reams written about faulty paperwork for repossessions due to not know who actually owns a mortgage that is sliced into a CDO. Would you advocate that it's ok to continue with the repossession because everybody does it?
LikeLike
That comment is full of insinuations, Scott. The Guardian itself has a vested interest. There's no scoop in people trying to do their best and behaving like people in the process. I forget the exact story, but I remember that 60 Minutes did a piece on some town in Kansas and they played up issues. Do you remember the TV series in which Super Nanny would swoop in and solve a hapless family's problems? The parents were always made to seem incompetent, but SN could solve everything. I read a story about one family's experiences. They had some problems and, yes, sought help. Hopeless parents? Hardly.I am attempting to provide a full accounting of how the process works from an active scientist. Warts and all. It's a good thing to be disabused of any notions of dispassionate lab rats reaching logical conclusions. Science doesn't work that way AND IT NEVER HAS. If you don't care, REALLY CARE, about your work, you're not going to succeed. I'll parenthetically note that I don't care for the shot about scientists having misled you about the peer review process. Did you ever gave a damn about it until it became a conservative cause celebre?BB
LikeLike
Troll – Hmm. Let's take an esoteric example. Theoretical physics.I suspect the former residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki could tell you how that affected their lives.BB
LikeLike
Oh. Another field. Biology. Yeah, that hasn't had any fundamental impacts on the way we live our lives.Chemistry. Nah. Hasn't affected me in the slighted. Geology. Be nice to have some better earthquake and tsunami predictions. Not to mention a few predictions about where those rigs should be drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.Exactly what field of science doesn't impact our way of life fundamentally? And if it doesn't, it dies on the vine. Of course, if there is botrytis rot, then you'll have a tasty sauterne. But that gets us back to biology.BB
LikeLike
Scott, to be totally, unabashedly, unequivocally honest with you. And, remember, I'm an Army officer, who believed (and still believes) wholeheartedly in falling on her sword if that's what it took to do the right thing.Scientists believe in The Truth. That's why we became scientists to start out with–the search for Truth. Truth is provable, it is beautiful, and it is evident. The fact that publishing it is corrupt is part of the human condition; none of us are perfect. I've been very cynical tonight in trying to educate you on the realities of publishing in the modern era of science. . . but that's because you approached the subject from the assumption that scientists are perfect beings. We aren't, but deep down we want to be.
LikeLike
FB, ok,I'll play, tell me about an issue in physics that is being used to fundamentally alter the way of life in this and other countries by use of coercive force?
LikeLike
Troll,Your issue is then with the politics not the science. If attacking the science is to avoid the economic consequences of a real phenomenon, that is ultimately a counterproductive strategy.
LikeLike
Fairlington:On my way to bed, so I will respond more fully tomorrow. But I can't let this pass. Did you ever gave a damn about it until it became a conservative cause celebre?I hate to tell you but AGW is a liberal cause celebre. And I started to give a damn about the peer review process when I started hearing demands for economy destroying legislation being justified on the basis of studies that were supposedly unassailable because they had been through this allegedly rigorous vetting process. Hearing what I've heard tonight, it's clear I should care about it even more than I previously thought.
LikeLike
Don't bother with the response for my benefit, Scott, because I'm done for this topic. Opinions are too hardened. Attacking the peer review process or scientists is simply a means to achieve a political aim.I noticed that whenever I wrote about how peer review actually happens, there's no response. No interest in the process for all your purported concern. I've been a research scientist for 20 years. If you're interested in how science is done, we can talk. If you're interested in getting me to respond to talking points, go find another punching bag.BB
LikeLike
Fairlingotn:That comment is full of insinuations, Scott.Well I thought I was actually pretty explicit, but I wouldn't want to simply insinuate what I am trying to say, so I guess I should be moreso. The fact that scientists are just people and do, as you readily acknowledge, act like people suggests to me that there can be all manner of reasons for a Big Name to reject a paper outside of simply not being convinced that the data supports the hypothesis, including self-interested and politically inspired reasons. And the way I read some of the Climategate e-mails, that is exactly what Phil Jones and others appear to have been doing.The Guardian itself has a vested interest. There's no scoop in people trying to do their best and behaving like people in the process.I don't get this comment at all. It seems to me that this is precisely what The Guardian's article was premised upon…that scientists have and will act on their self-interest just like anyone else. I forget the exact story, but I remember that 60 Minutes did a piece on some town in Kansas and they played up issues. Don't get me started on 60 Minutes. I defer to no one when it comes to lack of respect for that show.I'll parenthetically note that I don't care for the shot about scientists having misled you about the peer review process.That's understandable, I suppose. But I can't help it if scientists have made such a public issue of the importance of peer-review being an essential bedrock to the scientific process when in fact, if you and Mich are right, it is a highly politicized process fraught with the realities of human emotion.Don't bother with the response for my benefit, Scott, because I'm done for this topic. Opinions are too hardened. Attacking the peer review process or scientists is simply a means to achieve a political aim.I find that a bizarre comment. It's akin to me explaining to you that the compliance and internal audit process in a bank is hardly the type of strong and objective check on trading activity that you have been led to believe, and then accusing you of attacking it for political purposes. Huh?I noticed that whenever I wrote about how peer review actually happens, there's no response.Again, I don't get it. That seems to be primarily what we have been talking about.
LikeLike
Mich: . . but that's because you approached the subject from the assumption that scientists are perfect beings. Huh? What in the world did I say last night to get you to conclude such a thing?I pointed out how CRU has destroyed raw data and now no one can check their work. I pointed out how Phil Jones proposed "redefining" peer-review in order to keep the work of contrarians out. I suggest to you that when the Big Name rejects a paper, it may be for reasons other than simply not being convinced by the data. And yet you conclude that I approach scientists as if they are perfect?I really, really, don't get that at all.
LikeLike
Farilington:Exactly what field of science doesn't impact our way of life fundamentally?The issue is not how science impacts our lives. The issue is how scientists get politicians to pass legislation that will impact our lives.
LikeLike
OK. Some regrets for my last comment. I did feel like I was being backed up into a corner and was supposed to admit there was a grand conspiracy. There was an internal frustration in that I do what to write a more general post. The AGW hypothesis pits conservatives against scientific consensus. This is not unique to conservatives. Liberals are just as susceptible to rejecting scientific consensus when it reaches uncomfortable conclusions.The general point I was making is that the peer review process was not perverted for this specific field. The next logical step seems to be to force research journals to disclose all their internal communications to be picked over. When you show me an editor for Nature or Science stating that s/he bent the rules for favored authors, then I'll buy it. That editor will also be out the door in an instant.As for analogies, there are plenty of them. Acid rain has let to pollution restrictions, particularly for coal fired plants. The ozone hole led to banning of CFCs. The near loss of some raptors led to the banning of DDT. This isn't new stuff, folks.I'm headed off this thread for the moment, but will start a new one shortly.BB
LikeLike
Also, I enjoy the spirited debate. If I'm not challenging views in some way, my papers will be accepted into a minor journal somewhere and pick up the occasional citation. If a paper is accepted into Thin Solid Films, does it make a sound? Well, no. So, conflict and strong opinions, yes. Papers don't get into top journals just 'cause they're friends with the editor.I'll try to find some time to get back to this later today. I have to work on a paper for which we just received the referee reports. My co-authors and I are meeting tomorrow and so I need to hash out a few things. So, as entertaining as the discussion of science is, I need to head out and do a little of it.Cheers,Paul
LikeLike
I also want to clarify a couple of things that I didn't explicitly say last night (because they're implicit in the peer review process, and therefore not always articulated). To publish something that is controversial requires more and stronger data than a non-controversial, but novel, finding. To argue against human causation for some global warming/climate change is controversial. Like I said, 99% of us accept that there is a human component. Also, while the Big Name is often arguing in support of her (previously published) research, she is also there because she has a vast knowledge of the field as the whole–from her own lab's experiments, talking to colleagues around the world, and reading published and unpublished (i.e., under review) articles–that a paper's authors don't necessarily have. If you're really lucky, the Big Name reviewing your paper is the guru who sits at the top of the mountain: if you can convince that reviewer that you should be published you're golden.The assertion that data has been deleted has been made in, what to me anyway, appears to be a context-free manner. Again, six investigations all independently found that no wrong was done in the CRU case; and those six investigations were done by different agencies in different countries who all had a vested interest in the outcome (i.e., if data had truly been deleted they'd be screwed).Finally, reading back on what I wrote I owe you an apology, McWing. You weren't misrepresenting the facts. What I should have said was that your source document was. So I apologize–I should have been more precise in what I wrote.Science is most often done for love and not financial gain; the biggest pay cut I ever took was leaving the military and moving into science (and then took another when I moved from biotech to academia). We aren't trying to score political points (usually), we're just trying to change the world. 🙂
LikeLike
FB:I did feel like I was being backed up into a corner and was supposed to admit there was a grand conspiracy.I don't think there is a grand conspiracy. I just think that, being human, some scientists have so much invested in being right that they will go pretty far in taking steps to make sure they are not shown to be otherwise.I also think that many scientific advances have occurred precisely because the most recent "consensus" was challenged, so scientists who routinely dismiss any challengers as unworthy of serious consideration simply because of what is being challenged ought to be treated with a heavy does of suspicion.The AGW hypothesis pits conservatives against scientific consensus.I disagree. Again, this seems to me to be an attempt to portray particular policy preferences as the necessary and inevitable result of the scientific method, which they are not. A more accurate claim is that the AGW hypothesis leads some to propose political action which pits liberals against conservatives.As I pointed out above, the claim that the earth is warming, or even that the earth is warming due to human activity, does not lead inexorably via the scientific method to the need to raise the tax on gasoline or subsidize companies like Solyndra or outlaw the production of incandescent light bulbs. It is only the pretense that they do which makes it seem that conservatives are pitted against "science".The general point I was making is that the peer review process was not perverted for this specific field.I understand. In response to those who say that AGW scientists have perverted the process, you (and Mich) seem to be saying, essentially, "No they haven't, it's always been perverted." I would have thought it obvious, but making that case doesn't exactly enhance the authority of the "consensus".The near loss of some raptors led to the banning of DDT.And what did the DDT ban lead to? An excellent example of how policy prescriptions said to be necessary because "science" can have unintended consequences worse than the problem they were ostensibly enacted to fix. Skepticism about these policies is healthy, not anti-science.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Scott:Skepticism about these policies is healthy, not anti-science.But it's the science (and the scientists) who get pummeled rather than the policy makers when those who disagree with the policy weigh in. Look at the arguments you and McWing have been making in this thread.
LikeLike
This comment has been removed by the author.
LikeLike
I just keep coming back. That and handling taxes is something I hate to do. We filed our federal returns late (took the deferment option), because a company for which my wife worked incorrectly stated her income. They stated her travel expenses as income, which they're not supposed to put on a 1099. They're also Pacific NW Natl. Lab and can do whatever the hell they feel like. If you don't like it, you don't get plum jobs of a couple of weeks in the Dominican Republic.With do respect, you linked to a polemic by Todd Seavey. That's fine, but I'll respect something like this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240724/pdf/ehp0110-000125.pdf%5BI'll have to figure out href's later.]Note, DDT is accepted for use to combat malaria. My wife actually caught malaria when she was in the Peace Corp in Mali. I also must note that Seavey rants about human health when in fact it was the near extinction of several species of raptors that led to the ban in the U.S.With regards to the peer review process, I think you're putting words in my mouth: "it is a highly politicized process", "No they haven't, it's always been perverted."What we have both been saying is that peer review is not a dispassionate process. Nor should it be. I'm in this game, because I care. There are a few notions with which I strongly disagree. I'm working on one of these right now and have been surprised. I think I might have been wrong. We're doing some measurements Monday and Tuesday on this topic.I stumbled into a career as a physicist. I originally considered a biology major with the idea of pre-med. I did well in freshman biology, but didn't care for the lab work. I actually declared a major in chemistry before physics. Analytical chemistry disabused me of that idea. I couldn't titrate to save my life. Turns out that I'm slightly color blind and so I couldn't detect the subtle color changes that signify a reaction has completed. I was in debate through high school and the first two years of college. I stayed with physics as it was more challenging to me. I had to work hard to get a good grade in physics, which wasn't the case with many other classes that I took.I enjoy this work. One frustration to me is that non-scientists seem to think of the work as you go into the lab, do an experiment, get the result to confirm your hypothesis, and go write a paper. How dull! It's far more interesting than that.Gotta go for the moment. This is fun, though.BB
LikeLike
Here ya go, Paul:
LikeLike
Didn't work! Maybe because it's a pdf. . .Gotta run!
LikeLike
FB/Mich:I think this is what you wanted to do.
LikeLike
Yep, that was it. Thanks, Scott!
LikeLike
Belatedly, after a busy weekend away, several things catch my attention about this discussion, in no particular order.Scientists believe in The Truth. That's why we became scientists to start out with–the search for Truth. Truth is provable, it is beautiful, and it is evident.This strikes me as a claim that at best is a generalization that misidentifies "scientists" with what scientists are supposed to do, science. It really only works as a tautology: a [true] scientist is someone who…. But this entire discussion proceeds on the premise that scientists are entirely fallible and egocentric (which is true).I will leave aside the idea of deeper critiques of whether it accurately describes "science" or scientific progress itself, sufficing to say that it may not be universally accepted even by scientists (consider Thomas Kuhn's theory of science, for example).But it's the science (and the scientists) who get pummeled rather than the policy makers when those who disagree with the policy weigh in. Look at the arguments you and McWing have been making in this thread.First, this isn't exactly true. Al Gore and his allies in government take plenty of pummelling, Gore because he is guilty of spreading gross misinformation and is a huge hypocrite. Second, if scientists are intentionally or unintentionally leading us into major policy mistakes, they deserve pummelling.What we have both been saying is that peer review is not a dispassionate process. Nor should it beI work with scientists as experts and consultants, listen to them testify, fight, etc., all the time, so none of this is a surprise to me, but, first, to say that science is always part wrestling match and ego contest (a shorthand way to put all this) really isn't a very strong defense, when as much rides on it as with AGW, and, second, I don't find there is any real proof accessible to the lay public whether the AGW blackballing (no real question in my mind that is a fair characterization) is just the run-of-the-mill variety or is something more, as the doubters seem to claim.
LikeLike
Suffice it to say that scientists on the whole (like, dude, 99% of us)(whoa–we're the 99%!!!!) don't have a problem with climate change/AGW/whatever you wish to call it, but that's a dog bites man story so it don't get much play. And we really are the experts in this. With respect, I don't find this sort of claim at all persuasive. First, we are asked to accept a claimed "consensus" although we understand that science in the end isn't really a matter of consensus. Sometimes the dissent is right. Second, I have not seen any persuasive proof of the claimed consensus among experts in the field. In truth, most scientists are no more experts in this particular field than anyone else. And I am not going to just accept the claim of the AGW proponents that they are right and the issue is "settled" despite those pesky dissenters.This is particularly problematic for me because, as I have said a number of times, when I read the back and forth I am stuck by how dogmatic and seemingly closed to inquiry the believers are compared to the doubters. It is the believers who are strident and dismissive and do not seem to respond to questions and challenges in an open-minded way.Now, they could still be right, but their behavior does not comport with what I would expect from people who were as right as they claim to be. A telltale to me is that I have never seen one of them acknowledge a single piece of data as inconsistent with their models and predictions, which seems improbable. Perhaps I've missed this, but I consistently see them revise and reinterpret to say that inconsistent data actually support their theory or must be flawed or are irrelevant. And, finally, and importantly, the claims of "it's settled" and "there is a consensus" cover up a world of ambiguities. What exactly is "it"? A belief that the world is getting a little warmer? How much, how fast? How much is our contribution? What are the likely real consequences if so? If this is a lowest common denominator agreement, then I'm not sure it is all that significant to begin with.
LikeLike
QB: I don't find there is any real proof accessible to the lay public whether the AGW blackballingBeing a layperson, I think there is proof, accessible to the lay public, that we are in the midst of a warming trend, with some question about how much and the general parameters.As a layperson, I've understood the basic in regards to CO₂ levels rising, properties regarding heat retention, etc., but I (as a layperson) am just not able to connect that all together in my head as being definitive evidence of AGW, in a system as big and complex as our planetary climate. There seems to be a anthropocentric bias towards consider the manmade contribution as primary. The case has not remotely been made (and fact, I, as a layperson, consider it transparently wrong) that Cap and Trade is a solution to ever increasing levels of CO₂ output, much less affect global warming trends. Trading is not and will not be capping. Period, end of statement. Don't get me started on carbon credits.
LikeLike
Kw,Well, that still makes you a denier, I do believe. One of the crazies. But I largely agree with you, seeing that I am a crazy denier.I was speaking in that particular comment, though, about the claims of journal blackballing and scientific mud wrestling. As someone else said, there could be AGW, there could still be nonroutine blackballing to silence and marginalize dissent and make the AGW case appear stronger or more dire than it really is.I also am not willing uncritically to accept the claim that all scientists are just in it for the truth and have no interest in promoting AGW. The fact is that being an AGW luminary makes you a VIP of a certain kind today. The scientist who warns of the end of the world! I watched all those sci fi movies from the 50s and 60s and read lots of those books. That archetype was very appealing to me, and I still love that kind of story, and I think it is a theme that is eternally popular because it appeals to a particular type of person's psyche. Many of those people become scientists. I don't accuse them of living out this story, but I take everything with a grain of salt.
LikeLike
Kevin:The case has not remotely been made (and fact, I, as a layperson, consider it transparently wrong) that Cap and Trade is a solution to ever increasing levels of CO₂ output…I don't think you need to qualify such a statement with "as a layperson". Scientists qua scientists have no necessary and special insight into the likely consequences of cap and trade, although no doubt the accusation of being anti-science has been hurled at more than one C&T critic. An economist might claim some insight, but economics is not called the dismal science for nothing. As the joke goes, ask 5 economists a question and you will get 6 different answers.
LikeLike
I have paid relatively little attention to this controversey prior to reading these few threads, but I'm trying to understand the position of the two sides (I realize there is much more nuance than that, but for purposes of simplification). It does seem that those participating in the discussion here seem to agree that the earth is getting warmer, but after that the debate begisn. I think one disadvantage of our crazy deniers in the group is that their case is built on a series of smaller doubts including. Crazy deniers seem to doubt (in no particular order): 1) This is caused by man2) This will doom our planet3) Accuracy of computer models4) The Peer Review Process5) Validity of data and deletion of data6) Equal platform for both opponents of AGW7) The integrity of the scientists And I am sure I am missing others.When an argument is built upon a series of smaller points it is often difficult to refute. I think this creates frustration for AGW defenders since even if you weaken or refute one argument, 6 other remain. In addition, some of the above are a bit conspiracy theoryish (I don't care of that's not a word) although as Troll and Mark pointed out and as FB and Michi have admitted, they aren't completely unfounded. Anyway, thanks to everyone for an enlightening discussion and a mature one at that.
LikeLike
ashot,I'm a little puzzled by your point that doubts are based on a number of constituent doubts, because that seems to be just the obverse of the posiiton of believers, which is built upon many small claims of the same kinds. It is hard to refute in just the same way. If there is data that says oceans are actually cooling, they say, you are misinterpreting, you don't understand, trust us, this is all peer reviewed. If someone says, yes, but you and your allies control peer review, they say, well, but the evidence is overwhelming. Etc. This also seems conspiracy-like.They are making an extraordinary claim that people are altering the climate of an entire planet, and a claim that is very hard to prove through observation. That's the real problem, imo.
LikeLike
QB- "I'm a little puzzled by your point that doubts are based on a number of constituent doubts"That's a really good and entirely fair point. It reminds me about you crazy deniers being labled "anti-science". There is nothing anti-science about questioning science or pointing out the failings or shortcomings of a theory or even a consensus. That's actually quite scientific.
LikeLike
ashot:When an argument is built upon a series of smaller points it is often difficult to refute.Interestingly, I see this as a problem of the alarmists, not the crazy deniers. In order to support the political policy proposals that alarmists would like to implement, one needs to accept a whole string of beliefs, only some of which can even be conceivably substantiated by science, much less have been so substantiated beyond question. Consider the list of beliefs that alarmists must hold:1) The planet is warming2) The cause of the warming is substantially, if not solely, due to human activity.3) The consequences of warming will, on the whole, be substantially negative for the human condition.4) The consequences are so dire that we are better off preventing them than from adapting to them, as we have adapted to changing conditions on the earth since the dawn of man.5) There is no way of ameliorating the warming apart from preventing the human activities that ostensibly have created it.6) The negative consequences of warming outweigh other problems that humans face such that scarce resources must be diverted from these other problems to address the problem of warming.7) The net benefit to be eventually gained from preventing the human activities that ostensibly cause warming will far outweigh the negative consequences of preventing those activities.As I said, only a couple of these beliefs are even conceivably confirmable through science, as many of them require subjective value judgements to be made. But alarmist routinely assume that if their science is correct (and they apparently think that it is beyond challenge), the rest inevitably follows as night follows day. And when one opposes the politics of the AGW crowd, one is inevitably accused of being an anti-science "denier".
LikeLike
Scott- I don't really have much to add. As both you and QB have pointed out, although not explicitly, my perspective as generally accepting AGW has skewed my vision of the issue and I think that turning my points about you crazy deniers back onto the AGW proponents is entirely fair.
LikeLike
Scott: "I don't think you need to qualify such a statement with "as a layperson". Scientists "Well, in this case, I'm also not a policy expert. And I qualify it for a reason: I don't think it's a minor issue that, if there is a case to made that the Western lifestyle is creating irreversible harm to the planet or something less than that, but still significant enough to demand life-altering legislation, then there needs to be a way to communicate that clearly to regular folks who are not climate scientists in a manner that is both credible and not condescending. In what is generally available, there is a lot of difficulty or unwillingness to do either.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ashot: "It does seem that those participating in the discussion here seem to agree that the earth is getting warmer,"I should also note that from ice age to little ice age to growing grapes in greenland, I strongly suspect there are macroseasons. Just as we have summer every year, we also have macro cycles and perhaps macro-macro-cycles on top of that. Warming trends that move in 30 year blocks instead of 1 year, and then trends on top of that that might move in 300 year cycles, and then on top of that that might move in 3000 year cycles, the nadir of which (when all align like planets), we end up with a planet that is very warm, globally, or very cold (and covered with ice). But, I'm not a scientist, so the intuitive sense I have may be entirely wrong, but the historical record seems to bear out something like it, so . . . I'm not necessarily convinced there's a 1:1 relationship to our current warming in regards to CO₂ output, or that we won't be on a cooling trend in 30 or 60 or 100 years. But I could have no doubt about AGW at all, and still think Cap & Trade was a bunch of hokum. 😉
LikeLike
qb: "I also am not willing uncritically to accept the claim that all scientists are just in it for the truth and have no interest in promoting AGW."Once you have an opinion, you have a bias. There doesn't have to be big money or even peer pressure (although it would seem that there is not insignificant peer pressure). Even keeping things on an even keel in your job from day to day can create a bias towards seeing data in a certain way. Being consistent with your previous opinions and observations creates a small bias. This, of course, works both ways, but an unvarnished pursuit of the truth is simply a difficult thing for any human being to manage.
LikeLike
You are being too agreeable, ashot.My suspicions are raised. 😉
LikeLike
Yes, QB, I am lulling you into a trap.To some extent it goes back to the narrative discussion we entered into on the previous thread. You guys are flipping the narrative on its head a little bit which is how I would rather approach this issue anyway. Maybe I'm giving you guys too much credit, but given my lack of knowledge on this topic I am not about to push back very hard. But if I start reading up on the topic after having given you guys too much credit, I will simply have started off from a more neutral position than otherwise.
LikeLike
With all due respect…I can't believe WADR isn't an acronym on the level of ROFL or LMAO. But I digress as I frequently do. Anyway…WADR, Kevin, having an opinion does not mean that you have a bias. I think of a bias as an inclination to hold to an opinion, even in the existence of contradicting information. A more insidious variation of bias is to interpret information in a way to conform to your opinion.I have seen this, even for a Nobel prize winner (*cough* Alan *cough* Heeger *cough*). I think I grew to my opinion from evidence, but I'm open to it being challenged. In the case of a particular paper submitted to Physical Review (they were full of crap), I recognized that work of mine was being challenged and disagreed. I specifically wrote the editor regarding the potential conflict of interest.I do not reject papers simply because I disagree with the conclusions. I'm a let many blossoms flower (or is it let many flowers blossom). The latter sounds better, but then I'm digressing again. If the work is logically consistent, then I think it should be out there in the literature.I'll have more to post, but am a bit busy right now. On the plus side, we had some striking results in the lab today and I think we might have something worthy of sending to Nature!BB
LikeLike
FB: "Kevin, having an opinion does not mean that you have a bias."Strictly speaking this is, of course, true, but most people's very human tendency towards consistency makes having an opinion at least a tiny weight towards bias in favor of looking at things in a way that confirms the opinion. You may well be immune, I expect some people are. My point is that bias does not require bribery, or promises of great wealth, in order for bias to be introduced. People are sometimes motivated to leaning interpretations by nothing more complicated than a tendency to behave and think in ways consistent with past actions and thought.
LikeLike
I'm a grey kindofa fella and so I will not argue that point. Yes, everyone brings opinions to the table. That's very different that saying that we're biased. That suggests that contrary opinions will be dismissed.It is my professional obligation as a referee to accept and challenge my own biases. I come to some opinions on the basis of 20 years of experience in my field. That's not simply bias, it's informed opinion. Expertise if you will. I have worked at defense research laboratories for the past decade. This is not a rigorous survey, but co-workers of mine generally hold liberal opinions. There is much scientific research that goes into the weapons that are being used on the field right now. We may be Democrats. We're patriots too.BB
LikeLike