Global Warming w/o Tiggy

[FLovell]

At first glance an article on the current state of medical science may not seem relevant to climate science. But . . . . In an article that begins, 'Medical science is rampant with fraud,' http://www.gaia-health.com/articles5...rruption.shtml Gaia Health attacks the peer review system. A key passage:

It's all about money. Get published in a major medical journal and your future is made. Most peer reviewers are doing their own studies. That's what makes them peers. They want to be able to publish. Therefore, they are not particularly inclined to make more than perfunctory negative comments. Obviously, they don't want to alienate the authors of papers, since they either are or hope to become published themselves.

Peer review is a farce. The only kind of review that makes real sense is professional independent reviewers. Yet, for decades we've had peer review trotted out as the be-all and end-all in determining the legitimacy of papers. It's been unquestioned, while a little examination of the concept demonstrates that it's nearly certain to result in fraudulent work being passed as good science.

The problem with the Gaia Health quote (particularly "...Peer review is a farce. The only kind of review that makes real sense is professional independent reviewers.") is that its author seems to think that "peer review" means "reviewed by greedy, mendacious friends of the submitting researcher who work under the same employer."

But that is NOT what "peer review" means!

"Peer review" means reviewed by "anonymous" professional scientists expert in the science of focus who do not work for the publishing researcher's employers. And that is what most often occurs (yes, sure, there are occasional exceptions, but they are rare and even then those exceptions do not rule out objectivity on the part of the reviewers).

That said, because much scientific research IS expensive, I do agree that concern for money (funding) IS a major concern -- I am not saying there is no money-motivated mendacity in science, but "peer review" is as objective as realistically possible a gauntlet of professional credibility and competence that research must successfully pass through to be accepted for publication in credible scientific journals; it is NOT a greased and friendly slide to acceptance by favorably predi$po$ed reviewers tethered to the same employer(s).

-- Frank

[phank]

Most top scientific journals, certainly the most-respected journal in each discipline, typically rejects far more submissions than they accept, at least on first submission. Reviewers tend to be picky, and require often significant changes to the submitted paper. Generally these are questions about whether the conclusions necessarily follow from the results, or a request for more citations, a more complete assessment of what others have found recently in the field, etc. Occasionally some additional research is requested, though not often since this would typically require more funding.

Now, it's true that most papers will find publication somewhere if the authors don't just give up trying, but the journals they end up in might be more obscure, or not quite on topic.

Frank touches on an important point here as well. Science at the journal-article level is HIGHLY atomized, so there is only going to be a handful of specialists who understand the material fully enough to do a thorough and competent review. And generally this handful of specialists all know each other, and compete with one another for grants, journal space, prestige and recognition. These are the only competent "professional independent reviewers" that exist, in many if not most scientific disciplines. So their motivations are mixed - they are deciding whether to confer recognition on a competitor, with the reputation of the journal at stake if they reject good papers - journals and reputations they themselves will need for THEIR next paper.

Yes, the peers are necessarily anonymous, lest any disputes become more personal than scientific. But personal friendships or antipathies are nonetheless going to be soon clear to an editor, who won't select such people as reviewers in the future. Which cuts both ways. So there's an equilibrium in operation.

The notion that peer review is a scam where a few people grease one anothers' palms for doing shoddy science is simply absurd.

[Challenger Grim]

For those interested, Rich A Muller had an interesting piece.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...html#printMode

I like this paragraph:

And that's just the surface-temperature record. What about the rest? The number of named hurricanes has been on the rise for years, but that's in part a result of better detection technologies (satellites and buoys) that find storms in remote regions. The number of hurricanes hitting the U.S., even more intense Category 4 and 5 storms, has been gradually decreasing since 1850. The number of detected tornadoes has been increasing, possibly because radar technology has improved, but the number that touch down and cause damage has been decreasing. Meanwhile, the short-term variability in U.S. surface temperatures has been decreasing since 1800, suggesting a more stable climate.

(which just goes to show that even if warming is happening, even IF humans are causing it, there's still no proof it's going to be bad for us)

Briggs has good thoughts on it here:
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4525
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4530

[FLovell]

Hmmm...interesting development respecting Anthony Watts and the Berkeley Earth Project:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/23/watts-wrote-a-check-he-couldnt-cash/ and responses there.

Just curious, what do y'all think of that? -- Frank

PS: See a reply at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/2...ne/#more-49792 and responses there...

[Challenger Grim]

Hmmm...interesting development respecting Anthony Watts and the Berkeley Earth Project:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/10/23/watts-wrote-a-check-he-couldnt-cash/

Just curious, what do y'all think of that? -- Frank

That's what Briggs was just talking about (in my post above yours). And I think WMB was right: it's a step in the right direction, but there's still some flaws.

But like you and I have always said: The temperature has to go in some direction. Why not up? (especially since up tends to be better for us than down)

ETA: Also, here's Watts' thoughts on the matter: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/2...en-pal-review/

[FLovell]

Yes, I am indeed (for reasons of history) a Global Climate Change Inevitablist -- and I do think a green Greenland would be better than glaciers reaching clean into Tennessee again!

-- Frank

[Challenger Grim]

Frank, here's some more on BEST you will probably enjoy.
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4564
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/?p=4594

[Augustine2004]

Ye gods! When will we ever see the end of this theatre production and get the good truth at long last? Even without Tiggy, perhaps never.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...colleague.html

[seanD]

Ye gods! When will we ever see the end of this theatre production and get the good truth at long last? Even without Tiggy, perhaps never.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...colleague.html

It's getting to a definitive point where it's looking like one side is getting paid to lie. Problem is, when I hear the AGW proponents claim the skeptics are getting paid, I don't see the evidence of this. We know for a fact, from their own records, that CRU was being funded by the big oil companies, shell, exxon, bp, and other energy companies. It also looks like Gore and Blood (the former Goldman Sachs CEO) were positioning themselves to make huge profits with their firm that manged carbon credits. I mean everywhere I look, it's not the skeptics positioning themselves to profit, it's the proponents who are hyping this that are positioning themselves to profit. Now I'm not one to totally deny GW, but I think it's been so sensationalized with political hype and greed, the "science" behind it has been irreparably tarnished.

[Augustine2004]

We know for a fact, from their own records, that CRU was being funded by the big oil companies, shell, exxon, bp, and other energy companies.

wow, I'd like to see references.

It also looks like Gore and Blood (the former Goldman Sachs CEO) were positioning themselves to make huge profits with their firm that manged carbon credits. I mean everywhere I look, it's not the skeptics positioning themselves to profit, it's the proponents who are hyping this that are positioning themselves to profit.

That's in accord with what I have read so far.

[seanD]

wow, I'd like to see references.That's in accord with what I have read so far.

This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):

British Council, British Petroleum, Broom's Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre, Central Electricity Generating Board, Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS), Commercial Union, Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU), Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC), Department of Energy, Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA), Department of Health, Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), Eastern Electricity, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC), Environment Agency, Forestry Commission, Greenpeace International, International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED), Irish Electricity Supply Board, KFA Germany, Leverhulme Trust, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF), National Power, National Rivers Authority, Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC), Norwich Union, Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, Overseas Development Administration (ODA), Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society, Scientific Consultants, Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC), Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research, Shell, Stockholm Environment Agency, Sultanate of Oman, Tate and Lyle, UK Met. Office, UK Nirex Ltd., United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP), United States Department of Energy, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wolfson Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF).

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/

Google search is your friend.

Also check out: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...l-for-support/

[phank]

We know for a fact, from their own records, that CRU was being funded by the big oil companies, shell, exxon, bp, and other energy companies.

Somehow, this statement doesn't smell right. It SOUNDS like the CRU was being funded by the big oil companies. Whereas in fact (produced later), it turns out that the CRU was funded by dozens of organizations, ranging from BP and Shell to the World Wildlife Fund, the Royal Society, and the EPA.

On the other hand, it would have been equally dishonest to represent the CRU as being funded by the environmental organizations without mentioning the oil companies. Google is my friend, I agree. Half-truths seem to be YOUR friend.

(And to be honest, if the major oil companies do not buy into any proposed policies or programs, they'll never get off the ground. It would be folly NOT to include Big Oil in any of this..)

[Challenger Grim]

Somehow, this statement doesn't smell right. It SOUNDS like the CRU was being funded by the big oil companies. Whereas in fact (produced later), it turns out that the CRU was funded by dozens of organizations, ranging from BP and Shell to the World Wildlife Fund, the Royal Society, and the EPA.

On the other hand, it would have been equally dishonest to represent the CRU as being funded by the environmental organizations without mentioning the oil companies. Google is my friend, I agree. Half-truths seem to be YOUR friend.

(And to be honest, if the major oil companies do not buy into any proposed policies or programs, they'll never get off the ground. It would be folly NOT to include Big Oil in any of this..)

So therefore you agree with us that saying "Big Oil" (or whomever) funding any "denial" study is a red herring?

Welcome to the first step of sanity.

[seanD]

Somehow, this statement doesn't smell right. It SOUNDS like the CRU was being funded by the big oil companies. Whereas in fact (produced later), it turns out that the CRU was funded by dozens of organizations, ranging from BP and Shell to the World Wildlife Fund, the Royal Society, and the EPA.

On the other hand, it would have been equally dishonest to represent the CRU as being funded by the environmental organizations without mentioning the oil companies. Google is my friend, I agree. Half-truths seem to be YOUR friend.

(And to be honest, if the major oil companies do not buy into any proposed policies or programs, they'll never get off the ground. It would be folly NOT to include Big Oil in any of this..)

A half-truth would only apply if I had presented those facts to disprove that big oil was funding the skeptical community. That wasn't my intention. I hear the claim by AGW proponents all the time that big oil is funding the skeptical community, but I no see the evidence for this. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but I haven't found any. On the other hand, the fact that these firms are funding the proponents seems to be evidence against that claim, as it would seem odd they're throwing money at both sides at once. And it would also seem that the proponents are positioning themselves to greatly profit, whereas I don't really know how skeptics could profit the same other than the unsubstantiated claim that they are being funded by big oil. The ones who stand to financially benefit the most is usually, though not always, the telltale sign of who is lying.

[phank]

I'm actually skeptical that ANYONE is lying here. Oil companies may have a vested interest in business as usual, but by that same token they are most threatened if business changes in any significant way. So if I were running Shell or BP, I would definitely wish to be as up to date a possible about the facts, the politics, and the models. I would want to have my own hand in the game, to ensure that any conclusions are fully supported by the evidence, that extrapolations rest on reasonable assumptions, etc. And if there WERE to be some important policy changes that would affect my business, I'd want both early warning about what they might be, and input to help shape them.

I don't think anyone here is evil. The unavoidable fact is that the oil biz is going to have to keep changing in the future, under the influences of not just AGW, but diminishing oil returns, increasing prices, competing technologies, shifting markets, political trends and so on. It's definitely not in the interests of BP or Shell to stick their head in the sand or stonewall. One essential factor in maximizing profits is understanding longer term market outlooks, and all of the influences on those outlooks. It's not at all impossible that by being intimately involved with all sides here, the oil industry can maximize its profits and governments can keep a lid on climatological catastrophe at the same time. One nice thing about economics is, it's not a zero-sum game. It's possible (and normal) for EVERYONE to profit.