Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 149

Thread: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38:145]

  1. #91
    Hard As A Rock
    Strucky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Last Seen
    10-19-17 @ 08:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    2,074

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Your link goes to a site requiring a subscription, and your attachment ius invalid. Maybe you should spend less time insulting others.
    Here try this one then

    Climate change scientist claims he has been forced from new job in 'McCarthy'-style witch-hunt by academics across the world
    "The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."

    ~Dwight D. Eisenhower

  2. #92
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,636

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
    And the particular referee's report in full - which was misrepresented by Lennart Bengtsson in the Times article (and misrepresented on the WUWT blog):

    REFEREE REPORT(S):

    COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
    The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

    The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

    The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

    The finding of differences between the three "assessments" and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

    The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of "errors" being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

    What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

    - The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
    - The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
    - The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
    - Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)


    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.
    Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times

    It looks like the other peer-reviewers reports will be available as soon as they give permission to the publishers. The AGW denier conspiracy theorists may regret demanding these reviewer reports be made public. As usual, the facts don't actually fit their hysterical conspiracy claims - at all.

    So, let me summarize the notes from the reviewers:

    "This paper is trying to compare satellite, energy budgets and surface temperatures which are derived in entirely different ways, and even though they all are trying to describe the same thing it is perfectly natural that they all disagree. Settled Science! DENIED!! Now excuse us while we go and graft observational records on to the end of dubious climate models. TTFN!!"

    This rejection is funny and I am embarrassed for people who post it as evidence. The Paper's purpose is to show that observational climate records and climate models are coming up with different results and the models are running too hot. The rejection here is that comparing the climate record with a model is wrong because they are derived through different methods.
    Last edited by jmotivator; 05-17-14 at 11:37 PM.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  3. #93
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    06-13-15 @ 10:52 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    So, let me summarize the notes from the reviewers:

    "This paper is trying to compare satellite, energy budgets and surface temperatures which are derived in entirely different ways, and even though they all are trying to describe the same thing it is perfectly natural that they all disagree. Settled Science! DENIED!! Now excuse us while we go and graft observational records on to the end of dubious climate models. TTFN!!"

    This rejection is funny and I am embarrassed for people who post it as evidence. The Paper's purpose is to show that observational climate records and climate models are coming up with different results and the models are running too hot. The rejection here is that comparing the climate record with a model is wrong because they are derived through different methods.
    The 'summary' is more like: the Swedish scientist submitted a paper which contained errors, wasn't original, provided nothing to advance the science and contained unsupported misleading statements. Then instead of addressing the problems with the paper and resubmitting it, he ran off to the media to claim he was being victimised. Papers get rejected all the time in peer-review.
    Last edited by Ceist; 05-18-14 at 12:27 AM.

  4. #94
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    Let me give you a tip. Open your mind and read things and sources you disagree with..
    I did. And sought to discover the credibility of your WND:

    Finally, Sye noted that the federal funding Planned Parenthood receives is routinely audited to make sure it is spent appropriately.

    Our ruling

    WorldNetDaily wrote, "A U.S. Government Accountability Office report says Planned Parenthood Federation of America cannot find some $1.3 billion given to it by the federal government from 2002 through 2008." We found other websites making similar claims.

    The GAO never reported that Planned Parenthood and its affiliates couldn’t find $1.3 billion. It simply said that Planned Parenthood spent $657.1 million. The GAO also didn’t say that there was any sort sort of discrepancy or that money was missing, as the headline on WorldNetDaily’s news report said. The website's conclusion was reached by looking at numbers not even mentioned in the GAO report.

    In fact the statement conflates two different sets of numbers and is an extreme case of comparing apples to oranges, taking one number calculated by the GAO, and another calculated by adding numbers published in Planned Parenthood’s annual reports. The difference is what is claimed to be missing.

    Planned Parenthood includes all federal, state and local money under the category "government grants and contracts" in its annual reports. The GAO only looked at direct federal funding and noted it was likely undercounting the amount Planned Parenthood receives.

    The statement irresponsibly suggests misappropriation of federal funds without any evidence. That makes it not just false, but ridiculously so. As a result, we rate the statement Pants on Fire.

    Planned Parenthood funding: Did the GAO really find millions missing? | PolitiFact

    This isn't the only one. I don't care that they're conservative. I care about accuracy. When you site a source that can be shown to be inaccurate, there is no reason for anyone to accept that source. As we're nearly all novice, source credibility matters.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #95
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    And one man's word us enough?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #96
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    I thought this might be helpful:

    Scientific vs. Social Consensus
    Today, there is no doubt that a scientific consensus exists on the issue of climate change. Scientists have documented that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are leading to a buildup in the atmosphere, which leads to a general warming of the global climate and an alteration in the statistical distribution of localized weather patterns over long periods of time. This assessment is endorsed by a large body of scientific agencies—including every one of the national scientific agencies of the G8 + 5 countries—and by the vast majority of climatologists. The majority of research articles published in refereed scientific journals also support this scientific assessment. Both the US National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science use the word “consensus” when describing the state of climate science.
    And yet a social consensus on climate change does not exist. Surveys show that the American public’s belief in the science of climate change has mostly declined over the past five years, with large percentages of the population remaining skeptical of the science. Belief declined from 71 percent to 57 percent between April 2008 and October 2009, according to an October 2009 Pew Research Center poll; more recently, belief rose to 62 percent, according to a February 2012 report by the National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change. Such a significant number of dissenters tells us that we do not have a set of socially accepted beliefs on climate change—beliefs that emerge, not from individual preferences, but from societal norms; beliefs that represent those on the political left, right, and center as well as those whose cultural identifications are urban, rural, religious, agnostic, young, old, ethnic, or racial.
    Why is this so? Why do such large numbers of Americans reject the consensus of the scientific community? With upwards of two-thirds of Americans not clearly understanding science or the scientific process and fewer able to pass even a basic scientific literacy test, according to a 2009 California Academy of Sciences survey, we are left to wonder: How do people interpret and validate the opinions of the scientific community? The answers to this question can be found, not from the physical sciences, but from the social science disciplines of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and others.

    Climate Science as Culture War | Stanford Social Innovation Review

    I think reading the entire article would be most helpful.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #97
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,636

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
    The 'summary' is more like: the Swedish scientist submitted a paper which contained errors, wasn't original, provided nothing to advance the science and contained unsupported misleading statements. Then instead of addressing the problems with the paper and resubmitting it, he ran off to the media to claim he was being victimised. Papers get rejected all the time in peer-review.
    It would be interesting to see the draft paper itself and the other reviewers reports.

    It's fascinating how you claim to know the "Paper's purpose'' without having read it.
    Please point out the errors listed in the reviewer notes.

    I see a lot of excuses being made for why all these models are so different which is of course completely ignoring the point that these models are so different. The reviewers seem to have inexplicably forgotten that the whole purpose of these models is to be able to model observational data. If they all do their own thing independent of observed climate then they are all worthless.

    It really doesn't matter WHY they are all wrong, just that they are. Bengtsson's paper made the assumption that models presented as being able to reconstruct climate should be able to match observed climate. The reviewers "error" was to claim that that is not the case. It's an amazingly foolish argument to make.

    The paper ultimately was rejected because it wasn't a "breakthrough" study... but the vast majority of published studies are not "breakthrough" studies. I'm guessing the reviewers wouldn't be very pleased if all their future papers were held to such qualifications.

    Also from the rejection:

    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.

    Gatekeeping. Pure and simple. Bengtsson was entirely accurate in his assessment. These models are sold to the public as being reasonable replicators of global climate given known forcing inputs. These models are where the IPCC and others derive their forcing estimations. If they are "expected" to be different from observed climate then they are "expected" to be wrong. If they are "expected" to be wrong then we can "expect" that their derived CO2 sensitivity is wrong.

    Also from the rejection:

    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.


    ... so they expect the impact to be "high", but the paper is not a breakthrough? They also call the claims of big inconsistencies as "false" after spending most of the rejection explaining why there are big inconsistencies.

    Seriously, folks, I am glad they released these reviewers notes because it should be plain as the nose on your face how absurdly partisan and idiotic this review actually was.
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  8. #98
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    06-13-15 @ 10:52 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    Please point out the errors listed in the reviewer notes.

    I see a lot of excuses being made for why all these models are so different which is of course completely ignoring the point that these models are so different. The reviewers seem to have inexplicably forgotten that the whole purpose of these models is to be able to model observational data. If they all do their own thing independent of observed climate then they are all worthless.

    It really doesn't matter WHY they are all wrong, just that they are. Bengtsson's paper made the assumption that models presented as being able to reconstruct climate should be able to match observed climate. The reviewers "error" was to claim that that is not the case. It's an amazingly foolish argument to make.

    The paper ultimately was rejected because it wasn't a "breakthrough" study... but the vast majority of published studies are not "breakthrough" studies. I'm guessing the reviewers wouldn't be very pleased if all their future papers were held to such qualifications.

    Also from the rejection:

    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.

    Gatekeeping. Pure and simple. Bengtsson was entirely accurate in his assessment. These models are sold to the public as being reasonable replicators of global climate given known forcing inputs. These models are where the IPCC and others derive their forcing estimations. If they are "expected" to be different from observed climate then they are "expected" to be wrong. If they are "expected" to be wrong then we can "expect" that their derived CO2 sensitivity is wrong.

    Also from the rejection:

    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.


    ... so they expect the impact to be "high", but the paper is not a breakthrough? They also call the claims of big inconsistencies as "false" after spending most of the rejection explaining why there are big inconsistencies.

    Seriously, folks, I am glad they released these reviewers notes because it should be plain as the nose on your face how absurdly partisan and idiotic this review actually was.
    *sigh*

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    06-13-15 @ 10:52 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,460

  10. #100
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,636

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
    *sigh*
    Translation: "I'll be darned! There really AREN'T any actual errors listed in those review notes."
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

Page 10 of 15 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •