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.'"
The science is settled! Just like it was for Phrenology and Eugenics! Now give me my government grant!!
So glad we've moved on from the bad days of the 80's and the Cold War, when the Right caught on to the fact that omgwereallgonnadie is the road to unlimited budgets and ability to make any arbitrary demands on the public they feel like...
Oh wait.
And the National Review is calling it McCarthyism.
Sorry, but refusing to provide a public forum for crackpots is not a witch-hunt, or McCarthyism. It's science. The journal didn't publish the paper because the referee said it was an unsalvageable piece of crap, which is precisely how peer review is supposed to work.
The National Enquirer should pick up this story!
I mean, at the end of the day, it seems like the only people who actually care about this guy or his paper are the people who work for Rupert Murdoch. It's sort of like the constant investigations into Benghazi (also spearheaded by News Corp).
I wouldn't call the Daily Telegraph a tabloid.
that support OpenBSD. How many who are intersted have an IRC client around are in nned Users. This is
The blowhard who makes a big deal about an academic paper being rejected during the process of peer review... ... or the smug ideologue who dismisses ideas that might be dangerous to the cause.
Oh wait, they're both European? Right, both then.
Their is no incentive to agree to AGW, because when you do they will rise taxes for "GLOBAL WARMING"...
Step 1: Systematically ostracize, shun, bully, and threaten people who disagree with you.
Step 2: Make sure contrary views are never published.
Step 3: When people decide to be quiet instead of getting bullied, claim consensus.
Very sciency.
I read an interview of him, and the rejection of the paper was a small part of his complaints. He is basically saying that anyone who questions anthropogenic global warming dogma is ostracized. This is the basis of McCarthyism and witch hunts. It also questions the foundation of the global warming "consensus" so often cited. The fact is that questioning orthodoxy is part of the scientific process. Ironically then, those who attempt to ostracize global warming skeptics for being "anti-science" are the ones themselves being anti-science.
ÃoeSummarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement 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.Ã
At least climate science journal publishers are now acknowledging that in *their* interpretation of the word 'science', the proper role of an article reviewer includes 'managing skepticism of the industry'.
Has this been openly stated before? Because as a scientist, it's incredibly shocking.
FTFA: The Daily Mail, much loved for its objective reporting on climate change (and other stuff)
And just prior to that: Rupert Murdoch apparently trying (and failing) to look as harmless as possible.
And: Absurd anti-science faux journalism flares up again - as usual, it's Big Oil that's set to benefit, not the public
Self-introspection isn't the Guardian's strong suit, is it?
The original article has the affiliation wrong; he is at the University at Reading, not the University of Bristol.
He's at Reading, not Bristol. To be fair they're on the same train line.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Tabloid press is, well... tabloid.
Is an anti-global-warming think tank a think tank opposed to the warming of the globe, or is it a think tank opposed to belief that the globe is warming?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Except the idea that most climate scientists favor the AGW hypothesis isn't even true.
The source of that meme is a paper lead by John Cook, who performed a meta-analysis of several thousand climate science papers, measured using the most embarrassingly confirmation-bias infected thought systems.
It's little better than a paper trying to prove that the Earth is only around 4000 years old and that Christ loves you. Among the several faulty assumptions: any paper just *talking* about gasses playing a role in climate behavior, but making no specific claims or mentions about climate change or AGW, in Cook's opinion automatically equates as full support for the AGW hypothesis.
Read it yourself and see if you can spot the logical errors:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748...
It is not that science is rejecting scepticism. Heck, scepticism is fundamental to science. The issue that legitimate climate sceptics face is that they are trying to disprove a large body of evidence that is both diverse and mature. If sceptics want to prove their point, they have to collective evidence that is also diverse and mature. That is no simple feat.
That is also making a huge assumption: that the climate sceptics are legitimate. I'm sure that some sceptics are, particularly when it comes to critiquing particular pieces of evidence. On the other hand, they seem to be a tiny minority. Most of the debate that I see comes from people who have little understanding of science, nevermind climate science.
They do the same thing to creationist research! These so-called "scientists" just don't like having their dogma challenged! It's a conspiracy!
As I always suspected, AGW is a cause, not a hypothesis, let alone an actual scientific theory.
I expect to see donation boxes to appear on the desk of every senator and representitve which pleads "think of the children of wealthy corporate executive beachfront property owners" where they can insert their proposed amendments.
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
An article about censoring climate discussion on a board that censors anti-warmist comments. The irony runs deep with this one.
There is no reasoned debate in the forums of /. anymore (it was rather sparse to start with). Everyone is either a climate Nazi or fucking stupid, depending on which side you are on. I give up on humanity, or at least the nerd subbranch represented here.
I'm not sure I've ever seen a "legitimate climate skeptic." The vast majority I've dealt with are ignoramuses who don't try to answer their own questions, and when you show them the evidence they easily could have found themselves, they go into denialist lockdown mode and just say the evidence is not valid/fabricated etc. A few are just underinformed and turned off of the idea for non-scientific reasons (many of which are understandable...who wouldn't want to disbelieve what Al Gore preaches at you?)
I think even the "celebrity" "skeptics" know this but they have a vested interest in keeping the charade going
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless.
Consensus is not meaningless if it is a second order effect of the evidence for a particular theory. For example general relativity has been tested heavily and so far every piece of evidence shows that it is a very accurate model. In the face of this evidence a consensus has developed that general relativity is "correct". Consensus by itself means nothing unless it follows from the natural and proper progression of scientific inquiry.
The problem is that some people misunderstand that consensus means an agreement of opinion similar to political opinions. It means nothing of the sort in scientific circles. It means that the available evidence overwhelmingly supports a hypothesis to the degree that further disagreement would be foolish without extraordinary evidence.
Well, I think this guy qualifies as a "legitimate climate skeptic" -- at least, he used to. Then he dug into the data and learned that the AGW assertions match the data. When his understanding of the facts changed, he adjusted his opinion.
Richard Muller: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07...
So, if you looked at the right time, you'd have seen one. I imagine there is a lesson in that, somewhere.
It isn't even that they need extraordinary evidence. Ordinary evidence would do just fine. But creating strawmen to demolish is not a rebuttal of actual science and that is the issue here. What is really sad is the part where the "bias" shows and is trotted out by deniers is true. He would've been remiss to omit it because it is a negative. All the referee did was acknowledge the political reality of the entire point behind the paper.
Its like being accused of bias when rejecting a paper that uses phrenology as proof that that whites are smarter than blacks due to greater cranial capacity because you point out that, in addition to being flawed and incorrect, it will just be used to support a racist agenda.
It isn't even that they need extraordinary evidence. Ordinary evidence would do just fine. But creating strawmen to demolish is not a rebuttal of actual science and that is the issue here. What is really sad is the part where the "bias" shows and is trotted out by deniers is true. He would've been remiss to omit it because it is a negative. All the referee did was acknowledge the political reality of the entire point behind the paper.
Its like being accused of bias when rejecting a paper that uses phrenology as proof that that whites are smarter than blacks due to greater cranial capacity because you point out that, in addition to being flawed and incorrect, it will just be used to support a racist agenda.
Apparently you should have stayed in bed today.
Well, I disagree with that. Science is normatively inductive, and that often makes it possible for a relatively small amount of data to disprove a hypothesis that has a large amount of data backing it.
Skepticism of AGW theories is very healthy. However denial based on ideology is not.
Unfortunately we have more of the latter than the former.
... and the same tiny, insignificant island.
But there appears to be no firm line in the sand here. Those ideologically opposed to AGW frequently try to use what at least sound like scientific arguments to attack the theory. The sad fact is that in many cases they're using similar attacks that have been used by Creationists in the past to attack biology, genetics, geology, cosmology and any other theory that challenged their ideologically-driven beliefs.
Beyond that, to be skeptical of any theory, you have to understand the theory, and the data that purports to support the theory. When you get a dozens of posters making claims like "it hasn't warmed in 17 years", you're simply not dealing with people who have the faintest idea what they're talking about. That's not even dealing with the people who go on about the "church of AGW" and "AGW is going to be demolished any day now" (these are literally picked right out of the Creationist arsenal).
And then when you get the few people who do have the expertise to critique AGW, you end up with guys like Spencer, who don't actually even try to publish papers critiquing AGW, but basically are paid shills for the Heartland Institute. Bengtsson is in the real minority, in that he actually tried to publish a paper, albeit a very poor paper, so I guess you have to give him points for that. But, considering he is a publishing researcher, I think you have to start wondering if he did this intentionally so that denialist newspapers like the Telegraph could claim "You see, the AGW crowd stifles dissent!" Again, this similar trick has been used a very few times by Creationists/IDers (the Sternberg-Myer affair, where a pseudo-scientific Intelligent Design paper did get published in an obscure journal). It gets a great deal of press, of course, and now Bengtsson's crap paper will be brought up by every pseudo-skeptic for years to come, because the one thing that is universally true of all pseudo-skeptics, whatever scientific field they're attacking, is that no attack is so bad or so debunked that it can't be dusted off and shoved and used again.
The sad fact is that it does mask the actual debates among climatologists, which are far more interesting and far more pertinent.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The issue that legitimate climate sceptics face is that they are trying to disprove a large body of evidence that is both diverse and mature.
The "evidence" is not particularly diverse, being limited to computer modeling of worst case scenarios. There is, in fact, no evidence whatsoever, that, even if human activity is affecting the climate, the affects are bad, however one defines "bad". I suppose it is true that the type of "evidence" presented by the pro-"OMG, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" folks is mature in the sense that hucksters have been selling doomsday using "evidence" of similar weight for thousands of years.
If sceptics want to prove their point, they have to collective evidence that is also diverse and mature.
No they don't. Science starts with scepticism. It is the pro-"OMG, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" folks that are trying to sell their claims without being able to accurately predict anything and yet are demanding complete upheaval of the world's political economy. The sceptics only need to highlight the weakness of the pro-"..." crowd's arguments and their very unscientific efforts to suppress dissent.
That is also making a huge assumption: that the climate sceptics are legitimate.
Why is that a huge assumption? Why do you assume that the pro-"..." clowns are legit? Real scientists address sceptics and counter arguments; they don't dismiss them by claiming that they are not legitimate. Please notice that you are implicitly adopting the pro-"..." party line by suggesting that most sceptics are not legit.
On the other hand, they seem to be a tiny minority. Most of the debate that I see comes from people who have little understanding of science, nevermind climate science.
Most scientists either don't think there is enough evidence to decide whether human activity is changing the climate or believe that human activity is not changing the climate. It is the pro-"OMG, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" group that is the minority. Don't be fooled by the fact that the pro-"..." crowd gets all of the media attention (aside from ideology, the media loves a good scare story) and never forget that anyone calling themselves a "climate scientist" has profound professional and social interests in promoting the "OMG, WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" narrative.
There's just a huge problem in that the whole concept of Global Warming violates scientific principles. There's no 'theory' behind it to start with, as there's no ostensible way to reliably reproduce or invalidate the global warming concept experimentally.
It appears that the attempt is to skip the 'scientific investigation' phase and go straight to 'engineering discipline'.
Ain't my fault, I didn't pick a topic that was impossible to convert into a scientific theory.
People try to falsify many domain of science. But they don't go around saying the domain they want to falsify is "false" etc... If they do good science they take the hypothesis as null, then go against that and try to demonstrate it. Instead , that is mostly what we do not get from AGW denier, which attempt to bring "skepticism" about the result from AGW rather than falsify them. And tehre is a huge difference between the two.
I'd have a hard time identifying a legitimate climate skeptic because my background is in astrophysics rather than climatology. (Simply put, I could critque anything based upon solar flux but not much else.) That said, I have seen legitimate and illegitimate critics in terms of astrophysics. The former do a pretty good job at advancing the science, even though their message takes longer to propagate than it should. Then again, that is probably more of a defence mechanism against poor ideas than anything else. The illegitimage critics are typically ignored, and do nothing for or against the science. Then again, astrophysics is mostly apoltical, while climatology is very politicized. In that case the illigitimate critics seem to have more weight than they have earned.
Everything you say about the denialist attacks on AGW is reasonably accurate. The '17 year' crowd is made up of folks that don't have the background to evaluate data, or are just liars.
However I don't think you have to understand the data that supports the theory if you find sound data that contradicts the theory. You only have to understand the theory and have good contradictory data.
As far as Spencer etc, they may be paid shills, BUT that's not a valid argument against their work. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. Publications need to be evaluated on their scientific merit, period.
Let me know when Spencer actually does publish his critique of AGW. Writing oped pieces in the WSJ is not publishing.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I notice that you don't use the word "denier," which so many find objectionable. I have no love for political correctness, but in this case, I believe that you managed to find an alternative word that costs us nothing to use and which may be less likely to raise presumptions of bias. So I personally plan to no longer use the offensive word "denier" in this context and, like you, will instead substitute the far more accurate word "crackpot." Thank you for your contribution.
Give you liberal heads a good bang on the wall. We aren't witch hunting them. We are moving to prosecute them. Trying to pass off "global warming" as a man made event so that you can extort money from the wealthy is capital crime. We won't stop until as many of them are in jail as it is possible to prosecute. You don't get a pass on this kind of crap.
Those folks who believe that AGW is all a plot by scientists to keep the research money flowing embrace a "suppressed" paper which is skeptical of AGW and says, literally, there needs to be more research on it.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.