Slashdot Mirror
Climate Journal Publishes Referees' Report In Response To "Witch-Hunt" Claims
Sockatume (732728) writes "The resignation of Prof. Lennart Bengtsson from an anti-global-warming think tank has triggered widespread outrage in the British tabloids, with the University of Bristol Professor blaming his departure on a 'witch-hunt' environment amongst climate scientists and the rejection of one of his papers. The UK's Times quotes a passage from the reviewer comments in support of this, in which it is claimed that the paper was rejected for being 'unhelpful to their cause.' In response, that journal's publisher has taken the rare step of publishing the referees' report in full. The report describes Bengtsson's paper as a 'simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al [data sets], combined with the statement they they are inconsistent,' 'where no consistency was to be expected in the first place' and therefore is not publishable research. The referee adds a number of possible areas of discussion which would allow Bengtsson to make the same data into a publishable paper, but warns that publishing it in its current state 'opens the door for oversimplified claims of errors and worse from the climate sceptics media.'"
Someone dug up some old comments by the Professor himself expressing his anger that you couldn't just ship all the climate scientists off to East Berlin. I guess he has a great sense of irony.
It's a shame that the GDR disappeared otherwise would have been able to offer one-way tickets there for these socialists. Now there's unfortunately not many orthodox countries left soon and I surely do not imagine our romantic green Communists want a one-way ticket to North Korea. But if interested I'd gladly contribute to the trip as long as it is for a one way ticket. Perhaps you could arrange a Gallup study, since it can not be ruled out that I underestimated rush to the exit5
http://rabett.blogspot.com.au/...
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
It is not out of context. The complaint from the referee if you read the complaint is that it was simplistic.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
"Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.
Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form." - http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2...
Here it shows that the author's intention was to create a flawed study with flawed conclusion just to promote a political agenda. So you would think it was about science but it wasn't. Sorry that your hero got caught with his pants down.
Who cares what Al Gore said ? He's not one of the scientists.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
Surely you don't expect journalists of all people to have any inkling about rigorous peer review, quality of research, or any other attribute of publishing in a scientific discipline.
Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
It was. The paper was crap, and further revelations put the author's crap paper in greater perspective. He's politically motivated, wasn't interested in a meaningful scientific critique, and has an ax to grind.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If that's what you got then you need to read it again. First of all the methodology used was oversimplified. I don't know a lot about the ranges but my understanding is that by using one basic equation was too simplistic. Also the authors didn't describe why they used this approach. There may be plausible reasons to do so but they authors did not elaborate. Lastly the innovation was low meaning they've seen many papers on this before and this new one does not add anything new. Pointing out errors was not the problem; being the umpteenth one to do so but with a flawed approach is the problem.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There were no errors. The authors were saying "This apple is not like this orange!", even though such a comparison is meaningless. But you do prove the reviewers right. They predicted that "Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side."