JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Busted: 120 gibberish science papers withdrawn — so much for “peer review”

At least 120 computer generated nonsense papers have been reviewed and published in publications of the  Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE) and Springer, as well as conference proceedings. The fakes have just been discovered by a French researcher and are being withdrawn.

Cyril Labbé found a way to spot artificially-generated science papers, and published it his website and lo, the fakes turned up en masse. In the past, pretend papers have turned up in open access journals–this time the fake papers appeared in subscription based journals. But the man who caught the fakes says he cannot be sure he’s caught them all, because he couldn’t check all the papers behind paywalls.

According to Nature:

The publishers Springer and IEEE are removing more than 120 papers from their subscription services after a French researcher discovered that the works were computer-generated nonsense.

Over the past two years, computer scientist Cyril Labbé of Joseph Fourier University in Grenoble, France, has catalogued computer-generated papers that made it into more than 30 published conference proceedings between 2008 and 2013. Sixteen appeared in publications by Springer, which is headquartered in Heidelberg, Germany, and more than 100 were published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), based in New York. Both publishers, which were privately informed by Labbé, say that they are now removing the papers.

One paper was called “TIC: a methodology for the construction of e-commerce”. In the abstract it claimed they “concentrate our efforts on disproving that spreadsheets can be made knowledge-based, empathic, and compact”.

The system IS the problem. Peer review is not rigorous, the incentives are all wrong, but it is given huge social and financial importance far beyond what it is capable of.

Labbé says that the latest discovery is merely one symptom of a “spamming war started at the heart of science” in which researchers feel pressured to rush out papers to publish as much as possible.

These fakes were generated by software and so blatant that they were spotted by software too (did anybody read them?):

Labbé developed a way to automatically detect manuscripts composed by a piece of software called SCIgen, which randomly combines strings of words to produce fake computer-science papers. SCIgen was invented in 2005 by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge to prove that conferences would accept meaningless papers — and, as they put it, “to maximize amusement” (see ‘Computer conference welcomes gobbledegook paper’). A related program generates random physics manuscript titles on the satirical website arXiv vs. snarXiv.

Labbé has been in this game on both sides. He used SCIgen to create 102 fake papers which were published four years ago. He invented a fake author and got the imaginary scientist’s rank up to the the 21st most highly cited scientist. So much for the Google Scholar ranking…

Is it a hoax, or  are real researchers using SCIgen (a program that writes “papers”) as a way of quickly polishing a half done paper, or writing an invented paper? “Most of the papers were submitted to conferences based in China and were published with Chinese affiliations.” We know in China there is great pressure, and many rewards given for scientists to publish.

Science is not process that can be bureaucratized, commodified, bottled and boxed. The success of an idea cannot be measured by a publishing index.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (103 votes cast)
Busted: 120 gibberish science papers withdrawn -- so much for "peer review", 9.3 out of 10 based on 103 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/q5hckfd

328 comments to Busted: 120 gibberish science papers withdrawn — so much for “peer review”

  • #
    Kevin Lohse

    Just maybe science has discovered the origins of Lew, Cookie et al….


    Report this

    220

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      SCIgen papers are easily distinguished from Loo & Kook papers by the superior quality, acumen, and accuracy of SCIgen’s output.


      Report this

      361

    • #
      Truthseeker

      I have said this before, but it is worth repeating.

      Peer review has become argument from authority, nothing more. It may have had a purpose when scientific journals were printed and so getting it right was important, but that paradigm has shifted. These journals are online now. Comments and corrections can be done at any time in real time.

      Do the science, get it out there and let all those that are interested critique the work on its merits.


      Report this

      110

      • #
        Philip Shehan

        Truthseeker:

        Please give an indication on the number of papers you have had peer reviewed or peer reviewed yourself or any other relevant experience of the peer review system on which you base your claim.


        Report this

        09

        • #
          MaxL

          Oooh now there’s a nice argument from authority all dressed up in a bow tie and socks.

          So I guess Truthseeker shall not comment on murder, child pornography, union corruption, people smuggling, prostitution, life after death or many, many subjects until he has personally engaged himself in such activities.

          Ooops, so sorry, I’ve peer reviewed your comment without the necessary qualifications. How dare I comment on the writings of someone so learned.


          Report this

          51

          • #
            Truthseeker

            MaxL,

            More non-sequentier crap from you. My comments on this blog do not need peer reviewing and are valid or not on their merits, not because of someone else’s opinion of them.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              MaxL

              Gosh Truthseeker,
              And my comment was a reply to Philip.
              Still it’s interesting to note that you think I write “non-sequentier” crap.


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Truthseeker

                MaxL,

                Now that you have put your original comment in context, I can see that your argument is indeed relevant and to the point.

                My sincere apologies. I thought you were someone else.


                Report this

                60

        • #
          Truthseeker

          Philip Shehan,

          Any time the alarmists do not like something based on observations, one of the first arguments they make is “has it been peer reviewed” as if they need someone else’s opinion on something before they can have their own. The Climategate emails showed that the CRU alarmists wanted to “redefine what peer review is” to stop contrary arguments from being published. Whatever peer review once was, it is not that any longer. Of course, the more political the field of study the more pressure that peer review comes under.

          In theory peer review should stop journals publishing crap, but given the sheer number of journals and the amount of content they need to produce that is not true anymore. Just look at the model based crap that is getting published at the drop of a hat for anything related to climate.

          I do not need anyone else’s opinion to see what is happening. There is plenty of observational evidence to support my conclusions.


          Report this

          60

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Truthseeker, Sorry if my last contributioin sounded a little huffy, but I have seen so many comments on peer review which show that writers do not understand how the process works and what its purpose is.

            There is often an implied or overt criticism of the diligence and integrity of manuscript authors, reviewers and journal editorial staff which I personally resent on behalf of myself, friends and colleaugues who are involved in this process, and with the exception of paid editorial staff, do it for free.


            Report this

            12

            • #
              Truthseeker

              Philip,

              Fair enough, but the process is being hijacked by those with a political agenda. It is those activists masquerading as scientists that are doing the work of yourself and others who may be trying to do the right thing, so much harm. Those of us on the outside maybe be spectators, but we can see the game being played and are shouting our opinions from the cheap seats.


              Report this

              30

            • #
              The Griss

              “what its purpose is”

              you mean “What is purpose is meant to be“.

              That is the real issue.. Climate science particularly have forgotten what the real purpose of peer-review is.

              It is not meant a rubber stamp for the likes of Mann, Cook, Lewindopey.

              This is the sort of crap that peer-review is meant to weed out.. and it has failed, failed, failed.


              Report this

              40

  • #
    Stephen Richards

    A friend of mine goes to Grenoble. I’m waiting for the rest of the french nation to catch up with Courtillot and Allegre.

    Carbon taxes in france are enormous and there are more to come and still the socialists spend, spend, spend.


    Report this

    210

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      It’s surreal enough that I could believe this whole CAGW abomination (and the government insanity that it invoked), was a computer generated prank that got out. . There are a thousand novels one could write on this theme.


      Report this

      160

  • #
    graphicconception

    … which is headquartered in Heidelberg …

    You see, it is true, Heidelberg really is full of Heidelbergers :)


    Report this

    70

  • #

    It is worse that the poor quality of the research. Part of the UNESCO media education juggernaut going on globally with sponsorship by UNESCO is to teach students to defer to the judgment of “experts.” Defined of course by degree and title. To treat certain sources as suspect and others as trustworthy, depending on how compliant media outlet is in complying with UN’s agenda.

    Because this MIL-Media and Information Literacy focus deemphasizes actual knowledge and facts, there’s nothing to trigger a recognition of just how bogus most of what is to be pushed on the children actually is. After all UNESCO prides itself as being the Education Task Manager under Agenda 21. Erroneous facts or the competing vision created by physical reality just cannot be allowed to get in the way.

    “Peer reviewed” is one of those phrases that will be taught explicitly to students so they will see anything produced as reliable without further review. Ready to be acted on.


    Report this

    370

    • #
      Anton

      How ironic, given its record in the great global warming panic, that the Royal society’s motto is Nullius in Verba, which it translates on its own website as “Take nobody’s word for it.”


      Report this

      300

      • #
        Joe V.

        I’m surprised they haven’t got around to revamping that yet – but I’m sure they subconsciously believe it means nobody’s but our word for it, naturally.


        Report this

        130

      • #
        Winston

        Alternate Royal Society mottos, for the consideration of Sir paul Nurse, to comply with truth in advertising legislation:

        “Inquam, omnia credit” – Believe everything I say

        “Crede mihi pro ea”- Take my word for it

        “Sic verum est quod dixi”- It’s true because I said so

        “Me, non futuis solem, vel circa pueros mittam”- Don’t fuck with me sunshine, or I will send the boys around


        Report this

        240

    • #
      Steve

      What I find deeply torubling is the mindset of blind trust in “authority” figures who can never be wrong ( in these peoples minds ). Look at the RCC and Galilleo.

      Sceptics have one defining feature essential to survival – an ability to critically question any information, in the face of an onlslaught by the “groupthink drones”.

      The great unwashed also have been trained not to think – just obey.
      This is modern Fuedalism in action.

      To imply that a “trusted” authroity that “97% of scientists” believ could be wrong…well….you might have well insulted their parentage.
      Such is the Stockholm Syndrome so deeply ingrained in people now.
      The mass media and internet and reality tv has taken minds untrained in critical thought and made them completely subservient to the “group”.

      This is why you get a vicious backlash from the bulk of the population – by questioning a “truth” , you are undermining their identity and security.

      But this is also a problem of the modern post modernism BS – every truth is truth therefore no reference points of absolute truth can therefore exist, and anyone who does question is a “bigot” and a “hater”.


      Report this

      180

      • #
        Retired now

        “Such is the Stockholm Syndrome so deeply ingrained in people now.”

        This, I think sums it all up. They are captured by debt and consumerism to need their jobs and to produce what their teachers, bosses and colleagues demand.

        But don’t blame post modernism. I’m a post modernist and a scientist. Post modernist thought has huge benefits. I would hate to lose the word and have to find another meme because it became a synonym for anti-science. Post modernism as I understand it doesn’t mean every truth is truth, at least not as I understand it. Nor as I learned to explore it in the 1990s, but perhaps the concept has collapsed inwards on itself since then.


        Report this

        70

      • #
        Steve Jones

        Let’s see how free from ‘groupthink’ you are:
        Do you think white people have the right to have their own countries?


        Report this

        12

        • #
          Jammies

          If it’s theirs, then it’s theirs. What’s mine is mine, until I marry – then it belongs to the ex and her lawyers. Give to Gaia what is Gaia’s. Give the UN what you reckon they deserve.
          What’s white got to do with anything anyway?


          Report this

          20

    • #
      Steve Jones

      “It is worse THAT the poor quality of research.”

      That the poor quality of research WHAT?

      Oh, you mean “worse THAN”, but you’re [SNIP] who can’t even understand what the words ‘that’, ‘than’ (and probably ‘then’) mean… [SNIP]

      ——
      It’s a typing thing. No insults necessary. – Jo

      03

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘so much for “peer review”‘,well it’s the best system there is. What other method could be used?

    What does peer reviewed mean?

    ‘First let me clear up any misunderstanding how these papers get published and especially the process of peer review. It’s a system that has been around for over 200 years. And its purpose is to keep bad research out of the scientific literature. Referees look through submitted papers for obvious mistakes and flaws in methodology and advise the editor of the journal accordingly. Papers are excluded if the mistakes and flaws are very obvious, papers should not be excluded simply if the referee or an editor disagree with its contents or conclusions.’

    As can be seen here:-

    http://www.youtube.com/ [snip] ED

    ["Peer review exists, solely to protect the reputation of the Publication". You could have said that, and made your point, without including a video link, that I might verify, when I have time to watch it. In the meantime, you remain in moderation -Fly]


    Report this

    125

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      “Peer review exists, solely to protect the reputation of the Publication”, no that’s no true and you know it! It exists to protect, as far as possible, the validity of science! And as a challenge for those that want to take a perverse/unqualified point of view, for their own agendas!


      Report this

      136

      • #
        ROM

        Well maybe bd4 you should read this very relevant commentary on Peer Review [ below] by Michael Nielsen.

        To give a bit of background to Nielsen;
        [quote]
        My interest in open science grew out of my work as a scientist. In the 1990s and 2000s I helped pioneer the field of quantum computation. Together with Ike Chuang of MIT, I wrote the standard text on quantum computing. This is one of the ten most highly cited physics books of all time (Source: Google Scholar, [end]

        Three myths about scientific peer review

        Myth number 1: Scientists have always used peer review

        Myth number 2: peer review is reliable

        Myth: Peer review is the way we determine what’s right and wrong in science

        [quoted]

        What about the suppression of innovation? Every scientist knows of major discoveries that ran into trouble with peer review. David Horrobin has a remarkable paper (ref) where he documents some of the discoveries almost suppressed by peer review; as he points out, he can’t list the discoveries that were in fact suppressed by peer review, because we don’t know what those were. His list makes horrifying reading. Here’s just a few instances that I find striking, drawn in part from his list. Note that I’m restricting myself to suppression of papers by peer review; I believe peer review of grants and job applications probably has a much greater effect in suppressing innovation.

        George Zweig’s paper announcing the discovery of quarks, one of the fundamental building blocks of matter, was rejected by Physical Review Letters. It was eventually issued as a CERN report.

        Berson and Yalow’s work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

        Krebs’ work on the citric acid cycle, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by Nature. It was published in Experientia.

        Wiesner’s paper introducing quantum cryptography was initially rejected, finally appearing well over a decade after it was written.

        To sum up: there is very little reliable evidence about the effect of peer review available from systematic studies; peer review is at best an imperfect filter for validity and quality; and peer review sometimes has a chilling effect, suppressing important scientific discoveries.
        [end of quote]


        Report this

        401

        • #
          ROM

          Perhaps I could suggest that Jo’s denizens could wander over sometime to the Retraction Watch blog.
          Certainly there are I think about 50,000 science papers published each year across all languages although English is the international language of science as well as of global trade and commerce.

          I regularly visit Retraction Watch to see what really amounts to the tip of the iceberg as far as fraudulent science is concerned but it is still an interesting look inside of sciences smelliest entrails to see that far from being the holy without sin pursuit of purity which scientists like to promote as a way of elevating their own standings as scientists, that science across all of it’s disciplines is just as low down and dirty as any other trade or profession.

          You will find the Retraction Watch article on the withdrawal of those 120 papers there and the comment that those 120 papers were only found in the lesser well known publications and the most prominent science publications weren’t even looked at.

          There is a great deal about science today and the apparently increasing incidence of corruption of data, analysis and publication that should be arousing a very big public stink indeed particularly as most science today is being funded by the hard earned of the very residents who are expected to kowtow and tug the forelock every time some certain so called scientists walks past.
          Conversely there are a lot of quite humble very skillful scientists who are just getting on with their research and hoping like hell that the odour of corrupted science won’t come through their door and bite them as well. I know some of those guys and gals and cannot praise them enough.

          One very diffident little guy that nobody would give a thought to and just pass by just happens to be regarded as arguably and possibly the best grain crop geneticist in the world .
          He’s the type of scientists whose science will almost guarantee that the world’s peoples will still be adequately fed as the global population soars up to around the 9 billion mark before fully stabilising and then starting on the long slow decline of our human numbers by about 2050 or 2060. This guy alone is worth some hundreds or even thousands of climate scientists to the future of humanity and our freedom from hunger in a world of increasing population and a probability of declining global temperatures with all that entails for the future of global food production.
          And he’s the guy that the plant breeders turn to and ask what is the likely outcome or what varieties should be crossed and bred to get the next lift in yields or disease resistance in the various food crops such as wheat, barley rice and etc.
          And he is in demand in crop research establishments across all of Australia and Asia as well as other nations that rely on the similar type of crops to those we grow here.

          But will he ever get any public recognition of any type except from those who know him in the grains research science industry ?

          No way and yet some stand up and ignorant comic who calls themselves climate scientists gets all sorts of publicity from the media and funding plus, plus for even more abjectly disgusting so called climate science that does nothing for anybody except to deliberately create even more fear as a way to get even more funding.

          To quote from the Retraction Watch’s “withdrawing 120 nonsense papers” article;

          “…Retraction Watch readers may recall that it was Applied Mathematics Letters — a non-open-access journal published by Elsevier — that published a string of bizarre papers, including one that was retracted because it made “no sense mathematically” and another whose corresponding author’s email address was “ohm@budweiser.com.”

          With about 500 retractions per year in 2012 and 2013, these 120-plus — if they show up as retractions in databases — could make 2014 another record-breaking year.


          Report this

          120

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          ‘Myth number 2: peer review is reliable’ well nothing is 100% guaranteed, except death, but it is the best system be have, so what valid system would you use instead?


          Report this

          014

          • #
            JenJ

            They want us to disbelieve real science and rely instead on Christopher Monckton.


            Report this

            09

          • #
            PaulM

            Oh I don’t know, maybe a system where methodology, results of experimentation, breakdown of assumptions, breakdown of uncertainties, complete unmodified data sets and such trivialities are freely available for validation and falsification by other scientific bodies.

            Or is that too 19th century for you?


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Robert JM

            Science works by falsification,
            First a researcher comes up with a theory, then they try to prove it wrong.
            If they fail to prove it wrong they write a paper about it, then send it to a journal for three other people to try and prove it wrong.
            If they fail to prove it wrong they publish it in their journal and send it out to their readers who then try to prove it wrong.
            If they fail to prove it wrong then it becomes an accepted fact until some really smart bugger comes along in the future and proves it wrong. (like say the high school student who discovered that the black currents in ribena did not in fact contain more Vitamin C than Orange Juice)

            The moral of the story is that publication in a scientific journal proves nothing, since proof is a mathematical construct!


            Report this

            21

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            See Myth number 1 – “Scientists have always used peer review”

            They have not always done so. I am with Fly, on this one. “Peer review is there to protect the reputation of the Journal”.

            You submit a paper to a Journal, and the Editor says, “Hmm, I am not sure I understand what this is all about, so I will ask A, B, and C, for their opinion”. A, B, and C, come back with comments and suggested changes, and the paper either gets published or not, as the case may be. But there is nothing in the scientific process that forces the editor to get a peer review. If he or she doesn’t, and the Journal has to retract the paper (which still sometimes happens, in spite of peer review), then the Editor may loose his or her job, but that still has no bearing on science.


            Report this

            30

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Regarding The Myths,

          1. Scientists have not always used peer review.

          Correct. Peer review became necessary when science ceased to be an activity carried out by a small group of people who presented their findings to each other at meetings, wrote to each other and published their findings in books. The consensus they formed as to the validity of these studies contituted a method of peer review.

          2. Peer review is reliable.

          Agree with BA4. How do you define reliable?

          3. Peer review is the way we determine what’s right and wrong in science.

          No. It is a quality control method whereby a scientific manuscript submitted to a journal is assessed as to whether or not it is rigorous and important enough to merit publication in that journal.

          As for those papers allegedly “suppressed” by peer review. Reasons for the rejection by the journals are not given. But one example does illustrate a point:

          Berson and Yalow’s work on radioimmunoassay, which led to a Nobel Prize, was rejected by both Science and the Journal of Clinical Investigation. It was eventually published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

          In this case the paper failed to be accepted at first was accepted later. This is very common. The reviewers often suggest more work needs to be done. The researcher goes away and does it, improving the paper and it is published. That is one example of the benefits of peer review.

          Also, it is very common for a paper to be found not suitable by a particular journal (for a variety of reasons)and subsequently be accepted by another.

          Also note that all the “suppressed” science was published. And there is no list of all those groundbreaking papers which where published without a hitch.

          To say “Ah well we don’t know what important papers were suppressed because they never saw the light of day is a totally unscientific non-testable non-falsifiable hypothesis.


          Report this

          15

      • #
        Vic G Gallus

        BA4, what the hell is the validity of science?

        The Xenophon quote “No human being will ever know the truth, for even if they happened to say it by chance, they would not know they had done so.” is common to most collections of memorable quotes in science. Is this perverse or an unqualified view? What are your qualifications to insist otherwise?

        The publication has name that needs to be protected, as do the authors. Science is a method. Your point is like insisting that the validity of writing needs to be protected from romance novels.


        Report this

        140

      • #
        Greg Cavanagh

        Publishers are simply companies specialising in publishing within a scientific discipline. Their primary role is to find enough articles within the remit of their magazine which is of interest to their readers and correct according to the author’s peers.

        The science is not really within their grasp. And certainly not “…to protect, as far as possible, the validity of science”.

        They are first and foremost a company. The product of the company is a magazine. They don’t even write the material that goes into the magazine. They are not in control of the “science”.


        Report this

        90

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Greg. The editorial advisory panel and the editor in chief of each journal are emminent scientists in the field. The editor-in-chief may no longer be engaged in full time research. They are certainly interested in the validity of the science.

          They do not have to find enough articles to publish. The most prestigious in particular receive far, far more manuscripts than they can publish.

          True, the publishers are driven by profit motive. And they make profits because people are willing to subscribe to a journal. And subscribers do so because they trust the journal. No publisher of a respected journal is going to trash the brand by publishing shoddy science.

          So they get experts in the field to look over each manuscript to see if it merits publication.

          That system is called peer review.


          Report this

          13

    • #
      The Griss

      “And its purpose is to keep bad research out of the scientific literature”

      Well, its failed miserably with respect to climate science then.

      And when papers like the Lew/Cook paper get through.. it has obviously failed miserably in psychology, too.

      —-

      I’m guessing that your posts are written by a seriously dumbed-down “gibberish” program.

      Or that might actually be you.. but how would anyone tell the difference !


      Report this

      160

      • #
        JenJ

        How so?

        Which published papers concerning climate science have been found to have been wrong?


        Report this

        028

        • #
          Heywood

          Oh look! A new troll.

          Anyone want to hazard a guess which banned troll this is a reincarnation of?


          Report this

          140

        • #
          PeterK

          Almost every last one of them!


          Report this

          90

        • #

          JenJ turn that question around. It’s not “which ones are wrong”.
          Which published papers have been found to be right?

          Not the ones based on climate models.
          Not the ones that made predictions about rain, clouds, drought, humidity or feedbacks.


          Report this

          381

          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            Not any of them that made a prediction of any sort.


            Report this

            100

          • #
            JenJ

            Very little of the academic literature on this subject is as obsessed with “predictions” as you apparently are, and yet the projections based on observed data have been found to be either spot on or too conservative.
            Sea level for example is rising faster than predicted, as is ice loss.

            The predictions that were inarguably wrong were the ones you touted here:
            Easterbrook: completely wrong.
            McLean: utterly wrong.
            Akasofu: wrong.

            [JenJ you need to lift your game and support your claims with references. You seem totally unaware of the extremely poor record of climate science predictions and moving goal posts in what we were told was settled science. You only need to look at the plethora of 'explanations' for the temperature pause to see not only didn't the science predict the pause, they can't explain it! - Mod]


            Report this

            010

          • #
            • #
              Vince Whirlwind

              That’s the one I was going to suggest.

              And then compare it with some of the crud published by Jo’s favourite cranks: Lindzen got it completely wrong. He got it wrong for two reasons:
              1/ He was adamant that sensitivity is very low
              2/ He refused to base his estimation of sensitivity on empirical data, instead making it a an object of faith that sensitivity is about 0.5.

              We’ve seen this kind of junk science posted here on this blog. For example, this trash here:
              http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/global-cooling-coming-archibald-uses-solar-and-surface-data-to-predict-4-9c-fall/

              David Archibald!? I mean, why? Who could possibly look at this guy’s “work” and bother reading it, let alone re-publishing it?


              Report this

              05

        • #
          James Bradley

          JJ, all that rely on climate models or catastrophic predictions.


          Report this

          130

          • #
            JenJ

            Name any papers that “rely on catastrophic predictions”, whatever that means.

            [Jen you are not being genuine if you seriously expect readers to believe you are unaware of published papers which make catastrophic predictions. Ocean acidity will destroy the Great Barrier Reef, the Antarctic Ice Sheet will slip off and cause catastrophic rise in sea levels, glaciers and Arctic ice will disappear, the Polar bears will starve, tens of millions of climate refugees, Pacific islands will be swamped, bush fires more prevalent, extreme weather events more prevalent. Where have you been for the last 20 years? - Mod]


            Report this

            010

            • #
              DirkH

              Everything from Schellnhuber.


              Report this

              20

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Moderator – Please. You mean all those posts by skeptics here backed by references?

              And don’t get me started again on posts that contain nothing but personal abuse.


              Report this

              04

              • #
                Vic G Gallus

                You mean this own goal.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Vic, I take it you are refering to this paper:

                http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

                The author of the critique has indeed kicked an own goal. He really should have read the paper more thoroughly.

                Fig 1 does indeed show Hansen’s calculations for the CO2 contribution only to temperature anomoly for various model scenarios.

                But Nowhere does Hansen claim that is the whole story.

                He specifically states that the CO2 temperature signal will not rise out of the natural signal until the 1980′s.

                So yes, the natural forcings dominate up to the 1940′s

                The author’s overlay of temperature data on to figure 1 is essentially the same as that of fig 5 in the paper, (although of course Hansen’s temperature data only go up to 1980) which also shows how two natural forcings and CO2 combined account for the temperature record.


                Report this

                02

            • #
              Vince Whirlwind

              Do you have references for any of that, “mod”?


              Report this

              02

            • #
              Vince Whirlwind

              None of what you mention appears to be in the IPCC report.

              You’re turning out to be a bit of ana alarmist, aren’t you?


              Report this

              03

        • #
          Geoff Sherrington

          JenJ
          For a non-political, science-based overview as at January 2014, do read and digest the implications of a day-long discussion between 6 climate experts before a committee of the American Physical Society. with the transcript to be found at
          http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

          You should read the 570 pages. They might change your views forever. This is one of the first formal places where the whole GHG hypothesis as elucidated by modelling is admitted to be under serious doubt.


          Report this

          80

      • #
        The Griss

        I used to keep track…. but that hard drive crashed from an overload.


        Report this

        100

      • #
        Robert JM

        You just need to place the word “pseudo” in front any word starting with “science” and all these things start to make sense.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Vince Whirlwind

          Here: I found some junk-science that was unable to make it past the peer-review process:
          http://climaterealists.com/?id=7349
          John McLean used his limited grasp of mathematics to predict 2012 would be the “coldest year since 1956″.
          Loser!

          Just imagine if the *real* scientists were ever caught out getting it as wrong as McLean???


          Report this

          03

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            The thing is Vince, even if the science behind these predictions is corect it in no way invalidates AGW.

            This one says a cold spell is expected due to ENSO. Elsewhere there is a link to Don Easterbrook who says that we are in for a 25 to 30 year cooling cycle due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

            6.3.1.1.2
            The Griss
            February 27, 2014 at 12:31 pm

            So how does this (if correct) invalidate AGW? It doesn’t. What happens when these natural forcings (ENSO and PDO) revert to a warming phase, reinforcing rather than counteracting the effects of increasing CO2 concentration?

            Mind you I have some doubts as to Easterbrook’s credibility. “Easterbrook noted that 32,000 American scientists have signed a statement that there’s no correlation between climate change and carbon dioxide levels.”

            There is no such statement.

            Unless Easterbrook is referring to the “petition” launched with a fake “article” tricked up to look like a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, who strongly objected, people need only to claim to have a batchelor’s degree (‘or equivalent’) in a science related disipline, (Dr Gerri Halliwell aka Ginger Spice is a “signatory”) There is no provision for people who signed in 1998 and have since changed their views to have their names reviewed, the dead who can never change their minds remain on the petition etc etc.

            Furthermore the alleged temperature trend on Easterbrook’s graphs graph since 1998

            http://www.cnsnews.com/image/easterbrook-prediction-0

            shows temperatures in the 16 years since the 1998 el nino peak being lower than in the 16 preceeding years which is not evident on any of these data sets:

            http://tinyurl.com/mdnls3u


            Report this

            02

    • #
      Another Graeme

      BA, lets be blunt, if “Papers are excluded if the mistakes and flaws are very obvious”, then how the f@#K did Lewandowsky ever get published?


      Report this

      250

    • #
      Heywood

      “‘so much for “peer review”‘,well it’s the best system there is”

      Clearly it is broken. Did you actually read the article Jo posted or see the words ‘peer review’ and selected the appropriate pre-prepared propaganda video and quote to cut and paste in?

      I’ll go with the latter.


      Report this

      90

    • #
      DirkH

      blackadderthe4th
      February 26, 2014 at 2:41 am · Reply
      “‘so much for “peer review”‘,well it’s the best system there is. What other method could be used?”

      says a guy who named himself after a comedy figure whose status declines in each generation.


      Report this

      20

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      Fly, BA4′s post cannot be adequately summarised as “Peer review exists, solely to protect the reputation of the Publication”.

      The reputation of the publication never enters my mind when I review a manuscript.

      Reviewers are only interested in whether the science stands up to scrutiny.

      The reputation of the publication, which editors and publishers naturally care about, is a secondary consequence of the peer review system.


      Report this

      03

      • #
        Truthseeker

        Philip, peer review can never be more than a technical proof reading exercise. After all, if someone is try to publish some new discovery, how can any reviewer judge this by known science. History is littered with major discoveries that could not get “peer reviewed”. In some cases, a person may not have any real “peers” in their specific area of expertise.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Philip Shehan

          Truthseeker,

          Newton was one of those peerless scientists, yet even he acknowledged that he was ‘one who discovers by building on previous discoveries’:

          “If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants”

          Most science is an exercise in making small increments which does not upset the existing applecart, and reviewers are those who are qualified to assess the rigour of the experimental method and data, and whether the author’s interpretation of the data and conclusions are justified.

          Even what Kuhn called ‘paradigm shifting’ or revolutionary discoveries are based on existing scientific principles and mathematics and application of inductive reasoning.

          Einstein was another peerless scientist who realised that Newton’s picture of the universe could not explain certain observations made subsequent to his death and had the unique insight to overturn existing assumptions about the supposed distinction between matter and energy, the nature of space and time, and the behaviour of light. But he was able to convince other scientists of his views because the mathematics and his reasoning followed accepted norms and accounted for the existing observations.

          No progress in science would be possible is scientists, including those exceptional ones, could not demonstrate the validity of their arguments to other scientists.


          Report this

          02

          • #
            Truthseeker

            Philip your view of peer review is clearly shaped by your own attitude to it, and it had the characteristics of honest appraisal when science was not political. The corruption of science by politics has affected all aspects of it, and those that want a “message” propagated instead of insight will use it as a gatekeeper to prevent contrary opinions from seeing the light of day and allowing like minded trash be given the power of authority which gets back to my original point near the start of this thread.

            It does not matter what it has been, it only matters what it is. Peer review has been corrupted beyond the point it can ever be trusted again. It is much better that scientists present their work in an open way and let those who disagree provide repeatable evidence of where the work is wrong … if they can. Opinions are pointless in science.


            Report this

            10

  • #
    Eddy Aruda

    No matter what tools are available to humans they are still human. The internet, smartphones, or computers it doesn’t matter because people do not evolve as fast as the technology they use.

    Piltdown man took years to expose. Although we have the benefit of modern technology we don’t seem to be able to catch on any faster than we use to. It seems that although the internet has eased the grip that the TV networks use to have on the flow of information things haven’t really changed much. Now, the BS just flies through the internet in larger volumes with less oversight. Ant idiot with a website and an internet connection can lie his ass off and rarely be held accountable. Of course, if someone speaks to the truth in a manner that inconveniences anyone or anything with a vested interest in maintaining a fraud then that person is in for an organized systematic attack. The more money at stake the greater the attack will be.

    BS research is nothing new. You can tell a warmist that his appeal to authority is not only illogical but is based upon a naive belief that if it’s peer reviewed then it is the unvarnished truth.

    It always amazes me how the warmist will almost always believe that anyone that is a skeptic is on the payroll of “big oil.” I have often asked warmist on various sites to show me proof (e.g. SEC filings showing a money trail from oil companies to skeptics) and have never once had my request acknowledged let alone granted.

    It always gets down to the money. If you do anything that may threaten the taxpayer funded gravy train for corrupt scientists you had better have your ass covered eight ways to Sunday because they will be coming after you. No, they won’t use clubs and pitchforks but they will use the internet as a cyber weapon. The media? They are more than happy to conspire as long as it is good for ratings and conforms to their political ideology!

    Until this scam hits enough people in their wallets there will be no end to this fraud. Hopefully, sites such as Jo’s will hasten the day. one can only hope! :-)


    Report this

    501

    • #
      Mark D.

      Eddy, to expand on this:

      It always amazes me how the warmist will almost always believe that anyone that is a skeptic is on the payroll of “big oil.” I have often asked warmist on various sites to show me proof (e.g. SEC filings showing a money trail from oil companies to skeptics) and have never once had my request acknowledged let alone granted.

      Too many warmists get their information and confirmation from such places as Sourcewatch and even Wiki, where the information is distorted by propagandists. Sourcewatch is horribly biased, is tied to people and organizations with a treacherous political agenda and Wiki can’t be trusted either. Based on this bad information, the Left side of warmism is equally if not more prone to their conspiracy theories and particularly about imagined funding of skeptics.

      How can all this end when there is so much mis-information?


      Report this

      190

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      One of the earliest examples of this, appeared in an April edition of an electronics magazine (which may have been from the IEEE), published at a time when Integrated Circuits were new age.

      It was entitled, “A New WOM, from Dignetics”, and referred to a Write-Only Memory (WOM) chip with applications in, “don’t-care buffer stores”, and “postmortem preemption systems”. The article was in the format of a technical specification sheet, that got more and more ludicrous the further one read. The closing remark said, “The device can be easily cooled by the application of a six-foot fan, mounted 1 half inch from the mounting bracket assembly.

      It was the April edition …


      Report this

      240

      • #
        jorgekafkazar

        These April Fool papers go back a long way. I remember the head of the Astronomy Department telling me of the 1952 Schuss Yucca paper by Gus Albrecht.

        The following link includes information on Schuss Yucca (originally published by Schmutzig u. Dreckig Verlag, according to the author), as well as other, earlier hoaxes.


        Report this

        20

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I can sort of understand Piltdown man, though it was examined by experts over the years. It was never open for anyone to understand, or access to anyone to look at.

      Global Warming, it accessible to everybody on the planet. It’s a simple observation based decision “is the weather getting worse in my lifetime?”. If you ignore the media and look at your own observations, after a number of years one could only conclude that it is not. I know the media will confuse some, but not all.


      Report this

      190

      • #
        JenJ

        Luckily, we have something far more reliable than simple personal observations: comprehensive records collected with scientific equipment by the relevant science agencies.

        http://www.csiro.au/greenhouse-gases/

        http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries

        http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/

        The data are unequivocal: CO2 is increasing, the globe is warming, sea level is rising.
        There is no denying these basic facts.


        Report this

        037

        • #
          The Griss

          1. Yes CO2 is rising, but there is zero evidence that this causes any sort of warming.

          2. No, the global temperature has plateaued, for something like 7 years.. It is NOT currently warming. It did slightly from 1970-2000 as part of the natural warming/cooling cycle.

          3. Recent evidence is that sea level rise is decelerating. Sea level has been rising for a few hundred years, nothing to do with CO2.

          You really must learn to keep up with “the real facts”, and not just rely on your brain-washed propaganda mis-information.

          Maybe go and get a post-junior high education first, try to build a capability to actually learn.


          Report this

          220

          • #
            The Griss

            2. typo.. that should be 17 years.

            In fact since the ElnNino settled in 2001, there is evidence of a slight cooling trend.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/plot/rss/from:2001.1/plot/rss/from:2001.1/trend

            If you understand how ElNino’s works, you will see that the ElNino of 1998 actually interrupted a basically steady cycle of slight warming and cooling about mid way through 1997

            The 1998 ElNino caused a step rise of approximately 0.3C to the atmosphere as it realised energy in an attempt to rebalance due to the lazy solar cycle.

            Also note that the 2010 ElNino did not cause a step jump. In fact it settled to the same slight cooling trend as before. Very ominous. A protracted cooling is the very last thing the world needs at the moment. Electricity systems in many parts of the world are in a very fragile state due to renewable energy agenda.

            But unfortunately, from here, the most likely scenario is a slight steepening of the cooling trend, because it is almost totally solar driven.


            Report this

            151

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Griss. So no warming for 17 years but warming as usual for the last 15 years:

              http://tinyurl.com/nyjroxe

              And Yes, solar cycles and ENSO, among other factors, are important determinants of global temperatures.

              http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5960/1646/F8.expansion.html


              Report this

              03

              • #
                The Griss

                Again your feeble little graph shows you have absolutely zero understanding on how anything in the climate works. Your ignorance is continually exposed for all to see.

                You again use just UAH which shows slight upward trend after 2000 only because it did not register as much ElNino jump as all three other temperature records.

                Giss, RSS, Hadcrut, all show level or a slight decline this century.

                You know that, yet you continue with your moronic little propaganda exercises.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                The Griss

                A question.. do you have trained monkey doing your linear trend graphs?

                or is that really you.. seriously ?????


                Report this

                10

              • #
                The Griss

                And just to help your little monkey along. This is the reality since the 1998 ElNino settled down.

                I suppose if I adjusted the scale on the CO2, I could make it nearly flat as well, just so there was a correlation…. in your monkey’s mind, anyway.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Griss, why is my feeble little graph any worse than your feeble little graph?

                Or are you asserting that your monkey is better trained than mine?

                I understood it to be your oft and vehemently stated opinion that Giss and Hadcrut data is hopelessly corrupted, yet here you are using them to support your argument.

                Here are both the satellite data sets:

                http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1979/mean:12/plot/uah/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/offset:-0.1/plot/rss/mean:12/offset:-0.1

                They show no real difference as far as the 1998 el nino event is concerned. Indeed contrary to your assertion, it is the Giss and Hadcrut data that show a smaller el nino peak than the satellite data.

                http://tinyurl.com/lch3xmy

                But as the ENSO contribution is not dependent on CO2 concentration, temperature data sets that are highly dependent on el nino peaks tell us nothing about the dependence of temperature upon CO2. None of the temperature trends for this century are statistically significant. But the data sets from 1979 which are not overly influenced by a single year or enso contributions in general, which tend to average out over 35 years are statistically significant and in agreement.

                UAH 0.14 ±0.07°C/decade (2σ)
                RSS 0.13 ±0.07 °C/decade (2σ)
                Giss 0.16 ±0.04 °C/decade (2σ)
                Hadcrut4 0.15 ±0.04 °C/decade (2σ)

                You are correct that the scaling of the CO2 data to the temperature data on the graphs are arbitrary, but the fact is that there is no evidence that the correlation is any worse recently compared to 1958 when Muana loa data began to be collected.

                http://tinyurl.com/kftqn8j

                What is not arbitrary is the temperature rise with doubling of CO2 for the periods from 1850 (when global instrumental data became available), 1958 (when muana loa data began to be collected) and 1979 (when satellite data began) which are statistically significant and in agreement:

                2.04 ± 0.07 °C
                2.01 ± 0.38 °C
                1.80 ± 0.91 °C


                Report this

                02

          • #
            JenJ

            1. Wrong. The greenhouse effect has been observed and documented over the past 150 years. Nobody seriously denies that CO2′s absorption spectrum works to trap heat.

            2. There is no such thing as a global climate trend discernable over 7 years. Suggesting it is is a nonsense.

            3. False. The science says the exact opposite. Where do you get your misinformation?

            [Can I suggest 'The Griss and JenJ provide supporting references for your claims otherwise you could trade claim after claim without getting anywhere. - Mod]


            Report this

            010

            • #
              Vic G Gallus

              Can I suggest for people to remember that posters like JenJ are not here for a discussion. She is here for anyone stumbling on the blog and in two minds, hoping that a single cutting remark to one of the comments will ruin the reputation of all sceptics.

              Keep replies to one point or two and relevant to a curious bystander, as the mod has done. She’ll never be convinced and most people reading don’t need more convincing.

              PS did anyone notice Gee Aye has 8 green thumbs?


              Report this

              40

            • #
              The Griss

              I corrected the 7 years to 17 years.. as per IPCC, Met Office, and many other climate alarmist quotes..(I don’t bother keeping links to these quotes, they have been shown many times in many places.)

              The main part of #6.3.1.1.1 are self-evident from the WFT graph linked.

              Cooling is predicted by the likes of Don Easterbrook and most other solar scientists. (Again, I do not keep links, but this guy does )
              Also a discussion at WUWT, which JenJ might like to take her monumental intelligence to.

              As for CO2 having a greenhouse effect, I suggest you read this. And do try to keep up.


              Report this

              30

            • #
            • #
              The Griss

              ps. CO2 absorbs heat in a very specific wavelength. then re-emits immediately.

              There are no “hot” little CO2 molecules hanging around in the atmosphere. That is not a gaseous possibility.

              Any absorbed energy is immediately transferred to any of the surrounding 99.96% of the atmosphere and becomes part of the natural temperature gradient that is controlled by atmospheric pressure.

              CO2 does not and can not “trap” heat in the atmosphere.


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                Griss. CO2 does not re-emit radiation immediately. Some is re-emitted over time. Some of the energy is converted into kinetic energy within the molecules. This extra kinetic energy manifests itself as a rise in temperature of the sample.

                If the C=O bond immediately re-emitted the infra red energy, there would be no strong absorbtion band in the infra red spectra of organic molecules containing the C=O bond.


                Report this

                02

              • #
                The Griss

                Oh so there are lots of hot little CO2 molecules roaming about in the atmosphere.

                B***S*** !!

                Any tiny gain in kinetic energy is immediately passed to the other 99.96% of the atmosphere and disposed of via convective and conductive balancing.


                Report this

                10

            • #
              Truthseeker

              Junkj, you say …

              Wrong. The greenhouse effect has been observed and documented over the past 150 years. Nobody seriously denies that CO2′s absorption spectrum works to trap heat.

              There has been precisely no observed of documented examples of the greenhouse effect ever. Please produce just one for our education. All physicists will deny that any free flowing gas traps heat. It is just not a property of gas.

              Here is some actual science based on publically available observational data that cannot find any greenhouse effect in the atmosphere …


              Report this

              40

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Griss. Your opinions seem to be at variance with those of respondents to the survey Jo highlighted recently:

            A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen

            A recent survey of those participating in on-line forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals most degree qualified and around a third with post graduate qualifications. The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO2 and the effect it might have on global temperatures. The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. 81% agreed that global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81% also agreed that CO2 is a warming gas. But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.


            Report this

            05

            • #
              The Griss

              “Griss. Your opinions seem to be at variance with those of respondents to the survey Jo highlighted recently’

              So f***ing what !!!!!


              Report this

              00

              • #
                Vince Whirlwind

                So…it means you’re out on a limb. Even your fellow-deniers pretend they don’t actually deny the science. Not very successfully, I grant you, but they are aware that denying there is such a thing as the greenhouse effect would pretty much end what little credibility they already have.


                Report this

                04

              • #
                The Griss

                Sorry you are still stuck on the mis-interpretations of 150 year old experiments. Not my problem.

                There is lot of more modern work from real scientists and atmospheric physicist that concludes that the so-called greenhouse effect hypothesis is a total furphy.

                Your lack of credibility in all matters pertaining to climate science is because you refuse to do any research on sites other than SkS, and other sites bent on deliberate mi-information.

                To start making comments with even a remote amount of credibility, you really need to stop acting as a parrot, and start thinking. An action I doubt you are even capable of.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                The Griss

                There has been precisely no observed of documented examples of the greenhouse effect ever.

                Please produce just one for our education.

                All physicists will deny that any free flowing gas traps heat. It is just not a property of gas.


                Report this

                10

            • #
              The Griss

              Again, your tiny little brain seems to needs an outside consensus before it can operate.

              Are you a brainless robot…… your intelligence certainly seems to be purely artificial.


              Report this

              10

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Interesting that you highlighted the phrases that you wanted people to read, but didn’t highlight the key finding of the survey.

              Nobody who studies this subject disagrees that CO2 level are rising, but we have yet to see any correlation, let alone causation, with temperature.

              You also misquote the second point where you omit the word “some” before the word “increase” to imply that all of the increase was anthropogenic – naughty boy. What about outgassing from the Oceans, what about emissions from volcanic vents. Sloppy propaganda, if it can be so easily dismissed. I do wish you guys would do it right.

              You were clever to say that temperatures had increased over the 20th century, because on aggregate they did, lucky you didn’t say “the last two or three decades’ otherwise the answers would have been different, eh?

              And finally, nobody argues that Carbon Dioxide is not a warming gas, we just think it is an insignificant one, compared to some others.

              But the king hit (which I am sure you would have put in two-point font if you could have done) was that nobody thinks any of this really matters. It is just nature doing its thing, with a tiny bit of help from us, which is OK, given that we are also part of nature.


              Report this

              40

        • #
          Vic G Gallus

          Here is an extract from an abstract from a Science article (the Journal).

          It is found that the GMSL rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012. This deceleration is mainly due to the slowdown of ocean thermal expansion in the Pacific during the last decade,

          That is, they found the rate of sea level rise is much smaller (since they added the Argos data?) even though the heat is hiding in the oceans, which it wasn’t doing before.

          Although, it could have been computer generated spam.


          Report this

          130

        • #
          Mark D.

          Luckily, we have

          The data are unequivocal: CO2 is increasing, the globe is warming, sea level is rising. There is no denying these basic facts.

          There is no denying these basic facts.

          Maybe yes maybe no. But what about attribution?


          Report this

          40

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          JenJ. Let’s question some of these facts:

          CO2 is increasing at a linear rate. Why is this, when industry and population is not linear?

          There was a mini ice age, the peak of which was 140 years ago. The world has slowly warmed since then. My question is, so what? You would expect the world to warm when coming out of a cold period.

          Sea levels have been rising uniformly since the little ice age. Of course measuring the average of a fluid on a rotating sphere is a challenge. The measurements are a bit up & down, and not everybody agrees with the numbers produced. But there is no accelerating increase in the rate of rise.

          Correlation between two things does not identify Causation.


          Report this

          110

        • #
          bullocky

          =
          JenJ…….(a bit like ‘BilB’)……”The data are unequivocal: CO2 is increasing, the globe is warming, sea level is rising.
          There is no denying these basic facts.”
          -
          Looking at the data, we can see that global warming and sea level rise precede CO2 increase. We can also see that global warming can virtually stop while CO2 continues to rise.
          -
          The data are unequivocal.


          Report this

          40

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            … global warming and sea level rise precede CO2 increase …

            If you warm the ocean, it expands, and it outgases CO2. Two correlations. Hmm, I wonder if they could be connected in some way?


            Report this

            30

            • #
              The Griss

              What? As a recovery from a mini ice age..

              What weird suggestion.

              I’m sure these fools think it should be snowing in Sydney or something.

              Message to all climate alarmists… warm is nice, enjoy it while you can.

              Your children and grandchildren may not be so lucky.


              Report this

              20

              • #
                Vince Whirlwind

                I think you should show greater scepticism of the “recovery from the little ice age” story.

                A “recovery”, by definition, has to be a movement of the same magnitude but in the opposite direction to the event it succeeds.

                So, check it yourself – what was the temperature variation across the event some people call the “little ice age”? When, by definition, did the “recovery” end?
                For bonus points: what evidence can you find that the “little ice age” was a global climate event?


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                What evidence is there that anything is a global event, other than those caused by the rotation and declination of the earth as it orbits the sun?


                Report this

                00

              • #
                The Griss

                “A “recovery”, by definition, has to be a movement of the same magnitude but in the opposite direction to the event it succeeds”

                You are right.

                After the MWP, the LIA.. and we have not got up anywhere near the temps of the MWP yet.. so we have not really fully recovered from the LIA yet.

                Seriously, you seem to be stretching even your almost non-existent credibility by suggesting that the LIA didn’t exist.

                There have been several papers that have provided convincing evidence that the LIA was global, probably starting in the Southern Hemisphere.

                Because I think it is very important for your education, I leave you to find them, as your homework.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                The Griss

                And unfortunately, its beginning to look like the partial recovery may have ended. A real pity. :-(

                Each warm era seems to be cooler and shorter than the one before.

                Someone used the phrase.. “Current Slightly Warm Period.”, which seems pretty apt.


                Report this

                00

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Not even as good as Meat Loaf. You only got 1 out of 3.

          #1 – Co2 is rising – true
          #2 – The globe is warming – False It HAS warmed.
          #3 – Sea levels are rising – As they have been for the past 150 years, 100 years longer than Global warming was SUPPOSED to be happening.


          Report this

          40

        • #
          ianhilliar

          Actually, JenJ, sea levels have been rising for about 20,000 years. The aborigines did not cross Bass Strait by canoe, they walked. After the last ice age, which lasted 100,000 years, sea levels rose 125 METERS over about 15,000 years. They have continued to rise over the last 5,000 years at a much slower, variable rate of approximately 70 cm every 100 years. This is not shown uniformly around the world, as some land areas are sinking slowly while others are rising. The tide gauge for Fort Denison in Sydney Harbour shows only about a centimeter over the last 100 years, so I really don’t think you have to worry on that score. Same with Tuvalu, etc, etc. The recent noise from the Marshal Islands was all about sending money, not about actual physical science.


          Report this

          70

          • #
            KinkyKeith

            Good outline Ian.

            Fact is that the oceans really have been in a recovery period for the last 7,000 years or so.

            Recovering from the big rise you mentioned which lasted about 13,000 years.

            There has been some considerable slop up and down but over the last three or four thousand years sea levels have dropped about 1.2 metres.

            So much for sea level rise.

            KK :)


            Report this

            10

      • #
        Robert JM

        Of course weather is getting worse over our lifetimes.
        Human perception of time is proportional to the total time experienced, so evenly spaced events seem to speed up over your lifetime.
        Therefor weather will appear to be worse because severe events will appear to occur more frequently as a consequence of human time perception.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      A good time to test my avatar.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Eddy,
      The amount of pseudo science around us (and our children and their children) is increasing alarmingly.
      Some examples.
      1. Womens’ cosmetics, often made from mud, sold at huge prices with the aid of chemical-sounding gibberish names.
      2. Seaweed extracts sold as horticultural ‘tonics’ with a large profit margin. They have no adequate level of any known chemical hormone of an auxin type. They exist as a product of advertising effort.
      3. Jewels like diamonds, diamond being a form of carbon, whose value is artificially maintained by marketing strategy in a captive production scenario. A girl’s best friend etc.
      4. Homeopathic remedies, especially those where a supposed active chemical is diluted enormously, one of the big scientific cons that has got so far as being on medical rebate lists. It is sham 100%.
      5. Unleaded petrol. It remains to be proved that traces of lead ingested by children will lower their IQs. Yet the whole petrol for cars industry incurred huge costs and lower efficiency because the lead was deemed to be harmful. It has not been shown to be at the levels associated with leaded petrol and its residues.
      6. Foods with ‘anti oxidants’. This is entirely a marketing ploy. There is no nutritional chemistry known to support the claims.
      7. Weight loss diets. There are so many of these, some contradicting others, that some must logically be wrong. Again, a large industry has developed around sets of scientific claims that are unfounded or unproven.
      8. Water divining, dowsing etc. This has repeatedly been debunked, yet it refuses to lie down and die.
      9. The claim in relation to nuclear energy that waste must be managed for 25,000 or 250,000 years. This was a greenpeace invention that has no connection with reality. It is adequate to loosely manage waste for a few hundred years at most, by which time the radiation becomes about the same as the ore from which it was (safely) mined.
      10. Organic gardening, a current trendy, being push marketed by the ABC for some obscure reason. If organic gardening was so good, it should be adopted as the global norm. Unfortunately, if it was, millions of people would die from starvation.
      11. The threat that masturbation causes blindness. How many million susceptible young children were scared out of their wits by catholic brothers who were masters of the art?

      I could go on to 100, but that would get boring.

      I blame it partly on inbred educational processes that have been captured and hijacked from time to time by perverted people who are willing to knowingly misuse science and scientific observation. Those who supervise and approve educational curricula are the bad boys and girls here. We need a system design for education that has no critical nodes that can be hijacked by ideologues.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        Robert JM

        Antioxidants have massive benefits as has been demonstrated in animal based studies.
        Yes human studies have failed to build a statistically significant case because of the short time frames involved. You cannot undo damage with antioxidants, only prevent it in the first place which requires a lifetime of consumption. The Studies conducted did not consider the basis of action.
        There is plenty of indirect evidence from nutritional studies of antioxidant rich foods such as tea/fruit not that I place much faith in nutritional studies.
        If you hadn’t heard they have realised the fibre by itself has has no influence on reducing bowel cancer, it was in fact the other compounds in fibre rich foods that were responsible for the protective action, no prises for guessing what they are!


        Report this

        00

        • #
          markx

          Robert JM February 27, 2014 at 8:44 pm

          Hi Robert.

          Huge topic. Antioxidants have been shown to have great value when used in animal feeds, especially those which are stored for long periods of time and are subject to oxidation: This damages nutrient,especially vitamins. Unsaturated fatty acids are very prone to oxidation and release rancid-smelling flavor aldehydes derived from the fatty acids- some of these can be detected at levels of only a few ppm, and will result in feed rejection by the animal. So you get unpalatable feed, toxic and rancid compounds produced, reduced digestibility of amino acids, damaged vitamins, loss of fat soluble vitamins….

          So the main role of antioxidants? Extending storage times.

          Is eating them always good for you?
          There is not abundant literature on this, but the logical answer is that this is very likely to be the case. These are very reactive molecules, and can affect metabolic functions. There is a published study on specially bred mice which were ‘designed’ to produce excess levels of a natural antioxidant. This had severely detrimental effects on heart function. The mechanism was studied in detail and found to be due to severe reductive stress brought about by excess natural antioxidants: Rajasekaran et al.: “Human aB-Crystallin Mutation Causes Oxido-Reductive Stress and Protein Aggregation Cardiomyopathy in Mice.” Publishing in Cell 130, 427–439, August 10, 2007. DOI 10.1016/j.cell.2007.06.044 http://www.cell.com

          There is also repeated reference of human health sites on the internet advising people to not dose themselves to excess with readily available “antioxidant health supplements”.

          Fibre; Another huge topic: Soluble, insoluble, digestable, fermentable (by normal bacterial flora … hemicllulose, cellulose, pectins, lignans…

          Effects- prebiotic effects, encouraging the growth of useful or benign bacteria, and the products of bacterial fermentation, such as butyrate and proprionate, short chain fatty acids that play a major role in cellular energy metabolism, immune functions, act as an energy source for enterocytes..

          Well, let’s just say fibre is good for you, but it is not about ‘scrubbing the bowel”.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            markx

            Sorry, a meaning changing typo*:

            Is eating (antioxidants)always good for you?
            There is not abundant literature on this, but the logical answer is that this is very UN*likely to be the case.


            Report this

            00

  • #
  • #
    Joe V.

    The trouble with Climate Science papers though, is that while the results are largely computer generated, they are processed, massaged, melded and published by morons and I don’t know if Cyril yet has an algorithm for that.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      PeterS

      Another major problem with so called climate science papers (which are nothing of the sort – they are global warming frauds) is they make so many assumptions. So many in fact that they are totally useless. Depending on the assumptions used one could predict just about anything, from a major new ice age to a scorched earth environment, with literally thousands of variations in between. Might as well use astrology – probably would be better.


      Report this

      140

    • #
      Eliza Doodle

      You are far too generous Joe.
      While a there are copious collections of Climate Science papers worthy of a Social Science PhD, there are also many real science papers that only pay lip service to the Global Warming meme , to satisfy their funding commitments.


      Report this

      60

      • #
        Vince Whirlwind

        Of course, Eliza, you can provide evidence of the “many” science grants that contain the stipulation that the grantee “pay lip service to the global warming meme”?

        Because if you can’t, that makes you a liar.


        Report this

        02

  • #
    Bloke down the pub

    As long as they include a line that says that global warming is real and caused by man, they’ll get one of these papers into the next IPCC report.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Peter Miller

    I could not help myself, but when I finished reading the article, my first thought was Michael Mann.


    Report this

    170

    • #
      JenJ

      You’ve been at it for 15 years, and haven’t managed to debunk anything he published.

      Maybe this year will be the year, eh? Who’s taking bets?


      Report this

      028

      • #
        Greg S

        So he has finally published his data so we can examine it fully?

        I thought not.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          JenJ

          Trotting out the mythical lie about supposedly unpublished data marks you out for a liar or a dupe.

          Mann’s work has been replicated by about a dozen seperate studies and in each case Mann’s work was not debunked in any way whatsoever.


          Report this

          08

          • #
            Jaymez

            Jen your loyalty is admirable but misguided. If you replicate someone’s methodological errors to produce a hockey stick, you will produce a hockey stick. That doesn’t prove anything other than there are an awful lot of Climate Scientists who are poorly trained in statistical methods and/or who think it more important to act as cheer leaders to support their crumbling theory.

            As for Mann’s work not being debunked, if you limit your reading to Michael Mann’s tomes and SkepticalScience and Wikepedia I can forgive you having that impression. But the rest of the scientific world accept that:

            1. The Medieval Warm Period actually happened.
            2. Bristle Cone proxy temperature data is inherently unreliable and particularly so when you selectively exclude samples.
            3. You can’t whack on actual temperature records on to the end of your proxy temperature graph just because your proxy temperature records show the opposite to what you want and call that ‘scientifically accurate’, even if you say that’s what you did in the tiny print.
            4. The Little Ice Age was much more pronounced than is shown in Mann’s hockey stick graph.

            Mann himself has said his work was completely exonerated by a number of enquiries in his defamation case against Steyn. This will be shown to be patently untrue along with his claim to have been jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

            You should check out the extensive analysis of Mann’s claims by Steve McIntyre here: http://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/ and also his analysis of Mann’s claims to have been exonerated here: in six posts Feb 17 – 25 inclusive http://climateaudit.org/


            Report this

            60

            • #
              The Griss

              Come on Jaymez.. How can someone fresh out of junior high be expected to read and understand real statistics.


              Report this

              30

            • #
              Vince Whirlwind

              Jaymez, Jaymez, Jaymez…imagine an ego soooo big, you think you know better than the experts in an area in which you are untrained….

              1. The mediaeval warm period wasn’t warmer than today, and I don’t think anybody has proved that there was any such *global* event, in any case. Maybe I’m wrong…..have *you* checked?

              2. Weirdly, the bristle-cone studies give the *same* results as the ice core studies. And the bore-hole studies as well. Amazing! It’s almost as if the bristle-cone studies were reliable, eh? And it’s almost as if you have no idea what you’re talking about….

              3. The “divergence” issue. Well-documented. I thought everybody understood this. Not you, it seems. Here you go, start here:
              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem

              4. Got a reference for that? And I don’t mean some piece of crap posted to a kook-blog. Where’s your *science*?


              Report this

              02

          • #
            Robert JM

            The last time i checked the ability to to reproduce a turd did not change the aroma of the original.


            Report this

            10

          • #
            PhilJourdan

            Mann’s work has never been replicated. You lied.

            Others have tried to “support” mann’s work with works of their own, but since Mann refuses to release the raw data (the computer ate it), it has never been replicated.

            You should stop calling names when most of them apply to you.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        The Griss

        What little of his work that has been made available has been thoroughly trashed by real statisticians.

        And no, not this year or next, Mann will never release his data and methods… he cannot afford to.

        What’s the bet that if the courts actually order him to, it will just “disappear”.


        Report this

        170

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Yep, so much for repeatable science.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Vince Whirlwind

          Not sure where you got that idea.
          McKitrick and someone-or-other published an amateur-hour paper full of mistakes that had to be withdrawn. Maybe somebody told you what the conclusions of this paper were and you weren’t sceptical enough to double-check if it was credible?

          As far as I am aware, a panel was convened by the US government to study Mann’s statistics, and it came up with some minor suggestions for better stats that didn’t change the results. Pretty good work by Mann was the consensus of the *real* statistical experts.


          Report this

          02

          • #
            The Griss

            Mann is the only statistical amateur in that mix. And anyone that follows his rambling nonsense.

            All of the so called reviews were “mates” reviews.

            If you really believe Mann’s work is A-OK.. then contact him, and ask him to release everything, so it can be properly examined.

            Tell him to stop hiding behind lawyers and million dollar climate funds.

            Let the truth be told.. if you can handle it.


            Report this

            00

      • #
        James Bradley

        JJ, the result of the Nobel Lauriette’s upcoming defamation case may prove to be embarrassing.


        Report this

        100

      • #
        Peter Miller

        Incredible!

        So it wasn’t a myth after all, Michael Mann actually does have a sycophantic acolyte. It must be very lonely.

        The dodgy doctor is a constant embarrassment to the alarmist cause, which is of course highly amusing. However, not so amusing is the disrepute into which he brings the name of science itself.

        Mann and his cronies turned the concept of peer review into pal review by making a mockery of scientific ethics and methodology.


        Report this

        90

      • #
        bullocky

        -
        JenJ……….”Who’s taking bets?”
        -
        Have you got Mann’s fate and the Met’s forecast in a double?


        Report this

        20

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        All has been debunked. You just do not know it because he has not told you.


        Report this

        10

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      As Vince has pointed out, US congress commisioned an exhaustive investigation into the Hockey stick controversy which supported Mann’s approach and contrary to assertions here, similar studies by other groups.

      http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

      It specifically found that McKitrick’s criticisms of Mann did not refute his findings:

      As part of their statistical methods, Mann et al. used a type of principal component analysis that tends to bias the shape of the reconstructions. A description of this effect is given in Chapter 9. In practice, this method, though not recommended, does not appear to unduly influence reconstructions of hemispheric mean temperature; reconstructions performed without using principal component analysis are qualitatively similar to the original curves presented by Mann et al. (Crowley and Lowery 2000, Huybers 2005, D’Arrigo et al. 2006, Hegerl et al. 2006, Wahl and Ammann in press).

      There is also this paper:

      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/cv/cv_pubs/wahl/NH-and-Climate-Field-Reconstruction-Papers/Wahl_Ammann_ClimChange2007.pdf


      Report this

      01

      • #
        JenJ

        I think, Philip, that they have responded to this information with words to the effect of, “No, those investigations didn’t give the results that match our pre-conceived notions, therefore we reject them.”.

        Because science-unaware ideologues are *much* more likely to be correct than a US congressional investigation.


        Report this

        01

  • #
    Bruce

    Does it matter?

    Most climate papers from alarmists are false, whether computer generated or otherwise.


    Report this

    120

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Yes it matters.

      They have to do something useful with those massive computers they have purchased with public funding.

      Since they have proven that the massive computers cannot accurately simulate the climate, they might as well use them to simulate the scientific papers that they would have published, had the massive computers been able to accurately simulate the climate.

      You can’t let massiveness go to waste.


      Report this

      240

    • #
      JenJ

      No they aren’t.

      Where do you get off typing such non-sense?


      Report this

      026

      • #
        PeterK

        JenJ – You’re just [Snip] trying to cause a stink…basically a non starter. You have nothing to contribute and I just get a laugh out of your plain old stupid comments. They say laughter is the best medicine and believe you me your last 2 or 3 post had me rolling in stitches. I know I will sleep well tonight. Thanks for those laughs!!!


        Report this

        102

        • #
          JenJ

          I’m sorry, saying “most climate papers are false” is utterly ludicrous.

          Climate science is formed by a very large body of serious work that has accumulated at an accelerating rate over the last 150 years. Calling it “wrong” is not the sign of somebody who has seriously engaged with the facts.

          Oh, and calling me [names] is both charming and also your admission you have nothing better to offer. Well done.
          [Moderators sometimes fail to pick up when people have not self edited -Fly]


          Report this

          07

          • #
            ROM

            I think you really big problem JenJ is that you read the stuff that is not genuine climate science but claims it is and tries it’s damnedest tp pass as science but fails utterly to pass the test.
            So for starters lets look at just one item, the IPCC’s AR5′s Summary for Policy Makers Oceans and see what the AR5 has to say about that so deadly dangerous sea level rise ,

            It can all be found in the above SFPM Observations; Oceans.

            The Conclusions [ Ch; 3.7.6 page 291 ] to this chapter on Mean Sea Level Rise [ My bold ]

            3.7.6 Conclusions

            It is virtually certain that globally averaged sea level has risen over the
            20th century, with a very likely mean rate between 1900 and 2010 of
            1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr–1 and 3.2 [2.8 and 3.6] mm yr–1 between 1993
            and 2010.

            This assessment is based on high agreement among multi-
            ple studies using different methods, and from independent observing
            systems (tide gauges and altimetry) since 1993. It is likely that a rate
            comparable to that since 1993 occurred between 1920 and 1950, pos-
            sibly due to a multi-decadal climate variation, as individual tide gauges
            around the world and all reconstructions of GMSL show increased
            rates of sea level rise during this period.

            Although local vertical land motion can cause even larger rates of sea level rise (or fall) relative to
            the coastline, it is very likely that this does not affect the estimates of
            the global average rate, based on multiple estimations of the average
            with and without VLM corrections.

            It is virtually certain that interannual and decadal changes in the
            large-scale winds and ocean circulation can cause significantly higher
            or lower rates over shorter periods at individual locations, as this has
            been observed in tide gauge records around the world.

            Warming of the upper 700 m of the ocean has very likely contributed an average of 0.6
            [0.4 to 0.8] mm yr–1 of sea level change since 1971. Warming between
            700 m and 2000 m has likely been contributing an additional 0.1 mm
            yr–1 [0 to 0.2] of sea level rise since 1971, and warming below 2000
            m likely has been contributing another 0.1 [0.0 to 0.2] mm yr–1 of sea
            level rise since the early 1990s.

            It is very likely that the rate of mean sea level rise along Northern
            European coastlines has accelerated since the early 1800s and that this
            has continued through the 20th century, as the increased rate since
            1875 has been observed in multiple long tide gauge records and by
            different groups using different analysis techniques. It is likely that sea
            level rise throughout the NH has also accelerated since 1850, as this is
            also observed in a smaller number of gauges along the coast of North
            America.
            Two of the three time series based on reconstructing GMSL
            from tide gauge data back to 1900 or earlier indicate a significant
            positive acceleration, while one does not.
            The range is –0.002 to 0.019
            mm yr–2, so it is likely that GMSL has accelerated since 1900.

            Finally, it is likely that extreme sea levels have increased since 1970, largely as a
            result of the rise in mean sea level.
            [ end ]

            That is the IPCC’s official scientific position on MSLR.

            Now an increase of 1.7 to 3.2 mms / year in global sea levels equates to when using the IPCC’s highest observed increases of 3.2 mms/year to less than 280 mms rise in sea levels by 2100.

            Thats just a bit under half way up the calf of my leg by 2100.
            I think the future generations will be able to handle that.

            If of course we use the lowest IPCC Sea level increase at 1.7 ms / year then by 2100 we will have seen an increase in sea levels of 87 mms, about ankle height.
            If you are worried about the effect that will have on the Earth in another 86 years then you have a real mentality problem

            If you want to argue the science there are plenty more IPCC science based conclusions that I might take some time out in the future to serve up for your consideration unless of course you might like to do some real genuine actual climate science homework yourself instead of like all your propagandized buddies who just believe the first climate catastrophe smooth talking sooth sayer that appears on the scene.


            Report this

            40

            • #
              ROM

              Correction to the above;
              If of course we use the lowest IPCC Sea level increase at 1.7 ms / year then by 2100 we will have seen an increase in sea levels of 87 146 mms, just above ankle height.


              Report this

              00

              • #
                The Griss

                That of course assumes a continued rise. The Chinese have some really old data that may indicate a periodicity in sea level, and if that periodicity continued it would ‘top-out’ around mid century, then start dropping.

                Sure thing is, none of us, or our children will be around to even notice any change in sea level.

                The barnacles are still growing in the same place on the back of South Cronulla baths I remember them being 25 odd years ago.


                Report this

                30

              • #
                ROM

                You are quite correct there Griss as there is increasing evidence not widely published as yet, [ it buggers up all the climate catastrophists to let that sort of research get into the wide spread public domain as it might affect their funding and pull with authorities ] that sea levels changes might be quite cyclic over periods of a number of decades.
                Here’s one paper out of a number that looks at the cyclic nature of sea level change from
                Popular Technology net.

                Is there a 60-year oscillation in global mean sea level?

                1] We examine long tide gauge records in every ocean basin to examine whether a quasi 60-year oscillation observed in global mean sea level (GMSL) reconstructions reflects a true global oscillation, or an artifact associated with a small number of gauges. We find that there is a significant oscillation with a period around 60-years in the majority of the tide gauges examined during the 20th Century, and that it appears in every ocean basin. Averaging of tide gauges over regions shows that the phase and amplitude of the fluctuations are similar in the North Atlantic, western North Pacific, and Indian Oceans, while the signal is shifted by 10 years in the western South Pacific. The only sampled region with no apparent 60-year fluctuation is the Central/Eastern North Pacific. The phase of the 60-year oscillation found in the tide gauge records is such that sea level in the North Atlantic, western North Pacific, Indian Ocean, and western South Pacific has been increasing since 1985–1990. Although the tide gauge data are still too limited, both in time and space, to determine conclusively that there is a 60-year oscillation in GMSL, the possibility should be considered when attempting to interpret the acceleration in the rate of global and regional mean sea level rise.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Vince Whirlwind

                “The Chinese have some really old data” that I can’t provide a reference to, but, believe me when I say this, it proves that the moon is made of green choose and Jesus tap-dances with the devil.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                The Griss

                If you believe the moon is green.. then it absolutely proves you delusional state of mind.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Philip Shehan

                ROM your calculation of the mean sea level rise by 2100 assumes a linear rate of increase. With increasing temperature the rate of sea level rise due to thermal expansion will increase.

                That would explain why the sea levels rose an average of 1.7 mm/year between 1900 and 2010 but 3.2 mm/year between 1990 and 2010.

                This also neglects sea level rises from the melting of glaciers and land based ice sheets.

                Since 1992, the polar ice sheets have contributed, on average, 0.59 ± 0.20 millimeter year−1 to the rate of global sea-level rise.

                http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Reply to Vince Whirlwind, just saying “don’t” and stamping your foot, metaphorically speaking of course, doesn’t actually prove anything.

                As for the Chinese records, a parallel is found in Japan, where stones are set into the hillside above Fukushima. They are written in the old Japanese script, but when translated read, “Tsunami warning: Do not build below this line”. These stones were, of course, ignored, because modern science knows better.

                I didn’t bother to keep the reference, but you can Google it.


                Report this

                20

          • #
            Philip Shehan

            Jenj: Regarding [being called names]; I simply draw attention to my previous response to the criticism by the moderator of your lack of supplying supporting evidence (as opposed to posts by so many “skeptics” here), and my remarks concerning those posts that contain nothing but personal abuse.

            When they resort to that, they have thrown in the towel on the scince.
            [You do not have to be a scientist to have an opinion. If you hold yourself up to be a scientist however, then you are expected to be able to support your opinion with evidence -Fly]


            Report this

            11

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        JenJ,

        Please say something nice, to prove you are not a bot.


        Report this

        110

      • #
        bullocky

        -
        JenJ………..”No they aren’t.

        Where do you get off typing such non-sense?”
        -
        -
        You’re just like the Government, Jen, you don’t like competition!


        Report this

        20

  • #
    PeterS

    It’s very sad to see science being discredited this way, thanks to the global warming alarmists and scam artists. BTW, I refuse to call them climate change scientists. They are nothing of the sort. They are global warming “scientists”, or more accurately global warming fraudsters.


    Report this

    210

    • #
      JenJ

      Gosh, I bet they all go and have a cry about you refusing to recognise their talent, experience and expertise.


      Report this

      023

      • #
        James Bradley

        JJ, They do a good job at self recognition – Nobel Laureittes.


        Report this

        70

        • #
          JenJ

          Apparently you have trouble with spelling.
          I’ve noticed a correlation between people who can’t spell, and people who don’t understand the science.

          [About as scientific as the correlation between greenhouse gas emissions and 'most global warming', and the pause since 1998.]


          Report this

          08

      • #
        PeterS

        Talent of global warming “scientists” is on par with a bad magician. Experience is that of a 2-year old. Expertise is that of a rodent.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        JenJ:
        I assume you are fairly young and haven’t had much experience at recognising implausible explanations. Here are a few tips.

        1. Anything involving imminent doom, especially when the dates have to be extended time and time again.

        2. Anything which involves the propagator getting large sums of money, usually yours.

        3. Anything which starts off as “non mainstream knowledge” and the small group of supporters maintain secret methods and ‘proofs’ and immediately resort to abuse when these are challenged by experts.

        The first includes religious ‘end of the world’ cults (can include 2 & 3 also), the Y2K problem, Listeria, Dioxin, The Coming Ice Age and various Stock Market crashes/coming World depressions (only avoidable by buying the convenient book or course or investment). These latter may seem to be true, and may well happen some day, but the initial timing is usually widely inaccurate, so the Date of Doom is repeated put off into the near future. The same with the Coming Global Warming, which we were assured in 1972, 1977, 1983, 1988, 1990, 1992, 1997, 2002 etc. would bring serious consequences in 5 or 10 years. The IPCC has now admitted that these won’t show until after 2070.

        As for the third, I assure you we have recognised their talent and expertise; that’s why we rate them so poorly. A small collection of third rate ‘scientists’ desperately trying to prop up a failing scheme.

        THINK about it.


        Report this

        160

        • #
          JenJ

          Graeme, I just searched the IPCC AR4 paper for the words, “imminent doom” and I got 0 hits. Apparently you have a problem with something that isn’t the problem that climate scientists are researching and publishing their academic work about.

          Maybe you are old and confused.

          Sort it out.

          [Clearly you haven't read the many peer reviewed papers which are referenced in the IPCC reports which may not use the words 'imminent doom' but describe such outcomes from predicted catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Glaciers and Arctic ice disappearing, the Antarctic Ice Sheet sliding off, malaria out breaks, tens of millions of climate refugees, massive crop failures, droughts, desertification, there's some words you can search on. - Mod]


          Report this

          08

          • #
            bullocky

            -
            JenJ:….” I just searched the IPCC AR4 paper for the words, “imminent doom” and I got 0 hits.”
            -
            What did you expect…. a photo of Tim Flannery?


            Report this

            40

          • #
            Kevin Lohse

            Strange. Most of us here have noticed a correlation between people who can’t think for themselves and people who believe in the CAGW religion.

            Here’s a link to the Senate testimony of a man who thinks for himself.

            http://www.cfact.org/2014/02/26/greenpeace-co-founder-earths-geologic-history-fundamentally-contradicts-co2-warming-fears/

            At the risk of giving you an untreatable case of cognitive dissonance, read what a real scientist has to say.


            Report this

            20

            • #
              The Griss

              Kevin, there is zero chance that this mindless entity will read or understand any of this.

              It is a brainwashed bot.


              Report this

              30

              • #
                Kevin Lohse

                Richard Lindzen, Judith Curry, our gracious hostess and her beloved, Anthony Watts and Patrick Moore are just some of those former believers who CAN see the wood for the trees. There’s always the chance of a Damascene conversion, however slight. Furthermore, more open minds than JenJ may follow the link though I do agree that Lysenko-ists such as JenJ are a forlorn hope.


                Report this

                10

              • #
                JenJ

                Is this the same Richard Lindzen whose low-sensitivity prediction of no warming in the early ’90′s has been proven completely wrong?

                And you rely on him?


                Proven wrong by you? Oh that is convincing. – Jo


                Report this

                01

            • #
              Philip Shehan

              Kevin, a few problems with Patrick Moore’s testimony:

              There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

              I agree, but science is not about “proof”. It is about evidence and the balance of probabilities.

              Moore goes on:

              The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

              He then states:

              These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate.

              Note the pea and thimble trick. The IPCC statement is about the past based on observation and theory (models) : “has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” Moore converts this to a statement about the future.

              Models are constructed by matching observed data to theory as understood and used to predict future observations and events. Some models are more accurate than others, usually in inverse proportion to the complexity of the system and are improved with better understanding of the system.

              “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.”

              Then:

              many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball.

              True. but nobody claims they are. They are a theoretical explanation informed and developed to account for observations using known scintific constraints. They are regularly used in science to succesfully predict future observations and interactions. I have been involved in the use drug receptor models that are used in “intelligent drug design”.

              To assert that models are “no better than crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.” is pure bunk.

              Then:

              The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950…Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?

              But it does have an explanation. AGW theory clearly states that up to the mid 20th century, the concentration of CO2 and consequent warming were too small to be distinguishable from natural forcings which had indeed been operating earlier, including the period 1910-1940, and continue to do so.

              Hansen, in advance, nominated the 1980s as the decade when a statistically significant anthropogenic signal would be distinguishable from natural forcings. See figs 5 and 7 here:

              http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

              I could continue but you get my drift.


              Report this

              03

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                … science is not about “proof”. It is about evidence and the balance of probabilities.

                You get a “balance of probabilities” from computer models, run multiple times, with different configurations of parameters. It allows you to identify which configuration comes closest to your hypothesis. You then go on to investigate the real-world factors that would result in that configuration.

                This is a perfectly valid research technique, when you have a large number of unknown unknowns. It identifies the problem(s). It does not provide any answers. Thus, there is no pea and thimble trick. Moore is telling it like he sees it.

                Models are constructed by matching observed data to theory

                And this is where Climate Science stands out, because the rest of Physics does this the other way around. Everywhere else, the theory comes first, and is described in terms of the criteria that would falsify the theory, if met. Thus you can never prove a theory correct, but it takes only one falsifying factor to prove it wrong. Einstein understood this. It is a pity you do not.

                [The models are then] used to predict future observations and events

                Which demonstrates … what, exactly? The predictions could be met purely by chance. The models could be riddled with confirmation bias, how do you know they are not? You can even construct post hoc rationale to explain variations between the prediction and reality (Ask Dr Trenberth about that).

                If you are looking for confirmation, which is what you suggest, then you can get that purely by chance. In research, proving a theory tells you nothing, because you have no way to demonstrate the lack of confirmation bias.

                In engineering or applied science, which I think is your field, then you are working under a known set of constraints. The conductive, capacitive, and inductive properties of electronic components are related in known formulaic ways. In chemistry, the valence bonds between various chemicals are well understood.

                But neither of these are chaotic systems. The climate is a chaotic system, made up from an indeterminate number of other chaotic systems that move in and out of phase, in multiple ways, and various frequencies. It therefore needs to be approached from a viewpoint of not knowing what you don’t know. And that is pure research, which must be based on the falsification of hypotheses.

                How do you carve a statue of an Elephant? You take a very large block of stone, and cut away all of the bits that look like they don’t belong to an elephant.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                The Griss

                “To assert that models are “no better than crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.” is pure bunk.”

                In the case of climate models, they are almost certainly worse than a crystal ball, or throwing bones or tossing a die.

                They have now widened out the range of their projections to posthumously include the non-warming this century. Next step will be to widen the range of projections even further to account for the coming cooling.


                Report this

                01

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Well, JenJ if the IPCC and all those advocating the imminent arrival are so accurate where is the runaway Global Warming?


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Vince Whirlwind

              I guess it depends on whether it is imminent or arrived.

              I assume you have some kind of understanding of what those two words mean?

              Damn! Must never assume anything…..It’s perfectly obvious you are typing away at your keyboard bashing out words whose meaning you are perfectly unaware.


              Report this

              03

              • #
                Graeme No.3

                Judging by some of your comments I gather that English is not your native language.
                For you – arrived is past or near present in meaning, whereas imminent refers to a near future event.

                e.g. various believers in runaway man made Global Warming have said that it will occur in 5 & 10 years (i.e. it is IMMINENT). However it hasn’t ARRIVED after 42 years, so there must be doubts about the accuracy of their claims that it will come in a few years.

                I hope that this will be clear to the meanest of intellects.


                Report this

                10

      • #
        Angry

        “JenJ”…….a new Bed Wetter.
        Isn’t time for your mummy to change your nappy???


        Report this

        51

      • #
        bullocky

        -
        JenJ……”Gosh, I bet they all go and have a cry about you refusing to recognise their talent, experience and expertise.”
        -
        Listen to this, Jen!…..Sonny and Cher…..
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BERd61bDY7k


        Report this

        10

  • #
    john robertson

    But it boosts ones citation credentials.
    I wonder which university has the spam bott that generated these expert papers, as their resident authority.
    Smarter and cited more often than Lew?


    Report this

    40

  • #
    JCR

    Wasn’t there a programme around about 10 years ago that was used to generate social sciences (postmodern, of course)papers? I even think it came out of an Australian university (Melbourne?). Unfortunately, the crud it generated was indistinguishable from the entrants in the late-lamented Dennis Dutton’s bad writing competitions.


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Neville

    Thanks Jo for another top post. Over at climate audit Steve continues his relentless pursuit of the Mann donkey.

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/25/mann-misrepresents-the-uk-department-of-energy-and-climate-change/


    Report this

    50

    • #
      Vince Whirlwind

      ..and yet Mann remains a respected scientist who scores grants, conducts research, and publishes his results.

      Meanwhile McIntyre remains an ex-mining-stock spruiker who runs a crank-blog and conducts no research.

      I wouldn’t be putting *too* much faith in this “relentless pursuit” if I were you.

      In fact, you should probably call it, “tedious, ignorant and obsessive creepy stalking” instead.


      Report this

      04

      • #
        Heywood

        Nothing on his work then? Just the ad hom?


        Report this

        10

        • #
          JenJ

          Are you under the false impressions that McIntyre has ever conducted any science research, let alone published any research papers?

          You should do a bit of research.

          —-

          JenJ — are you under the false impression that you can keep posting logical fallacies and get published here? Read the guidelines. Look up
          “ad hom”. (Then do some research, McIntyre has published papers anyway.) – Jo


          Report this

          01

      • #
        The Griss

        Of course Mann gets the funding.. he creates exactly what the government wants him to, regardless of any scientific accuracy.

        Maybe you should suggest that they fund a real statistician like McIntyre to give him the wherewithal to actually dig to the depth of this corruption..

        Do you DARE give him the fund he so much deserves. ? Of course not.. because you know the truth of the fraud would be brought to the surface quick-smart.

        Cowards, the whole lot of the climate science.. refusal of funding, refusal of debate, refusal of publication.

        cowards, cowards, cowards.

        You aren’t a whirlwind, you are barely a fart. !

        Which climate trough are you funded from.


        Report this

        00

      • #
        The Griss

        If Mann wasn’t the prime LIAR of the AGW meme, no-one would bother with him.

        The only thing that makes him significant is his lies, statistical ineptitude, and his paid-for mouthing off.

        Ask yourself, who is funding all these puerile law cases.. someone who desperately wants to continue the warmist lies and agenda, is who.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    alan neil ditchfield

    COMPUTER GENERATED MARXIST THOUGHT
    I wrote a programme, which I call Kaleidoscope, to generate Marxist speech. It has a lexicon with paragraphs of canned thought and stock phrases. The programme picks texts from the lexicon with a random number generator and sews them into prose. It can write a new twelve page speech in a second, with the flick of a finger. The speeches are readable and require modest editing. I can email a sample to anyone interested. Call alan.neil@lexys.com.br.
    With Kaleidoscope Fidel Castro would save the expense of keeping a stable of party hacks as ghost writers. Combined with a text to voice programme Kaleidoscope would put Castro himself out of a job. The loud speaker network of Cuba would broadcast daily four hour rants long after Castro is gone. The rewriting of history according to party line, the job of the Ministry of Truth in 1984, could be done with a few REPLACE commands.
    I wrote Kaleidoscope as a joke. With some improvements to create plots and characters, Kaleidoscope could be put to honest commercial use a pulp fiction generator.


    Report this

    110

    • #
      Eddie

      Intriguing. Could you perhaps post just a small sample of one here Alan, to give us some idea ?


      Report this

      40

    • #
      ROM

      With all the advances in medical implants and now the ability to manufacture the pseudo thought mentalities as described by Allan above we really are already at the beginning of the age of the Cyborgs where “machine intelligence” eventually supersedes human thought and expression.

      Asimov was perhaps not as far ahead of his times as most have imagined with his I Robot series of science fiction futures.

      Given the advances in nano technology for data storage plus the continuing rapid advances in quantum computing the probabilities of matching and significantly exceeding the abilities of the human mind ie “Machine intelligence” are also now becoming a probability sometime within this century.

      Asimov’s “I Robot” will then be a reality which the human race will inevitably have to deal with.

      The manner of dealing with this probability of a future “machine intelligence” far exceeding mankind’s levels of mentality will define the future of humanity .


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Franny

        Think how dull an always right computer intelligence would be.
        No the authority must remain with human politicians, who we can beat up on at the ballot box every so often when we get tired of them.


        Report this

        60

        • #
          ROM

          Don’t think it will be dull at all Franny as any machine intelligence that matches or exceeds human intelligence then runs into the moral and ethical problems that we as humans have to solve on a minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day process all the time.
          And no machine intelligence as measured against just a pure computational mechanism would be complete without that moral, ethical and compassionate compass built in which are intrinsic to “intelligence” as we know it.

          As just one extreme example which I personally don’t know the answer too and most definitely would not wish to have to decide on .
          Does an intelligence allow or condemn ten innocents to death to save a hundred thousand or a million or two in the times ahead ?

          Or does one take the quoted Stalin’s psychopathic route of ;
          Ten deaths are a tragedy.
          A million deaths are a statistic.

          What decisions does a machine intelligence make when deciding the fate of a machine intelligence just like itself with all the chances of a pay back by those other machine intelligences allied with the one being judged.

          What are the judgments, the moralities, the ruthless justification and realities of any decision that will be made either way by machine intelligences in those sorts of moral dilemmas
          Two machine intelligences with different priorities just as humans have might well come to opposite conclusions.


          Report this

          50

        • #
          Andrew Griffiths

          Thankyou Franny, your comment reminds me of list book for a political studies course I attended back in the 60′s( I know if you can remember the 60′s you weren’t really there) Anyway the author was Bernard Crick and the title was” In Defence of Politics”,I still refer to this book from time to time,the alternatives to politics are worse than the compromises we have to make to live in a civilised nation and as you state we can always boot them out at the ballot box.


          Report this

          10

        • #
          Kevin Lohse

          For any intelligence to be always right, we have to assume perfect knowledge of the past, present, and outcomes of all possible options in the future. Big Ask.


          Report this

          10

      • #
        Steve

        Maybe, but the garbage in, garbage out issue applies.

        If the basic facts are wrong, all the smarts inthe world is only navigating off wrong info.


        Report this

        50

    • #
      ChrisL

      Kaleidoscope could be put to honest commercial use a pulp fiction generator.

      Seems to be already in commercial use @ the UK Guardian.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Wayne

    Slightly off topic but… the “97% Consensus” used to be from a 2 question online survey ultimatley reduced to 77 responses but now there seems to be another “97% Consensus” derived from reviewing the meta data of peer reviewed climate related papers. Is my understanding of this (in a nutshell) correct? If so, does anyone have a link with background on the switch? Thx.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Louis Hissink

    The problem isn’t peer review, the problem is too many ‘scientists’; perhaps a symptom of over population and the welfare state? Government funded research is, after all, some sort of esoteric welfare, no? Keeping the unemployable occupied by allowing them to think and gibber.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      ROM

      Louis Hissnik
      I heartily concur with that comment Louis and had come to that line of thought some time ago.
      .
      Science as in government tax payer funded science today, fits a government type bureaucratic department or quasi scientific organization [ scientific quango ] rather than an entirely separate means of advancing science and civilisation as most of us understand it.

      Science is now just churning out forest consuming and electron consuming garbage at about the same rate and at about the same levels of verisimilitude as any major government bureaucracy and with about the same effect and impact on the body corporate.
      All to do these days with the aim and goal of justifying it’s funding and status within the governmental circles as done in any other government funded organisations.

      And to hell with the populace who are forced to pay for all of this crap.. They no longer count for much in government funded ivory tower, never look out of the window science.

      Sadly for this old admirer of science of the past, science for many scientists and scientific disciplines today is rapidly descending into not much more than just another government funded sinecure no different in intent, purpose or outcomes or lack of than that of any other such departmental sinecure.
      And as with any government department when this gets too blatant a major restructuring and clean out becomes the only mandatory fix for the problems.

      Science has been elevated to a very high status in the eyes of the public for the century past but the high pedestal upon which the public elevated science to is becoming rotten to the core and consequently science in it’s many and varied forms is now descending down to the usual levels of cynicism that is extended to the public’s assessments of honesty and integrity of commerce, industry, finance, law and government.
      Therfore science in the future should expect a similar level of public surveillance of it’s mores and ethics and integrity as any other sector of our society.
      And if it fails the tests of public approval tests, that of the public that pays it’s bills then science can expect nothing more than the same treatment handed out to any other sector of society.

      Thanks to the revelations of the scamming and corruption of science, particularly climate science, through the means of the all pervading internet where the flaws in the claims of the superior integrity and ethics of science have been shown for what they are , just another set of unprovable self righteous spinning pronouncements trying to cover up the real situation, Science’s salad days of a high public status and an unquestioning belief in it’s superior ethics, integrity and mores are over and gone probably forever .

      All this as the realisation dawns that scientists are no smarter, nor dumber, as honest or not, as ethical or just frauds and scammers , with full integrity or lacking any such integrity as any other human enterprise or persons.
      Scientists are no different than the rest of us and should be regarded and treated accordingly just as is done across the rest of those who make up our society.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Vince Whirlwind

      Lol. And why would Hissink have a problem with peer review?

      Could it be because there are exactly zero respected, published scientists in the world who think Hissink is anything but barking?


      Report this

      02

      • #
        The Griss

        In climate science, there is obviously a major problem with peer review..

        otherwise all the junk that they come up with would never see the light of day.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Skiphil

    Not computer generated (and not a science journal), but the “Sokal Hoax” is a great classic of how awful journal peer review can be, so long as ideological checklists are satisfied:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

    Has anyone tried a Sokal-type hoax with a pseudo-science paper in Climatology? Oh wait, that would be quite a few “real” papers but they are not supposed to be hoaxes…….


    Report this

    60

  • #
  • #

    [...] JoNova     Washington Times     Forbes     Chicago Tribune Share this:PrintLinkedInPinterestStumbleUponGoogleFacebookTwitterPocketRedditEmailTumblrDiggLike this:Like Loading… [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    hunter

    This explains a huge number of AGW promotional papers, doesn’t it?


    Report this

    10

  • #
    D J C

    The thermodynamics of planetary atmospheres is a very specialised field in which major advances have been made since about the year 2002 when some physicists began to realise there is a fundamental fallacy in the garbage promulgated by the IPCC, namely that their assumption of isothermal conditions is wrong, because the Second Law of Thermodynamics implies isentropic conditions prevail, thus smashing the GH conjecture.

    Furthermore, the concept of “pseudo scattering” of radiation is also just starting to be understood. I was one of the pioneers in this field with my peer-reviewed paper “Radiated Energy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics” (Douglas J Cotton) published on several websites in March 2012.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    handjive

    Busted!
    Well I aint no ‘peer‘ but, when I review this “settled climate science”, the contradictory observed results show that the
    settled climate science” is gibberish of the highest order.

    NYT – FEBRUARY 14, 2014
    Kevin Trenberth: “
    With respect to snow, one expects that the snow season gets shorter at both ends (more rain), but that snow amounts could be larger in mid winter.

    So it is not a surprise to me to see more snow in winter, but the global warming signal should be in the snow pack in late spring.

    John Walsh added this:
    Kevin’s snow scenario is exactly what the global climate models show: a shorter snow season everywhere, but increases in maximum snow water equivalent …”

    Accuweather - February 25, 2014
    While spring officially begins on March 20, Pastelok and crew expect mid-winter style cold to continue more often than not until the third week in March for most areas east of the Rockies.
    ~ ~ ~
    Bonus Quote from above:
    “With respect to snow, one expects that the snow season gets shorter at both ends (more rain), but that snow amounts could be larger in mid winter.”

    Quote Monty Python, Ms. Anne Elk’s theory on Brontosauruses:
    ” I have a theory. Brontosauruses are thin at one end, very, very thick in the middle, and thin again at the far end.”
    “I have another theory …”

    And so we alter our economy based on Monty Python.


    Report this

    70

    • #
      JenJ

      Er, right, because observations of one winter in one place is all you need to deny there is a hglobal trend occurring?

      Maybe this is why other people do science, and you do whatever it is you are qualified to do?


      Report this

      022

      • #
        Heywood

        “because observations of one winter in one place is all you need to deny there is a hglobal trend occurring?”

        But one hot summer in Australia is somehow proof of disaster? Your mob have spun that one to death.

        “deny there is a hglobal trend occurring?”

        Please point out who on this thread denies that there has been a warming trend.


        Report this

        100

      • #
        handjive

        Quote JenJ: “Er, right, because observations of one winter in one place is all you need to deny there is a hglobal trend occurring.

        Correct.
        Just like one ‘Angry Summer’ is all that is needed to deny a chaotic & dynamic changing climate from glacial to inter-glacial periods, irrespective of carbon(sic) levels.

        Quote JenJ: “Maybe this is why other people do science, and you do whatever it is you are qualified to do?”

        Maybe, but scientists who quote failed Monty Python science should not be considered ‘qualified’.


        Report this

        130

      • #
        James Bradley

        ‘My Country’ written by Dorothea McKeller in 1904.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I think JenJ is a bot – and not a very good one, at that.

        Proof that Jen was not a bot, would be for her to tell me the name, and type, of animal that appears in the first line of Yankee Doodle Dandy.


        Report this

        50

      • #
        Andrew Griffiths

        JenJ, you really do need to do some reading if you want to contribute to this blog site,your comments to date display assertive ignorance that unfortunately,most likely cannot be overcome, however in the unlikely event that you would do some homework,can I recommend a short book”The Climate Caper Facts and Fallacies of Global Warming” by Garth Paltridge. This man, an atmospheric physicist of note, gently leads readers and bears of small brain like myself through the maze of fact and fiction surrounding the climate debate that causes so much acrimony and confusion.


        Report this

        40

      • #
        bullocky

        -
        JenJ……….”Er, right, because observations of one winter in one place is all you need to deny there is a hglobal trend occurring?”
        -
        Yeah, Jen, you stick to fashion and let other people do the science!


        Report this

        00

      • #
        Kevin Lohse

        “In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.

        After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

        There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.”

        Patrick Moore, PhD, co-founder of Greenpeace, testifying before the US Senate, 26 Feb 2014


        Report this

        10

      • #
        Eddy Aruda

        JenJ
        February 26, 2014 at 11:14 am · Reply
        Er, right, because observations of one winter in one place is all you need to deny there is a hglobal trend occurring?

        Maybe this is why other people do science, and you do whatever it is you are qualified to do?

        You misspelled global.

        JenJ
        February 27, 2014 at 7:37 am · Reply
        Apparently you have trouble with spelling.
        I’ve noticed a correlation between people who can’t spell, and people who don’t understand the science.


        Report this

        30

        • #
          JenJ

          You don’t seem to understand the difference between a misspelling and a typo.

          I’ve noticed a correlation between deficient literacy, and people who don’t understand science.


          Report this

          01

  • #
    Tim

    A (Not Quite) Complete List Of Things Supposedly Caused By Global Warming:

    (Need a grant? Create a new topic for fun and profit.)

    http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html


    Report this

    40

  • #

    Jo you ask “did anyone read them”. I would be interested to know if anyone cited them. Is that information around?


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Not CO2

    CO2 cannot cause any warming, full stop. It’s blatantly obvious at the base of the nominal troposphere of Uranus where there’s no CO2, no direct solar radiation and no surface, yet it’s hotter than Earth but nearly 30 times further from the Sun.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Eddie

      I don’t know what Uranus can tell us about CO2, but it has clouds of the more potent so called ‘greenhouse gas’ methane.
      It’s bluish hue has been attributed to the IR absorption by methane.

      It’s radiation is dominated by its internal heat, with it bring do far from its star.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    sophocles

    Gives a whole new meaning to the

    97% consensus.

    And:

    … the science is settled

    ROTFL.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    NoFixedAddress

    Further evidence that we should completely defund Government subsidised “Higher Education”.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Not CO2

    William Connelly is stumped now by Wikipedia of all things, where he loves to edit to give things a nice greenhouse flavour.

    The new Wikipedia Second Law statement clearly demolishes that “net” effect business that tries to claim a single one-way radiation process does not have to obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Wiki now reads …

    “Every process occurring in nature proceeds in the sense in which the sum of the entropies of all bodies taking part in the process is increased.”[


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    ***Hannam obviously cherry-picks his opening to diss the govt’s direct action plan, in the latest “study” to convince us we MUST follow the CAGW-proscribed remedies!

    26 Feb: SMH: Peter Hannam: Geo-engineering no solution to dangerous climate change, study finds
    Greening deserts in Australia and North Africa with millions of trees would only have a modest impact on climate change, with potentially significant side-effects, new international research finds.
    The study by scientists at Germany’s Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel examined five potential methods of climate engineering as a means of heading off the worst impacts of global warming…
    “Atmospheric CO2 continues to increase rapidly and still reaches more than twice the current level by the end of the century in all simulations,” the study led by oceanographer David Keller found…
    The study did not examine the costs of the different methods.
    Climate engineering does not appear to be an alternative option to cutting CO2 emissions, the scientists conclude, “although it could possibly be used to compliment mitigation”, providing the costs and benefits are taken into account.
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/geoengineering-no-solution-to-dangerous-climate-change-study-finds-20140226-33ggg.html

    25 Feb: Guardian: John Vidal: Geoengineering side effects could be potentially disastrous, research shows
    Comparison of five proposed methods shows they are ineffective, alter weather systems or could not be safely stopped
    But researchers at the Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany, modelled these five potential methods and concluded that geoengineering could add chaos to complex and not fully understood weather systems. Even when applied on a massive scale, the most that could be expected, they say, is a temperature drop of about 8%.
    The potential side effects would be potentially disastrous, say the scientists, writing in Nature Communications…
    ***”The paper sounds a timely warning about the abject stupidity of relying upon climate engineering solutions when reducing our reliance on carbon-based energy systems is the only sensible option,” said Dr Matt Watson, a lecturer in geophysical natural hazards at Bristol University…
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/25/geoengineering-side-effects-potentially-disastrous-scientists


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    AS Keith 1412 writes in the comments: “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”

    24 Feb: UK Daily Mail: Ellie Zolfagharifard: Are YOU a ‘global warming Nazi’? People who label sceptics ‘deniers’ will kill more people than the Holocaust, claims scientist
    Claim was made by Roy Spencer, a professor at University of Alabama
    ‘When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it,’ he wrote in a blog post
    His reasoning for using the word ‘Nazi’ is because climate activists are, he claims, anti-capitalist fascists
    Barack Obama, David Cameron and Richard Branson are all ‘global warming Nazis’.
    This is according to scientist Roy Spencer, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and a vocal denier of man-made climate change…
    VIDEO CAPTION: The radical claim was made by climate scientist Roy Spencer, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville and a vocal denier of man-made climate change.
    PHOTO CAPTION: David Cameron is known to have used the term ‘climate change denier’ along with Barack Obama, Richard Branson, Nick Clegg and Ed Davey
    INSERT – PHOTO HEADING: NICK CLEGG: ‘I’M ENTITLED TO CALL TORY CLIMATE SCEPTICS “DENIERS”‘
    Use of the term ‘climate deniers’ became controversial after John Howard, former Australian Prime Minister, said that the term was used with ‘malice aforethought’.
    But In November, deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said he is entitled to call Tory climate sceptics ‘deniers’ despite a warning by the government’s chief scientist that it is an abusive term…
    INSERT 2 HEADING: WHERE DID THE HOLOCAUST LINK COME FROM?
    ‘Deniers’ are termed people that believe that global warming is either not occurring, or is not associated with the man-made rise in carbon dioxide.
    They have been heavily criticised for being pseudoscientific, despite an alleged overwhelming consensus on the reality of climate change.
    Journalists and policitican – including environmentalist George Monbiot – have described such scepticism as a form of denialism.
    Several commentators have also compared climate change denial with Holocaust denial, although others who believe in man-made climate change have condemned such comparisons as inappropriate and trivialising Holocaust denial.
    Monbiot wrote in his Guardian opinion column that he uses the term for those who attempt to undermine scientific opinion on climate change due to financial interests.
    Monbiot often refers to a ‘denial industry’, however other commentators have been described climate change ‘deniers’, including politicians and writers, who are not obviously linked to any industry group.
    In recent years the term has been associated with a series of views challenging the scientific consensus on issues including the health effects of smoking and the relationship between HIV and AIDS, along with climate change.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2566659/Are-global-warming-Nazi-People-label-sceptics-deniers-kill-MORE-people-Holocaust-claims-scientist.html

    Ellie couldn’t have misrepresented CAGW sceptics more if she tried.

    plenty of CAGW believers in the comments.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    TdeF

    Ha! Ha! Every field has those deep, detailed, unintelligible, narrow focus papers which no one reads, assuming they are obscure and of interest to someone else. However it makes you wonder how many have gone through in many journals over many years. Some which were not computer generated at all. So much for peer review.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    john

    Duplicate-grant case puts funders under pressure

    Critics call for tighter checks to stop researchers being funded twice for the same work.

    http://www.nature.com/news/duplicate-grant-case-puts-funders-under-pressure-1.9984

    excerpt:

    It sounds like every researcher’s dream: two or more agencies are falling over each other to fund your grant proposal.

    But for those tempted to accept funding for the same piece of research from more than one agency, grant fraud charges brought by the US authorities on 31 January are a sober warning. The incident has also sparked renewed calls for funding agencies to work harder to avoid grant duplication.

    The recent charges were brought against Craig Grimes, who until 2010 was a professor of electrical engineering at Pennsylvania State University. Last month, he pleaded guilty to charges that included accepting grants from the Department of Energy (DOE) and the US National Science Foundation (NSF) to fund the same research on solar conversion of carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons. “It is not a problem to apply for funds for the same research at different funding agencies, but it is illegal to accept and use the funding,” says Christine Boesz, a former inspector-general for the NSF. Such duplicate funding is banned in many leading scientific nations. Boesz says that there is no way of knowing how prevalent the problem is, but that cases tend to come to light only if peer reviewers spot similarities in grant applications.


    Report this

    30

  • #
    Sunray

    Thank you Jo, for another reason to have a “wry?” smile. I hope it is allowed, because I always feel guilty.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    Readfearn scrapes the bottom of the CAGW barrel:

    25 Feb: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: Australia’s renewables adviser scrapes the bottom of the climate denialist barrel
    Dick Warburton cites a long-debunked petition to argue climate scientists are split on the causes of global warming
    PHOTO CAPTION: Former Caltex Australia chairman Dick Warburton at the Caltex annual general meeting in 2003. Warburton will review the Australian Government’s renewable energy target, but refuses to accept the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming…
    IF you look down there at the bottom of the barrel and see the deep gouge marks in the oak, you might find a trace of DNA left by the scraping fingers of Dick Warburton.
    That’s the place where Warburton found his “evidence” that the world’s scientists are split on whether or not climate change is being caused by humans.
    The evidence in question is known as the Oregon Petition – one of the feeblest factoids in the climate science denial hymnbook that’s cited almost as often as it has been debunked…
    Once those people with no studied expertise in areas of climate were removed, the number fell to just 0.1 per cent of US graduates – and this was being generous. Skeptical Science found there were likely only 39 people classed as climatologists who signed…
    (ATTACKS MAURICE NEWMAN)
    (ATTACKS DAVID MURRAY)
    ***Prime Minister Tony Abbott claims in public that he accepts that humans are having an impact on the climate, but publicly denies the science linking human-caused climate change to bushfires and droughts…
    (ATTACKS NICK MINCHIN)
    Minchin thinks human-caused climate change is a scare story. (AS OPPOSED TO A MILLION SCARY STORIES, READFEARN?)In June 2011 during his final Parliamentary speech after 18 years as a Senator, Minchin mused in jest that he was “contemplating the foundation of an organisation called ‘The Friends of Carbon Dioxide’”.
    Tony Abbott looks to be forming the “Friends of Carbon Dioxide” all by himself.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/feb/24/climate-change-dick-warburton-sceptic-australia-renewable-energy-target-review


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Popeye

    While you guys are all playing “confirmation bias” here – I’m over having fun at

    What’sUpWithThatWatts.

    “citizenschallenge” is using all manner of typical warmist BS and it’s much funnier than you’d think.

    He’s quoting SkepticalScience, rising tides, the oceans are warming, drought, heat waves torrential rains and all the standard tripe etc etc etc.

    It’s worth a read and have fun!!

    Cheers,


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Maverick

      Hilarious, in the article to which you refer the warmist true character comes out quickly – its about the depopulation of the planet, as long as it is not them.

      I say lead by example. I will donate to any de-population warmist who phones in the next 30 minutes a recycled Telstra rope or a recycled red wine barrel full of grey water or an 1886 Martini-Enfield rifle with .303 caliber bullet both manufactured well before the CO2 increases of today or a shank made from my recycled toothbrush. The 50th de-population warmist to call can choose to ride in my industrial size green waste mulcher, the experience last’s a little longer if you choose feet first, but the choice is yours.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    pat

    for Graham Readfearn, you pathetic excuse for a journalist:

    your newspaper just loves Shell, doesn’t it? they care so much for the climate, don’t they, Graham? why, here they are taking 50 million quid of taxpayers’ money to save the planet. what CAGW heroes they are:

    24 Feb: Guardian: Severin Carrell: Boost for North Sea oil and gas unveiled as UK cabinet meets in Scotland
    Energy secretary also announces carbon capture investment in Scotland as part of campaign against independence
    The new North Sea efficiency programmes could increase oil and gas production by up to 4bn barrels and £200bn over the next 20 years, said Ed Davey, the UK energy secretary, as he visited Peterhead power station.
    He confirmed on his visit that Shell’s gas-fired power station at Peterhead had been awarded about £50m to install new carbon capture and storage (CCS) equipment – the first time in the world a gas-fired power station would be fitted with this technology. He said it would capture 1m tonnes of CO2 a year…
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/24/uk-invest-carbon-capture-alex-salmond-ed-davey-independent-scotland

    you just LOOOOVE Barack Obama, don’t you, Graham? he is so cool & such a fracking, nuclear CAGW hero, isn’t he, Graham?

    July 2013: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: Obama’s rhetoric makes climate action a simpler question of right and wrong
    Will other world leaders take a cue from US President who is making climate change action a question of ethics and morals?
    PHOTO CAPTION: President Barack Obama wipes perspiration from his face as he speaks about climate change in Washington.
    THERE are a lot of decisions in life that are easier because we know the difference between right and wrong – it’s why we wouldn’t steal a biscuit from a poor homeless orphan or kick away a pensioner’s walking stick as they’re about to step on to a pedestrian crossing.
    For these reasons, stealing stuff that’s not yours or assaulting pensioners (or anyone else for that matter) is considered by the community at large to be ethically or morally wrong as well as being against the law.
    Recent rhetorical flourishes from father-of-two Barack Obama, the President of the United States, have tossed climate change into this same bucket of ethical decisions.
    Obama has tugged at the needle of our moral compasses several times with soundbites loaded with ethical ordnance. Take these examples from his recent climate change speech in Washington and his weekly White House address. -

    - Some day our children and our children’s children will look us in eye they and they will ask us, did we do all that we could when we had the chance to deal with this problem and leave them a cleaner, safer and more stable world? I want to be able to say, yes we did… Decades of carefully reviewed science tells us our planet is changing in ways that will have profound impacts on the world we leave to our children… those of us in positions of responsibility will need to be less concerned with the judgment of special interests and well-connected donors, and more concerned with the judgment of our children… The question is not whether we need to act. The question is whether we will have the courage to act before it’s too late…. We will be judged – as a people, as a society, and as a country – on where we go from here… –

    Climate campaigners will point to a mismatch between the words and his ongoing support for fracked gas, but taking such an emotive position on the issue hands a very large metaphorical stick to campaigners with which they can beat their President if and when his actions fail to match the words…
    (YOU FINISH WITH A MESSAGE TO THE AUSTRALIAN GOVT)
    So are decisions made now and into the future to increase these risks by digging up and burning more fossil fuels ethically questionable? If you take your cue from Obama’s words, then the answer may be yes.
    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/jul/02/obama-climate-change-ethics-morals-speech

    Graham, see part two of my message to you in separate comment.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Graham, surely this is a different Royal Dutch Shell? and a non-US Chevron?

    Nov 2013: Chevron and Royal Dutch Shell Sign Shale Gas Production Contracts with Ukraine
    Several large U.S. companies are expecting to sign contracts for shale gas production in Ukraine, Victora Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State, announced, as quoted by BTA. According to Nuland, U.S. business is striving to strengthen its presence in the country. She also confirmed Washington’s support for ex-Soviet states aspirations to sign associating agreements with the European Union…
    French company EDF has also joined forces with Italy’s Eni for securing a production-sharing agreement for a gas field off the coast of Crimea peninsula…
    http://www.publics.bg/en/news/10615/

    Nov 2013: Royal Dutch Shell: Bloomberg: Shell to Drill First Wells in $10 Billion Ukrainian Project
    Shell will need to drill as many as 15 wells to complete the initial exploration appraisal of the 8,000 square-kilometer (3,100 square-mile) Yuzivska field in the eastern part of the country, Graham Tiley, the country manager of Shell Ukraine, said in an interview in Kiev on Nov. 6.
    Separately, the company has also completed drilling its first well in the Kharkiv region together with state company DK Ukrhazvydobuvannya, a unit of NAK Naftogaz Ukrainy, and is preparing to drill two more next year, he said…
    The government signed a production-sharing agreement with Chevron Corp. yesterday for extraction of shale gas, and plans to complete negotiations by the end of this year with an Exxon Mobil Corp-led group, which includes Shell, to explore off Ukraine’s western Black Sea coast…
    The country could hold as much as 42 trillion cubic feet (1.2 trillion cubic meters) of shale gas, the third largest reserve in Europe, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimate from 2011. The use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, upended the U.S. gas industry, which overtook Russia as the biggest producer…
    http://royaldutchshellplc.com/2013/11/08/shell-to-drill-first-wells-in-10-billion-ukrainian-project/

    Graham, see final comment which will be posted separately.


    Report this

    00

  • #
    pat

    Graham, why haven’t i seen the biggest story online for days now in the Guardian newspaper?

    21 Feb: Foreign Policy Journal: Is Ukraine Drifting Toward Civil War And Great Power Confrontation?
    by Paul Craig Roberts
    VIDEO: In an eight minute, 46 second speech at the National Press Club (Dec 13, 2103) sponsored by the US-Ukraine Foundation, ***CHEVRON, and Ukraine-in-Washington Lobby Group, (Victoria) Nuland, (OBAMA’S Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State) boasted that Washington has spent $5 billion to foment agitation to bring Ukraine into the EU. Once captured by the EU, Ukraine will be “helped” by the West acting through the IMF…
    Just look at the large Chevron sign next to which Nuland speaks, and you will know what it is all about…
    http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/02/21/is-ukraine-drifting-toward-civil-war-and-great-power-confrontation/
    (Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury for Economic Policy in the Reagan Administration. He was associate editor and columnist with the Wall Street Journal, columnist for Business Week, and the Scripps Howard News Service. He has had numerous university appointments. His latest book, The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, is available at Amazon.com)

    Graham, quit PREACHING to the Australian people and the Govt. you are either a pawn in a game too big for you to understand, or a fool, if you think you are taken seriously by anyone with half a brain.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    How do they distinguish computer-generated gabble from normal academese written by humans?


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #
  • #
    klem

    I find this story deeply disturbing. Perhaps many of the headlines we have read and seen on TV resulted from computer generated spam science papers.

    Perhaps Micheal Manns hockey stick was a spam science paper. That would explain a few things actually.


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    no need to tell you i scour the news for CAGW craziness each & every day. yet i have only now come across the following, because i happened to see a comment about Osborne’s remarks on a youtube about nuclear radiation!

    NO COVERAGE WHATSOEVER by ABC, Fairfax, BusinessSpectator. no media freak-out from Christine Milne. no criticism by the 3 UK newspapers below, all of which have pushed the CAGW scare for years & pushed for taxpayer-funded green technology.

    i saw this coming, & this is where taxpayer money will be/has already been ***invested in the name of CAGW!

    20 Feb: UK Mirror: George Osborne says fracking and nuclear power are ‘green’ sources of energy
    The Chancellor said a “new generation” of nuclear power stations will be built – and dismissed fears hydraulic fracturing for shale gas could damage the environment.
    Mr Osborne said: “I am someone who believes climate change is happening, and caused by human beings. We should do all we can to prevent it and if not, mitigate it, for example, by building flood defences.
    “The UK has been one of the outstanding leaders in this space – both in terms of our international global diplomacy, ***but also what we have done at home to create a proper market where people invest in green energy.
    “So when it comes to the technology we use, let’s get the right mix. For example, there are people in the green movement who oppose the use of civil nuclear power for ideological reasons, if you like, when it is by definition a green source of energy generation.
    “We are going ahead with a new generation of civil nuclear power stations. Equally with shale gas, let’s see more development of fracking in the UK and the US, as that will help reduce carbon emissions.”
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-says-fracking-nuclear-3167529

    21 Feb: Guardian: Nicholas Watt: George Osborne wants climate change tackled as cheaply as possible
    Chancellor calls on environmentalists to drop opposition to nuclear power and shale gas as they can be inexpensive
    In some of his most significant remarks on climate change since he said in 2011 that Britain should go no faster than any other EU country in cutting carbon emissions, the chancellor said it was important not to be “theological” about finding the right energy mix…
    In a question and answer after a speech to business leaders in Hong Kong, the chancellor firmly rejected arguments posed by some Tory climate change sceptics when he said man is to blame for global warming. The chancellor said: “I’m someone who believes climate change is happening, that it’s caused by human beings. We should do what we can to prevent it and if we can’t prevent then mitigate against it for example by building flood defences.”…
    The remarks by the chancellor about tackling climate change in an inexpensive way chime with the message delivered to modernising Tories when a minister, who is a close Osborne ally, said last year that the prime minister wants to get rid of the “green crap”. The chancellor told the modernisers that he accepts the need to tackle climate change but does not want to harm economic growth in the process.
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/20/george-osborne-climate-change-cheaply

    insignificant Independent piece that doesn’t even include nuclear in the headline, 12 comments only:

    20 Feb: UK Independent: Nigel Morris: Britain should press ahead with fracking in bid to cut carbon emissions, says George Osborne
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-should-press-ahead-with-fracking-in-bid-to-cut-carbon-emissions-says-george-osborne-9142601.html


    Report this

    00

    • #
      Kevin Lohse

      Love it. The political equivalent of 3 Ave Maria’s and a sprinkling of Holy Water ands LO! filthy energy sources are sanctified! To be fair to George, he has long been the pragmatist in a cabinet full of ecoloons and environmental carpet-baggers. If this attempt to remedy the UK’s energy needs allows the rest to save face, then thats OK with me.


      Report this

      20

  • #

    Jo,
    The quality of peer reviewing system depends on the on what the mission of the journal is about. If the journal is dedicated to a well defined scientific field, i.e. where the scientific competence is driving the field, then the peer review system works just fine since those doing it are world recognised for their own research that have been validated by their peers. For example, if one wants to publish paper on properties of CO2, that person should have PhD degree in experimental carbon chemistry, biochemistry or biology specializing in photosynthesis and then publish in journals where peer reviewers are recognised for their research that involves CO2. What you have instead is that someone like Gavin S with PhD in mathematics is the lead author on the paper that describes CO2 as a ‘thermostat of our atmosphere’ and publishes it in some back-waters journals that has nothing to do with physicochemical properties of molecules. Few years ago I downloaded the list of all the papers by the ‘Team’ (Mann, Jones and Schmidt) from their own CVs with the following findings:
    Number of papers 1100, all based on statistical treatment of numbers generated by computer and NOT by recognised instruments. Number of those papers publish in journals dedicated to statistics – zero. So, for the real sciences that deal with real data peer review system works just fine. There is no science behind man-made global warming, it does not deal with real data and therefore peer review system can’t work since it is not based on scientific competence.


    Report this

    70

  • #

    As Skiphil has pointed out, this is reminiscent of the Sokal Affair, when in 1996 Alan Sokal, a physics professor submitted gibberish to Social Text, an “academic journal of postmodern cultural studies”. His article “Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity”, which argued that “quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct” was accepted and published.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

    But it also brings to mind Pierre Brassau, whose painting was in 1964 praised thus:

    Brassau paints with powerful strokes, but also with clear determination. His brush strokes twist with furious fastidiousness. Pierre is an artist who performs with the delicacy of a ballet dancer.

    Pierre, it transpired, was a chimpanzee,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Brassau

    See also
    http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/archive/permalink/pierre_brassau_monkey_artist

    My memory often needs help. Curiously when I googled “social sciences hoax paper” (without quote marks) the Wikipedia entry on the “Sokal affair” was the first result and the second was the “Hockey stick controversy”.

    Skiphil asks:

    Has anyone tried a Sokal-type hoax with a pseudo-science paper in Climatology?

    Maybe Mann will eventually fess up: “C’mon guys, you didn’t think the hockey stick was real. I was only messin’ with you”.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    pat

    i know many CAGW sceptics are all for frakking & nuclear, but are you for govt/taxpayer subsidies, which is what we are talking about here? i’ve posted about nuclear previously:

    July 2013: Guardian: George Osborne unveils ‘most generous tax breaks in world’ for fracking
    Environmental groups furious as chancellor sets 30% rate for shale gas producers in bid to enhance UK energy security
    Terry Macalister and Fiona Harvey
    The Treasury has set a 30% tax rate for onshore shale gas production. That compares with a top rate of 62% on new North Sea oil operations and up to 81% for older offshore fields…
    “This new tax regime, which I want to make the most generous for shale in the world, will contribute to that. I want Britain to be a leader of the shale gas revolution – because it has the potential to create thousands of jobs and keep energy bills low for millions of people.”…
    It also comes after a survey showed that nearly 80% of those who were polled believed that the UK should reduce its reliance on fossil fuels.
    Lawrence Carter, a Greenpeace energy campaigner, said: “The chancellor is telling anyone who will listen that UK shale gas is set to be an economic miracle, yet he’s had to offer the industry sweetheart tax deals just to reassure them that fracking would be profitable.
    “Experts from energy regulator Ofgem to Deutsche Bank and the company in receipt of this tax break, Cuadrilla, admit that it won’t reduce energy prices for consumers. Instead we’re likely to see the industrialisation of tracts of the British countryside, gas flaring in the home counties and a steady stream of trucks carrying contaminated water down rural lanes.”…
    Andrew Pendleton, head of campaigns at Friends of the Earth, said it was a disgrace to offer handouts to polluting energy firms when the rest of Britain was being told to tighten belts…
    ***Tory MP Peter Lilley, a climate sceptic who is an adviser on foreign policy in No 10, also does not believe the industry needs government help: “I think tax breaks are unnecessary for fracking, based on my knowledge of the oil and gas industry,” he said in a debate on shale gas in Westminster Hall last night. Lilley has been an energy industry analyst for more than 20 years, and has a financial interest in central Asian oil and gas…
    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jul/19/george-osborne-tax-break-fracking-shale-environment

    Osborne repeated his frakking/nuclear spiel at The Sydney Institute (podcast at their website,around 36 mins) and still ABC, Fairfax, Milne silent! what total hypocrites:

    22 Feb: Australian: Adam Creighton: UK Chancellor backs Abbott plan
    In Sydney ahead of the meeting yesterday, Mr Osborne took aim at environmentalists for ignoring the benefits of nuclear power and fracking in their quest to cut global carbon emissions, but wanted the G20 to focus on “primary economic issues”.
    “I’m very proud that unlike other advanced economies we are embarking on new generation of nuclear reactors, with French technology and Chinese investment,” he said.
    “Environmentalists say they are anti-nuclear yet civil nuclear power is a very effective low-carbon form of generating electricity,” he added, pointing out that US carbon emissions had fallen dramatically on the back of the shale gas revolution, which had drawn similar “theological” opposition…
    He said he had “a lot of sympathy” for the Coalition’s agenda.
    ***“If you’ve got businesses that can only survive through endless public subsidy, I don’t think that’s viable in the long haul,” he said..
    On the growing debate over US monetary policy, Mr Osborne sided with Mr Hockey.
    ???“Developing countries shouldn’t criticise the Fed for doing what it thinks is the right thing to do for the US economy,” he said. “Those countries (with) the least problems recently are the ones who’ve undertaken difficult supply-side reforms.”…
    Mr Osborne said developing countries cobbling together their own welfare states should be careful to avoid creating perverse incentives that discouraged lower income families from seeking work.
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/uk-chancellor-backs-abbott-plan/story-fn59niix-1226834182531

    subsidies in the name of CAGW are ok, but not for manufacturing! the Fed should just keep printing money out of thin air! already we’re told developing countries shouldn’t develop because of CAGW, & now a warning they shouldn’t even attempt to have safety nets.

    calling Christine Milne, ABC, Fairfax. this is where your CAGW has led us.


    Report this

    21

  • #
    janama

    O/T – The Climate Change Council is holding a live Q&A.

    Get your questions in now for Flannery’s online Q&A


    Report this

    10

  • #
  • #

    Makes our PRP ‘pal review’ look classy. :)
    I got 24 pages of things to improve and fix from my two ‘pals’.
    I won’t be submitting to Springer or IEEE in the future.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The kind of review these people need is to toss their work off the end of the pier. Better review by the fish than any human.

    End of problem. ;-)


    Report this

    10

  • #
    Pouncer

    I’m not sure, but if a computer can generate a paper that passes “peer review”, and a computer has determined that the paper is being generated by a computer, then the “peer network” is working, although not in the way originally envisioned.

    What is also implied is that, if (iff, if and only if) an assumed human review FAILED to determine the paper was computer generated, and that ONLY another computer was clever-peer enough to spot the difference between an anthropogenerated paper and an automatomiton-generated paper, that automatom can be said to have passed a “Turing Test.”

    (I invent novel spellings and neologisms in order to prove myself other than a plagiarizing netbot…)


    Report this

    40

  • #

    Which is more likely to be true:

    A.) That 120 peer reviewed papers, passed editorship, and published, read by some or none, were really all written by computer pasting nouns, verbs, adverbs, and technical phrases according to some AI model

    B.) We have been presented a FALSE report that a researcher using a computer algorithm has identified over 120 papers in an IEEE field that written by computer algorithms that fooled peer reviewers, editors and the meager readership that paid them any attention.

    As a skeptic I am inclined to believe more in B than in A. But, I confess that it is a close call. Come on, the paper’s author, Labbé, is one that has admitted publishing false technical papers in prior years. We are now to believe what he got published in Nature? Maybe Nature is testing our credulity.

    A list of the retracted papers, authors, and affected journals is necessary for me to more believe A). The LIG website offers no such list. I find it incredible that no list is offered on the website or referred to in this paper or mentioned in the abstract.

    However, given the dense and impenetrable writing style, in many technical papers, more mechanical than human, A.) remains a possibility.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Peppykiwi

      If I understand your post correctly, in Case B we must at least consider the possibility that:
      - Nature failed to properly peer-review a paper that purports to demonstrate glaring failures in the peer-review process, or
      - Nature is testing us to see how gullible we all are. April fools day come early.

      Humm, don’t know the answer to that one!


      Report this

      10

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    As IEEE member its not entirely surprising. Push to get publications out to keep jobs, (professorships..funding you name it), PHD thesis etc.


    Report this

    10

  • #

    I can imagine how this might have been done.

    I created an automatic translation program for a fictional language a few years ago, in Cocoa, for my fantasy books. The language was based on Welsh, supposedly spoken by gryphons, and has a distinct grammar with word order changes, a lexical root structure with different word endings for plural, singular, dative, genitive, etc. If the program encountered an English word that was in the thesaurus but didn’t have a gryphon language equivalent in one of the other words in the same section, it would either adapt an existing word or ‘create’ one according to a set of predetermined rules.

    Here is the original:

    CHAPTER ONE

    The Tavern–keeper and the Boy

    It was the dusk of the day after the last sliver of the moon and Hhwedolyn the Gryphon stared out from his eyrie, surveying the mountainous valley of Eryodol.

    The translation (this is the kind of raw output I would get from the program):

    HVKhacÆ` unilla lla~ol NealB“Æ io~l lla~ol maCwal Hwn cHach~ul lla~ol `-`H o~a lla~ol dwyrnos o~a lla~ol `Tac Chøchweh io~l hhwedolyn lla~ol LChSWVS“GlIN cHach~ul GlaiFm aic~al Mum~a wolghHaFI Chead n~a lla~ol `Tac dyMeQ o~a eryodol .

    This is what the end result looked like once I added a font, etc:

    http://deep-cogitations.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/ancient-gryphon-language-manuscript.html

    —-

    Email sent Robert :- ) – Jo


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Galileosapprentice

    How do the people the businesses the honest people of this country sue those responsible for this scientific fraud forced on our country, economy, jobs, electricity bills, forced on our taxpayer funded media ABC everyday ?

    The climate commission is still quoted everyday on the ABC
    These people will not stop with their lies and propaganda !
    How do we stop this now ?


    Report this

    30

    • #
      Vince Whirlwind

      How about we sue everybody who has been caught lying about climate change?

      I’m game. Are you? Are you *really*?

      I’m thinking of starting with :
      Lindzen: made a “no more warming for the foreseeable future” call in the early ’90s. Should obviously go to gaol for that one.
      McLean: “2012 will be the coldest year since 1956″. Gaol’s too kind for somebody telling such a humungous porky.
      Don Easterbrook: made climate predictions that were utterly wrong. Don’t pass go. Go to Gaol.
      Pat Michaels: So many lies I can’t even list them. Maybe just use his fraudulent graph episode and send him to the slammer for that.
      Monckton: Where do you start?


      Report this

      02

  • #
    Bulbous

    Note that the papers found were produced by one specific piece of software, and that it’s only characteristic use of language by this one specific piece of software that enabled them to be spotted.
    This is important because there are multiple pieces of software that produce gibberish papers, so this haul is only a fraction of the *software-produced* gibberish papers out there, never mind the manually-produced gibberish.
    And that’s just the gibberish. How many papers are produced in a rush, with made-up data, to meet a deadline or make a result happen. How many papers are “no longer reproducible”?
    How shaky is the science on anything?


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] Busted: 120 gibberish science papers withdrawn – so much for “peer review” (joannenova.com.au) [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Peppykiwi

    After more than 15 years at a leading Australasian research institute I have come across a few absolute howlers that made it through peer review. My all-time favourite was a paper claiming to have sterilised the cut surfaces of a 250gm piece of steak by passing electricity through it. Now steak is highly conductive (I’ve tested this), and if they had actually applied the stated voltage across the piece of steak as described, the power applied would have been at least 6,000,000 watts for a total of 30 seconds. This is 180,000,000 joules, sufficient to heat 250 grams of water from room temperature to over 170,000°C. Needless to say, the steak would have simply exploded the instant the power was turned on. Yet this passed peer review in a reputable meat research journal and not withdrawn even after the researchers had “ceased responding to comments or questions”.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] be exploited. As happens at times, life imitates art except it goes way over the top. Jo Nova has a story covering the retraction of over a hundred papers on electronics which cleared peer review to publication but turned out to [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    [...] lies and outright dishonesty. You should read the whole thing. It was prompted by this Jo Nova bit: Busted: 120 gibberish science papers withdrawn — so much for “peer review”. For those of you into electronics the IEEE published about 100 of the papers. Categories: [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    lemiere jacques

    so next step would be to ask those who reviewed these papers for some explanations…


    Report this

    00

    • #
      The Griss

      Then extend it to explanations from those who passed papers from Mann, England, Gergis, Lewendopey and the rest of the climate moronity.


      Report this

      00