Most legitimate scientific organization that disagrees with man made climate change
-
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review
"
Cracks in the system have been obvious for years. Yesterday it emerged that 14 leading researchers in a different field – stem cell research – have written an open letter to journal editors to highlight their dissatisfaction with the process. They allege that a small scientific clique is using peer review to block papers from other researchers.
Many will see a similar pattern in the emails from UEA's Climatic Research Unit, which brutally expose what happens behind the scenes of peer review and how a chance meeting at a barbecue years earlier had led to one journal editor being suspected of being in the "greenhouse sceptics camp".
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.
Here is how it worked in one case.
A key component in the story of 20th-century warming is data from sparse weather stations in Siberia. This huge area appears to have seen exceptional warming of up to 2C in the past century. But in such a remote region, actual data is sparse. So how reliable is that data, and do scientists interpret it correctly?
In March 2004, Jones wrote to Professor Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University, saying that he had "recently rejected two papers [one for the Journal of Geophysical Research and one for Geophysical Research Letters] from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised".
He did not specify which papers he had reviewed, nor what his grounds for rejecting them were. But the Guardian has established that one was probably from Lars Kamel a Swedish astrophysicist formerly of the University of Uppsala. It is the only paper published on the topic in the journal that year.
Kamel analysed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than Jones, despite analysing much the same data.
Kamel told the Guardian: "Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century." The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.
Kamel was leaving academic science and never tried to publish it elsewhere. But the draft seen by the Guardian asserts that the difference between his findings on Siberia temperatures and that of Jones is "probably because the CRU compilation contains too little correction for urban warming." He does not, however, justify that conclusion with any data or analysis.Kamel says he no longer has a copy of the anonymous referee judgments on the paper, so we don't know why it was rejected. The paper could be criticised for being slight and for not revealing details about its methods of analysis. A reviewer such as Jones would certainly have been aware of Kamel's views about mainstream climate research, which he had called "pseudo-science". He would also have known that its publication in a journal like GRL would have attracted the attention of professional climate sceptics. Nonetheless, the paper raised important questions about the quality of CRU's Siberian data, and was a rare example of someone trying to replicate Jones's analysis. On those grounds alone, some would have recommended its publication.
Kamel's paper admits the discrepancy "does not necessarily mean the CRU surface record for the entire globe is in error". But it argues that the result suggests it "should be checked in more regions and even globally". Jones was not able to comment on the incident.
Critics of Jones such as the prominent sceptical Stephen McIntyre, who runs the Climate Audit blog have long accused him of preventing critical research from having an airing. McIntyre wrote on his web site in December: "CRU's policies of obstructing critical articles in the peer-reviewed literature and withholding data from critics have unfortunately placed issues into play that might otherwise have been settled long ago." He also says obstructing publication undermine claims that all is well in scientific peer review.
Dr Myles Allen, a climate modeller at the University of Oxford and Professor Hans von Storch, a climate scientist at the Institute for Coastal Research, in Geesthacht, Germany signed a joint column in Nature when the email hacking story broke, in which they said that "no grounds have arisen to doubt the validity of the thermometer-based temperature record since it began in about 1850." But that argument is harder to make if such evidence, flawed though it might be, is actively being kept out of the journals.
In another email exchange CRU scientist Dr Keith Briffa initiates what looks like an attempt to have a paper rejected. In June 2003, as an editor of an unnamed journal, Briffa emailed fellow tree-ring researcher Edward Cook, a researcher at Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in New York, saying: "Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting [an unnamed paper] – to support Dave Stahle's and really as soon as you can. Please."
Stahle is a tree-ring professor from the University of Arkansas. This request appears to subvert the convention that reviewers should be both independent and anonymous.
Cook replied later that day: "OK, today. Promise. Now, something to ask from you." The favour was to provide some data to help Cook review a paper that attacked his own tree-ring work. "If published as is, this paper could really do some damage," he said. "It won't be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved [inverse regression] method is actually better in a practical sense."
Briffa was unable to comment. Cook told the Guardian: "These emails are from a long time ago and the details are not terribly fresh in my mind."
Jones did not restrict his harsh criticism of papers he saw as flawed to pre-publication reviews. He and Mann also had a reputation for harsh criticism of journals that published papers they disagreed with.
In March 2003, Mann discussed encouraging colleagues to "no longer submit [papers] to, or cite papers in" Climate Research. He was angry about that journal's publication of a series of sceptical papers "that couldn't get published in a reputable journal", according to Mann. His anger at the journal had evidently been building for some time, but was focused in 2003 on a paper published in January that year and written by the Harvard astrophysicists Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. The pair claimed that Mann's famous hockey stick graph of global temperatures over the past 1,000 years was wrong. After analysing 240 studies of past temperatures from tree rings and other sources, they said "the 20th century is neither the warmest century over the last 1,000 years, nor is it the most extreme". It could have been warmer a thousand years before, they suggested.
Harvard press-released the paper under the headline "20th century climate not so hot", which would have pleased lobbyists against the climate change consensus from the American Petroleum Institute and George C Marshall Institute, both of which had helped pay for the research. Mann told me at the time the paper was "absurd, almost laughable". He said Soon and Baliunas made no attempt in the paper to show whether the warmth they found at different places and times round the world in past eras was contemporaneous in the way current global warming is. If they were just one-off scattered warm events they did not demonstrate any kind of warm era at all. Soon did not respond to Guardian requests to discuss the paper.
The emails show Mann debating with others what he should do. In March 2003, he told Jones: "I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They've already achieved what they wanted – the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper"
But Jones told Mann: "I think the sceptics will use this paper to their own ends and it will set [the field of paleoclimate research] back a number of years if it goes unchallenged." He was right. The Soon and Baliunas paper was later read into the Senate record and taken up by the Bush administration, which attempted to get it cited in a report from the Environmental Protection Agency against the wishes of the report's authors.
Persuaded that the paper could not be ignored, Mann assembled a group of colleagues to review it. The group included regular CRU emailers Jones, Dr Keith Briffa, Dr Tom Wigley and Dr Kevin Trenberth. They sent their findings to the journal's editorial board, arguing that Soon's study was little more than anecdote. It had cherry-picked data showing warm periods in different places over several centuries and had provided no evidence that they demonstrated any overall warming of the kind seen in the 20th century.
The emails reveal that when the journal failed to disown the paper, the scientists figured a "coup" had taken place, and that one editor in particular, a New Zealander called Chris de Freitas, was fast-tracking sceptical papers on to its pages. Mann saw an irony in what had happened. "This was the danger of always criticising the sceptics for not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature. Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal." But Mann had a solution. "I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues … to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."
Sceptical climatologist and Cato Institute fellow Pat Michaels alleged in the Wall Street Journal in December last year that the resignations by von Storch and his colleagues were a counter-coup initiated by Mann and Jones. This is vehemently denied by von Storch. While one of the editors who resigned was a colleague of Jones at CRU, von Storch had a track record of independence. If anything, he was regarded as a moderate sceptic. Certainly, he had annoyed both mainstream climate scientists and sceptics.Also writing in the Wall Street Journal in December, he said: "I am in the pocket of neither Exxon nor Greenpeace, and for this I come under fire from both sides – the sceptics and alarmists – who have fiercely opposing views but are otherwise siblings in their methods and contempt ... I left the post [as chief editor of Climate Research] with no outside pressure, because of insufficient quality control on a bad paper – a sceptic's paper, at that."
The bad blood over this paper lingered. A year later, in July 2004, Jones wrote an email to Mann about two papers recently published in Climate Research – the Soon and Baliunas paper and another he identified as by "MM". This was almost certainly a paper from the Canadian economist Ross McKitrick and Michaels that returned to an old sceptics' theme. It claimed to find urbanisation dominating global warming trends on land. Jones called it "garbage".
More damagingly, he added in an email to Mann with the subject line "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL": "I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer review literature is!"
This has, rightly, become one of the most famous of the emails. And for once, it means what it seems to mean. Jones and Trenberth, of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, had recently become joint lead authors for a key chapter in the next IPCC assessment report, called AR4.
They had considerable power over what went into those chapters, and to have ruled them out in such a manner would have been a clear abuse of the IPCC process.
Today, neither man attempts to deny that Jones's promise to keep the papers out was a serious error of judgment. Trenberth told the Guardian: "I had no role in this whatsoever. I did not make and was not complicit in that statement of Phil's. I am a veteran of three other IPCC assessments. I am well aware that we do not keep any papers out, and none were kept out. We assessed everything [though] we cannot possibly refer to all literature … Both of the papers referred to were in fact cited and discussed in the IPCC."
-
Read that, Woody, and let us know what you think.
-
That's not to say people shouldn't be allowed to question things, but intelligent questioning is done in a framework of open-mindedness without pre-conceived ideologies, where beliefs are forged by evidence, rather than the other way around. That's exactly how the Big Bang theory was conceived nearly a century ago: by following the (then surprising) evidence that the universe is expanding, working out what this might logically mean, and then testing it on predictions such as the existence of the CMB radiation.
That's nice. But when have you EVER been open-minded about anything? Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
**********************************************************That's nice. But when have you EVER been open-minded about anything? Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims
"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.
**********************************************************The author of that article started a climate denying, pro fracking think tank. He was also president of the Heartland Foundation, a right wing think tank that's received money from oil companies. The author has a law degree, no science degree. So not only is the author not qualified but he's clearly biased.
Feel free to reference the study I posted in the beginning of this thread. It's an updated version with newer studies showing even greater consensus
And I'm still waiting for you to post just one climate change denying organization
-
Id add the pseudo scientists that OP has sided with...
-
can we do the "sciences" of the WHO and the CDC next pretty please?
and its major funders that seem to slip from the spotlight?
-
On top of that.. Bill Nye is a phony scientist... A complete fraud...
You've also missed the point.
I was talking about individuals that inspired young people to get into science. Nye falls in that category
You've also missed the point.
I was talking about individuals that inspired young people to get into science. Nye falls in that category
No you missed the point as usual... good try... But you failed again Jr.
-
You've also missed the point.
I was talking about individuals that inspired young people to get into science. Nye falls in that category
No you missed the point as usual... good try... But you failed again Jr.
No you missed the point as usual... good try... But you failed again Jr.
I know you've just resorted to copying me as you don't have anything else, but just trust me on this. Considering it was my point to begin with.
But don't think about it too hard. Don't need you freezing up like Mitch
-
No you missed the point as usual... good try... But you failed again Jr.
I know you've just resorted to copying me as you don't have anything else, but just trust me on this. Considering it was my point to begin with.
But don't think about it too hard. Don't need you freezing up like Mitch
I know you've just resorted to copying me as you don't have anything else, but just trust me on this. Considering it was my point to begin with.
But don't think about it too hard. Don't need you freezing up like Mitch
I know you're embarrassed to tell everyone Mitch is your dad... Loser...
-
climate organizations can NOT be funded if they are anti-goober warning crisis fraud.
The big money comes from the UN, which has had one of their officers SAY that man made global warming is necessary to make redistributing the rich countries' wealth a reality.
Woody, name one ocean that is boiling. We'll wait.
Meanwhile, I made 23 jars of my wild blackberry jam. took most of the day.
-
On top of that.. Bill Nye is a phony scientist... A complete fraud...
You've also missed the point.
I was talking about individuals that inspired young people to get into science. Nye falls in that category
You've also missed the point.
I was talking about individuals that inspired young people to get into science. Nye falls in that category
My bad, nothing wrong with those 3 guys you mentioned just saying they’re not climatologists.
Two things that will define you: Your determination when you have nothing. Your attitude when you have everything. - Mike McCartney -
climate organizations can NOT be funded if they are anti-goober warning crisis fraud.
The big money comes from the UN, which has had one of their officers SAY that man made global warming is necessary to make redistributing the rich countries' wealth a reality.
Woody, name one ocean that is boiling. We'll wait.
Meanwhile, I made 23 jars of my wild blackberry jam. took most of the day.
climate organizations can NOT be funded if they are anti-goober warning crisis fraud.
The big money comes from the UN, which has had one of their officers SAY that man made global warming is necessary to make redistributing the rich countries' wealth a reality.
Woody, name one ocean that is boiling. We'll wait.
Meanwhile, I made 23 jars of my wild blackberry jam. took most of the day.
So nothing. Got it.
-
You've also missed the point.
I was talking about individuals that inspired young people to get into science. Nye falls in that category
My bad, nothing wrong with those 3 guys you mentioned just saying they’re not climatologists.
My bad, nothing wrong with those 3 guys you mentioned just saying they’re not climatologists.
Never said they were
-
On top of that.. Bill Nye is a phony scientist... A complete fraud...
You've also missed the point.
I was talking about individuals that inspired young people to get into science. Nye falls in that category
You've also missed the point.
I was talking about individuals that inspired young people to get into science. Nye falls in that category
so does Pres Trump and a lot of top rep candidates - they support SCHOOL CHOICE so parents can CHOOSE to send their kids to a genuine school that teaches math, reading and science.
NOT gender inclusive67?gendersgooberwarningcraphateourflagourcountryhateGODhateeverythinggayisnormalsocialististhebest
-
You've also missed the point.
I was talking about individuals that inspired young people to get into science. Nye falls in that category
so does Pres Trump and a lot of top rep candidates - they support SCHOOL CHOICE so parents can CHOOSE to send their kids to a genuine school that teaches math, reading and science.
NOT gender inclusive67?gendersgooberwarningcraphateourflagourcountryhateGODhateeverythinggayisnormalsocialististhebest
so does Pres Trump and a lot of top rep candidates - they support SCHOOL CHOICE so parents can CHOOSE to send their kids to a genuine school that teaches math, reading and science.
NOT gender inclusive67?gendersgooberwarningcraphateourflagourcountryhateGODhateeverythinggayisnormalsocialististhebest
Your .brain is broken. It's sad.
-
So the Democrats in covering up for the Chinese who Unleashed covid upon the world are probably now secretly helping them to develop something even more deadly? Less human beings is good for the environment. I understand and thank you for your concern.
WSS
-
so does Pres Trump and a lot of top rep candidates - they support SCHOOL CHOICE so parents can CHOOSE to send their kids to a genuine school that teaches math, reading and science.
NOT gender inclusive67?gendersgooberwarningcraphateourflagourcountryhateGODhateeverythinggayisnormalsocialististhebest
Your .brain is broken. It's sad.
Your .brain is broken. It's sad.
nah, my brain works just fine.
You just don't know normal.
-
and, btw, the UN is CORRUPT. read the book I mentioned.
or be a coward and don't, just come up with infantile excuses.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login