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.'"
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.
You must be from the American Petroleum Institute...
Ah yes, nothing like an ad hominem attack to soundly refute a claim.
Tell us, what other scientific discipline has ever been "settled"? Look here for over a century of experiments on relativity. Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
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...
Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
Seeing as they are not denying the theory of general relativity: no.
Nobody said the science is settled. But when the overwhelming majority of experts in any field are leaning in one direction, to claim that there isn't something to what they're saying, or worse, claiming that that large majority is an argument against what they're saying is anti-intellectual.
In other words. Grow the fuck up. The universe doesn't owe your ideology any favors.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I'd call it a very biased paper that allows its editorial department masquerade as its reporting department. Witness the incredible number of anti-NHS stories that were one-sided, biased, and clearly intended to underwrite a series of columns by various right wing regulars demanding the NHS be demolished, privatized or something between the two.
And yes, the Guardian does the same thing. British newspapers are, by and large, utter crap.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
I wouldn't call the Daily Telegraph a tabloid.
Of course not. It's my go to source for the REAL truth on bigfoot, aliens, and the Loch Ness monster.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... - Hikers-capture-bigfoot-on-film
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.... - have-aliens-hijacked-voyager-2-spacecraft
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... - Mystery-alien-like-creature-seen-in-Bristol-harbour
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... - Has-Apple-maps-found-the-Loch-Ness-Monster
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new... - Has-the-Loch-Ness-monster-finally-been-caught-on-camera
The science is settled
He also said the Arctic would be ice-free by now.
Who cares what Al Gore said ? He's not one of the scientists.
"Self-introspection" as compared to introspecting other people?
So you don't like these headlines because, what, they're too mean about some of the idiots at the Guardian's competition?
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
"If the press sees this crappy paper they will use it to perpetuate misconceptions" is a valid thing to point out when rejecting dodgy work. I dare say you would've found something similar in response to the papers that eventually wind up in the Journal of Cosmology.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Your example of the problems of climate science is climate scientists correcting Al Gore? Isn't that exactly what you want climate scientists to do in a healthy environment where the science decides the issues?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Step 1: Systematically ostracize, shun, bully, and threaten people who disagree with you.
I don't know if you've ever participated in a scientific debate with scientists but this happens regardless of what is being discussed. Some of the nastiest fights I've seen are between scientists about the most trivial of questions.
Step 2: Make sure contrary views are never published.
Correlation != causation. Getting a paper published in a prestigious journal isn't easy in the first place. From what I've seen most contrary views like AGW and creation science are not published because they are contrary. They are not published for a variety of reasons including errors, lack of innovation, lack of basic science, etc. For example if you wanted to publish a paper about T-Rex being a carnivore it would probably be rejected because that is rather old news. Now if you found evidence that T-Rex may have had dangerous pathogens in the saliva (like the Komodo dragon) which made it a more dangerous predator, that would be something worthy of publishing.
In this case, the referees noted the deficiencies and suggested corrections to make the paper more publishable. That does not sound like they were opposed to contrary views at all. But being contrary or not, the referees still have to enforce standards of science.
Step 3: When people decide to be quiet instead of getting bullied, claim consensus.
First when have the AGW and creationists every been quiet? Second, being louder does not help your cause when it comes to science. Having evidence helps your cause. Here is the one thing people don't understand about scientific consensus: Getting a vast majority of scientists to agree on anything is a big deal. It means scientists fighting from opposing sides have settled on the matter.
For example, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was high theoretical when it first came out and hard to test even though it solved certain problems like the precession of Mercury. It required using a solar eclipse before some scientists began to think that it might be not just theoretical. Over the decades different experiments have verified that Einstein was right. No one doubts the validity of it today.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
NPR apparently cared at the time, along with just about every other traditional media outlet. And the people who saw his movie. And the people who invited him to speak to congress. He was the #1 spokesman for global warming just a few years ago. Did you forget?
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless. And even if you did want to assign value to consensus, the nasty exclusionary tactics directly undermine that value.
Which nasty exclusionary tactics? Your coworkers and friends ostracising you because you're joining an organisation that exists to undermine their life's work? That's what happens when you get in bed with a widely-despised organisation.
A paper not being published because it's bad? That's science, baby.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I think this is a bit oversimplified... I'd like to expand it to reflect what the referee stated....
When the overwhelming majority of experts in any field are leaning in one direction, to claim that they're incorrect without rigorous application of the scientific method but instead just making vague claims of overlap and inconsistency regarding the models you don't support and stating that the results don't line up with your preferred model, is not legitimate science. Legitimate politics, yes.
Science works by taking the accepted model and proving where it fails by quantitative and qualitative analysis. The method he was using in his paper is closer to using the Bible to prove that the world is flat when the prevailing theory is that it is a somewhat squished and misshapen globe.
Mind you, the world MAY be flat, but to prove that, you'd have to show where the prevailing models fall down, and show how your own model stands up where those others fail. Qualitative AND quantitative, people. He seemed to be flip-flopping between the two from the report.
"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!"
Frankly, I don't know enough about the science to evaluate the content of this guy's paper. What I do know are facts which leave me unable to fairly judge this case: (1) The reviewer, ostensibly, is qualified to review the paper's content and finds it unpublishable. Therefore, it is good that it isn't published. (2) The reviewer taints the decision with a foolish political footnote, inviting - if not forcing - the very kind of denial that he ostensibly was trying to avoid.
If the paper was bad enough to be rejected on its own (lack of) merit, then what in God's name did this guy hope to achieve by bringing it up in the first place? If I were in the AGW crowd, I'd be investigating the reviewer to see whether he's a Big Oil plant. Negligent buffoonery.
The science on the Standard Model isn't settled, but that hardly means the Standard Model is wrong or falsified. It means it is incomplete. Not having an absolutely perfect theory (if such a thing is even achievable) does not mean the theory you have lacks all utility. There is a great deal of evidence for AGW. Is it complete, is it settled? No, but then again, neither is any scientific theory. Why does anthropogenic climate change receive this kind of special treatment.
Oh that's right, because someone stands to lose money, and, heaven forbid, people might have to change their behaviors.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
As an illustration, you could look at a paper that "proved" that white crows don't exist by taking a bunch of studies counting the black crow population in various areas, a few studies looking for white crows in various areas, and claim that the one study that found white crows in a black crow population was obviously flawed as it didn't line up with all the other studies. The studies were measuring different things in different places, and so shouldn't be expected to line up.
And whether the paper gets published or not, the methodology is flawed and white crows still exist.
Who cares what NPR says. A great deal of information by the actual researchers is out there, so quit fixating on public figures and media outlets, and get the information from the horse's mouth. Heck, I don't even read SciAm anymore because it's become more of a science journalism rag, and I'd rather read what the scientists themselves say, whatever the particular field of research is.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Step 1: Systematically conduct flawed studies, search for like-minded or easily convinced people to side with you,, and threaten people who disagree with you.
Step 2: Attempt to get your flawed and subjective contrary views published as scientifically sound.
Step 3: When people decide to reject your articles based on flawed methods, claim conspiracy.
Sadly, both the parent's 3-step plan and this one are used constantly... mostly in politics, but increasingly in "scientific" communities.
Earth's climate is hardly the only complex system that we study.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
For the most part, no, because they recognize that relativity already explains a large number of observations. If they succeed in finding a fault, then any theory that supersedes relativity would still have still have to reproduce those observations, and reproduce relativity in an appropriate limit.
There are a select few however that would (and in a case two have) gotten the label of relativity deniers because they reject various experiments already done. They are not out there running new experiments looking for detailed faults in the theory, but instead had a theory the proposed years ago and then come up with some superficial reason to reject any new observation that agrees with their theory.
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're opposed to thinking.
Thinking requires energy in the form of glucose in the blood, derived from food that we eat. So sustaining critical thinking processes require the consumption of more food, which generally comes from a grocer. They have to truck tons of it in every week, which inevitably belches many tons of CO2 in the air.
Therefore, they only oppose thinking for the purposes of saving the environment for our children. Won't you just think of the children? The best thing you can do is not think about them.
You know, for the children.
The point is that the claim of consensus is meaningless. And even if you did want to assign value to consensus, the nasty exclusionary tactics directly undermine that value.
That's absurd circular logic. How was consensus reached? Was it reached because the evidence supported it? In your statement, you've already declared that consensus is meaningless because of exclusionary tactics yet have to provide that it is actually happening. I can say the same thing that that the reason polar bears haven't attacked me yet because of this magical rock I have. I'll sell it to you for $1000 or 900 Euro.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Absolutely not. But you can see that there are people who deny relativity. Can't you see the difference between scientists who perform experiments to check relativity to these folks who simply deny the evidence?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
They do the same thing to creationist research! These so-called "scientists" just don't like having their dogma challenged! It's a conspiracy!
The arctic is not yet ice-free, but it's getting there. If you would like to look at the raw data, I suggest Arctic Sea Ice News from the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
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."
Still being stupid as fuck i see.
This dipshit wasn't bullied or threatened or anything else. His worthless piece of shit article he wrote was denied publication because it was a worthless piece of shit article. Science journals try not to print worthless piece of shit articles..... even though i understand that's the only kind you seem to prefer; that says a lot more about your useless fucking worldview of wanting to be a fucking stupid idiot than it does about a science journal upholding high standards. As for a consensus... there is one, whether your butthurt that 97% or so of these very highly educated people think your a fucking idiot or not. If you don't know the science, your opinion means nothing, regardless of how big an egotistical little twat you are.
You want to be useful to the discussion? Quit being a twat.
Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
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.
This is an absurd exaggeration that relies on a very dubious definition of the word "wrong". Is Newtonian Mechanics wrong? Strictly speaking, I suppose so, as it does not adequately explain the full range of observations, and in some cases does indeed get the answers wrong. But if you look at Newtonian mechanics as simply a simplified extrapolation of General Relativity that applies to non-relativistic equations, it still works very well; well enough to launch probes to Mars or the outer reaches of the solar system, and useful enough for many ordinary physics problems.
Yes, certain theories, like the steady state theory of the universe, have been falsified, but they certainly weren't falsified by crap papers. But, by and large, not many scientific theories are out and out falsified, so your use of the word "wrong" is simply hyperbolic.
No one says consensus means the end of research in a field, and no one says that consensus cannot be wrong. Indeed, consensus is often a target for scientists, which is why, for instance, even though the Standard Model has been a highly successful theory, particle physicists are desperate to peer beyond it to find new physics. And when that happens, the Standard Model still won't be "wrong", it will simply be subsumed into some larger theory.
All the evidence we have points to CO2 emissions over the last three centuries leading to climate change that cannot be explained by non-anthropogenic processes. We have theories to explain it, that no one believes are complete or the final word, but there is a sufficiently high degree of agreement between models and via different lines of evidence that it is not unreasonable to say with a high degree of certainty that there are man-made factors contributing to current observations, and then continued CO2 emissions will accelerate this process. The exact degree degree to which emissions can be attributed is a matter of debate, but very few climatologists argue with the core claims of AGW. Even worse for the skeptics is that every time they claim to find the smoking gun, it turns out to be their own camp playing rhetorical tricks, outright lying, or in this particular case, trying to publish a crappy paper.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
"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!"
Were skeptic scientists kept out of the IPCC.
We [the Independent Climate Change Email Review] conclude that there is evidence that the text was a team responsibility. It is clear that Jones (though not alone) had a strongly negative view of the paper but we do not find that he was biased, that there was any improper exclusion of material or that the comments on the MM2004 paper in the final draft were “invented” given the (continuing) nature of the scientific debate on the issue.
So Jones' comment, in regard to MM2004, would be troubling on its own. However, not only did he apparently lack the power to exclude the paper, he was apparently unbiased in the final comments.
The other paper referenced in Jones' quote is also discussed in the link I provided.
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
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.
Tell us, what other scientific discipline has ever been "settled"? Look here [ucr.edu] for over a century of experiments on relativity. Are scientists who TO THIS FUCKING DAY try to falisfy relativity labelled "deniers"?
Other scientists in the field who hold contrary positions are not generally labeled deniers. People in the field like Lindzen, Spencer, Curry will not tell you that CO2 will have no effect, just that there are other factors that override it. They have enough knowledge to at least debate intelligently with others in the field. The real climate science deniers are those without much scientific training who think their worldview trumps science when it comes to climate change. It's a waste of time to try and debate them.
Science is never absolutely settled but that doesn't mean we should treat it as if what we know about is is useless. Holding out hope for some revolutionary overturning of science you don't like, especially with no evidence that anything like that is forthcoming, is wishful thinking.
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
This is a point that is radically misunderstood by almost all sides of the political debate around anthropogenic climate change. Think about what it implies: climate models do not predict observational reality. That, and only that, is why one cannot and should not expect a nice fit between the model and the reality.
This is OK, mind: non-predictive modelling is extremely useful, and there is very little doubt that human activity is adding about 1.6 W/m**2 to the Earth's heat budget (somewhat less than 0.5% of the total, equivalent to an orbital perturbation of about half the distance to the Moon). But climate models do not tell us in any meaningful or useful sense how the ocean/atmosphere system will respond to that additional heating.
There will be a response, but estimating its type, distribution and magnitude well enough to be considered predictive is well beyond current model capabilities. I haven't looked at AR4 or 5 code, but AR2 had approximations that made me cringe, up to and including fixing up energy conservation at the end of each time-step by adjusting cell temperatures.
Climate skeptics--the sane ones at least--are aware of this and take the strong claims of predictive power in the models with a large grain of salt. They also tend to assume that "you can't prove there will be a disaster" means "there won't be a disaster", which is utterly unwarranted.
Climate believers also ignore the poor predictivity of the models, which is unfortunate, because the logical response to that poor predictivity is to invest in robustness and flexibility rather than specific solutions, because we don't know what the specific future conditions will be.
Climate believers also undermine their case by an excessive focus on "abstinence only" policies, and are for some reason unwilling to contemplate any response to climate change that involves things like nuclear power and geo-engineering research. It's almost as if they think the climate-driven destruction of civilization is such a huge issue that we must be willing to do anything to stop it... except change anyone's mind on the relative value of nuclear energy.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
As I always suspected, AGW is a cause, not a hypothesis, let alone an actual scientific theory.
False. AGW began as a hypothesis, became a generally accepted scientific theory, and is now a cause — as a result of becoming accepted theory with global ramifications.
Nice try^Wtroll, though.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Actually, climate change skeptics publish in mainstream journals all the time. There's always loose threads you can pull at.
For example RW Spencer is an evangelical Christian who believes that climate change would contradict God's will. Yet he still gets published in mainstream journals.
This demonstrates the extreme open-mindedness of science, when compared to virtually any other field of human endeavor. Yes, the process is slanted in favor of the prevailing wisdom, but people who disagree with the majority opinion aren't ostracized or prevented from publishing, no matter *why* they believe what they do. Scientists believe things for all kinds of un-scientific reasons: aesthetics, hunches, even personal dislike for other scientists. Religion isn't any less scientific than any of that stuff, but you leave that stuff in the locker room when you're on the playing field, so to speak.
Naturally people whose papers get rejected by reviewers think the referees were unfair. But it's not like *other* skeptics can't get their papers published; they just have to play by science's rules.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The carbon in fossil fuels was removed from the atmosphere over millions of years. The ecosystem had time to adjust. In the cycle of ice ages we've had lately CO2 in the atmosphere would drop to 180 ppm at the height of the glaciations and rise to around 280 ppm during the interglacial periods. That 100 ppm rise took 10,000 years or more. The ecosystem had time to adjust. Since the start of the industrial revolution less than 300 years ago we've been burning fossil fuels that took millions of years to accumulate. In 1830 the CO2 level was still about 280 ppm. Now in 2014 it's around 400 ppm. That's an increase of 120 ppm in less than 200 years. If we took 10,000 years to raise the CO2 levels to 400 ppm it wouldn't be that much of a problem. It's the rate of change that is the majority of the problem.
climate models do not predict observational reality
Models are projections, not predictions. They project what would happen under specific circumstances. They cannot predict when a volcano will erupt, but can help us understand how the climate will respond if one does. In reality, we cannot predict how much CO2 we will emit, or how much aerosols, or whether La Ninas will dominate the next decade. But we can project what will happen for each scenario. You shouldn't presuming that the model for one scenario should give the same results as a model for another, but investigating how and why they differ would be useful. That was the reviewers point.
Gore never said the Arctic would be ice free by now. The closest thing I've ever seen to him saying that is he commented that a study by the US Navy reported the Arctic could become functionally ice free sometime between 2017 and 2024. Note that Gore was merely repeating what the study said. If you can cite an actual quote by Gore where he said the Arctic would be ice free by 2014 I'll eat my hat.
"Consensus" simply identifies where the burden of proof lay. It is not a barrier to new ideas.
Examples:
(1) The geosyncline theory was replaced by plate tectonics.
(2) We used to think passing a black hole event horizon was a one way trip for matter/energy; now we think black holes evaporate.
(3) We used to think DNA to RNA information transcription was one way; then we discovered retroviruses.
The idea that "consensus" is just scientific priggery is ridiculous. Scientists *want* consensus to be overturned. New ideas are what make science interesting, but a new consensus only meaningful if the standards of disproof for the old consensus are high. Otherwise a change on scientific consensus wouldn't be *progress*, it would be *fashion*.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And yet both of those papers did get referenced in the IPCC report. That cuts into the argument that contrarian papers can't get published, doesn't it?
I mean, what are the odds that science could be wrong about a staggeringly complex physical system which cannot be studied in isolation?
Science is generally not amenable to binary right/wrong judgements. It's more about how well your science models the physical reality you are studying. If climate science contrarians want to discredit the current theory it's not enough to just take pot shots at it trying to tear it down. You come up with something that models the climate better than the current theory.
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.
Exactly what the reviewers were pointing out. They encouraged Dr. Bengtsson to find some error that they could publish. Instead, he just pointed out that three things that ought to be different were in fact different. That is not useful.
If there was the ability to search through the text of all the slashdot comments, you would be overwhelmed with the AGW Crowd claiming, "The science is settled".
If only there was some sort of search engine that could be used... oh wait. there is! https://www.google.ca/#q=%22th... . Huh... Looks like just the deniers pushing that meme. Science can always be overturned. Most people believe in heliocentrism. It could be overturned... but probably not by these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
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.