Fred Pearce on peer review
Feb 2, 2010 Climate: other Journals Fred Pearce again, this time looking at Hockey Team efforts to undermine peer review, and making a much better fist of it than he did of the Hockey Stick.
I found it interesting that he'd managed to speak to James Saiers, the editor of McIntyre and McKitrick's submission to GRL and who was the subject of a Hockey Team plot to oust him. I had tried to make contact with Saiers myself, soon after Climategate broke, but unfortunately got no response. Pearce has him repeating his earlier assertions that his departure from GRL was unconnected with any pressure from outside agencies, and was simply due to his term of office as editor coming to an end. This much is known already. The more interesting question, and the one I had wanted Saiers to respond to is how he had come to be replaced as editor by the much more hostile Jay Famiglietti, an event shrouded in secrecy since Famiglietti only agreed to explain it to McIntyre and McKitrick off the record.
Still, Pearce is new to questioning climate science, and he hasn't made a bad fist of this story.
Reader Comments (34)
Busy tonight Bishop - nothing on telly? :)
Watching the news with multiple windows and stories open on the computer - call it climate change multitasking - there is so much to keep up with!
Here's another good article from Pearce.
Not sure why you forgot to mention it.
You were right - a good article and some interesting comments beneath. Worth the read.
Is the Nurdgaia about to hoist a white flag?
Interesting article.
So hide the decline was about hiding the 'actual' temperature data which at that time was not known, but subsequently did indicate at least a slackening of increase (I'm trying to be fair here). And so it is wrong.
But it was stated at the time and can therefore only relate to Briffa's work showing an unexplained cooling from [IIRC] 1960 visible in the tree ring proxies. Still unexplained BTW.
Or am I missing something?
Frank
Good grief there are quite a lot of climate related articles around at the moment if you hadn't noticed!
I meant of course the Bishops article not Frank's - sorry Frank - Pearce on Climategate is not that great is it. A better summary is on SPPI Blog and the
analysis pdf
In fact the second article seems to contradict the first, and I presume more recent. I think Fred managed to read 'The Hockey Stick Illustion'
I agree with Dennis. The comments are very interesting. Looks like the Nasty Deniers Indianas are surrounding the Colonel Custer of the AGW crowd. And only one (when I looked) deleted post. Things are improving.
Sorry I cant spell - 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' available from all good Amazons
Yep, he is definitely reading the Bishops book
article 3
My Phil's a good boy. He never did nobody no harm. People oughta stop picking on him.
Dennis,
"So hide the decline was about hiding the 'actual' temperature data which at that time was not known"
There are two reasons it could not have been about hiding a decline in observed temperatures (1) this was 1999 - 1998 was a record year - there wasn't one to hide (2) they talk about 'hiding the decline' using the observed temperatures. How do you hide a decline in observed temperature using observed temperatures?
So yes it is about the divergence problem in the tree ring proxies.
But you will still read many 'sceptics' claiming that it has something to do with hiding global cooling, something for which there was no evidence then, and something for which there is no evidence now either.
And of course in the same breath as the 'skeptics' claim the data show global cooling, they claim the same data has been fudged to show global warming. And they use precisely the same email to back up both assertions, even though it supports neither. You couldn't make it up - but they do.
It's still deception though, right?
Pearce is a weather vane and has sensed a change in wind direction. He has fallen for these climate scientologists and thinks they are doing science.
Just imagine if an astrologer wore a white coat and gave you her predictions on a computer printout. And her work was peer-reviewed by other leading astrologers. The moon truly is in the seventh house.
Thank you Frank, that was my understanding. The article tends to imply otherwise.
So, to be rather simplistic about this, 'hide the decline' is about the divergence problem in the tree ring proxies highlighted by Briffa and, as yet, unexplained.
As I have no knowledge of other 'divergence problems' that may, or may not, have occurred in the historical tree ring proxy data, I have conclude that there may be hitherto unnoticed or unknown problems with the proxy data, or that there are none.
IMO, however, the science is most definately not settled.
Denis
If you want to look into the murky world of dendrochronology go to climate audit and read through the Yamal threads that were being discussed by Steve McIntyre during the autumn of last year. It is an extraordinary expose of some very poor science on the part of another prominent member of the CRU crew.
Ed
Bishop,
"It's still deception though, right?"
I wouldn't go that far but I think it is misleading. However, given that the underlying research says those data aren't reliable during that period, and shouldn't be used or relied upon, it would be equally misleading to show them. At the same time if the intent is to show your best estimates of the temperature over the whole period it's not unreasonable to use the most reliable readings for the recent period.
I think it would be better to leave them out where they start diverging (I think this was done in the most recent IPCC report). Indeed when I first saw the figure done that way I wondered why it stopped there, as I didn't know about the divergence issue at the time.
And those going around claiming this as evidence that temperature data was fiddled to show warming, or that it was to hide a decline in global temperature? The misrepresentation of the 'travesty' quote? The recent rash of completely fabricated quotes? The Oregon petition? The NSCSC claiming that there was no reason given for adjustments in station histories, when the reasons were obvious? The constant misrepresentation of the 'Y2K issue' discovered in GISS as somehow making the 1930s warmest globally when that referred to the US? Is any of that deception? Or is it simply stupidity? How come 'sceptics' in general never pick up on any of this and issue corrections?
Dennis,
Which sites do you follow on this topic that aren't 'sceptic' sites? It's pretty easy to find debunkings of the most egregious denialist fare, which is most of it, and the part that is good tends to be insignificant in terms of the big picture and the basic conclusion (at least in my experience so far).
Because you're going to be pretty confused if you rely on only one side of the aisle for information.
By all means be a sceptic but be an equal opportunity sceptic.
Frank,
I do try, I really do.
Perhaps I could impose on your good nature to point me in the direction of a few sites that may help me?
I ask because I find myself in a peculiar position that seems to be often overlooked. Do I believe in global warming, well I lean towards that position. Do I believe it is man-made, well I lean against that position. Until someone can explain to me how the fossil fuels that are the culprits nowadays were not laid down in a climate much, much warmer than it is now [and, by implication, higher in CO2 levels (IANAS)] then I struggle against my feeling that the planet does what it does. Inexorably. Until time ends.
Monbiot is also putting the boot in - though still hedging his bets.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/feb/02/climate-change-hacked-emails
What is laughable is his statement on Pearce
What Monbiot forgets is that glacier the story was broken by the BBC a month before Pearce did his piece in New Scientist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8387737.stm
Dennis,
I would suggest skepticalscience.com as a good collection of rebuttals to the most common arguments against AGW.
Peter Sinclair has also put together a set of videos which deal with the sillier arguments, which is most of them. Here's a link to the set:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/
But more interesting than those, Richard Alley's presentation at AGU is really good for understanding the focus on CO2, see the video at http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/richard-alley-the-biggest-control-knob-carbon-dioxide-in-earths-climate-history/ (IMO also pretty funny as he comes across quite like the Jerry Lewis style 'nutty professor' character in the Simpsons :-)
Naomi Oreske's video on the history of the science is very good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio
Some blogs:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ is worth a look - the most recent article there is a really elegant analogy for weather vs climate. And you can ask questions.
Tamino (tamino.wordpress.com) is pretty good for the stats stuff,
Deltoid (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/) sometimes covers global warming issues.
On the sceptic side I tend to use this site and atangledweb.squarespace.com as a kind of 'reader's digest' of the sceptic stuff, in my experience most of the stuff that the 'sceptics' find exciting either start here or end up here. [If you don't want to follow a ton of blogs and just want a similar 'reader's digest' on the pro-AGW side, maybe try http://groups.google.com/group/planet30]
I don't really follow climate audit (CA) or watts up with that (WUWT) as I find CA to be a bit of a meandering mess of nitpicking for the most part, and WUWT just seems to shovel up any old tosh, occasionally interesting but most of it silly and some outrageously poor (I'm talking simple maths or logic errors). Besides I figure the 'best' of it will sooner or later show up in the feeds above.
"Until someone can explain to me how the fossil fuels that are the culprits nowadays were not laid down in a climate much, much warmer than it is now [and, by implication, higher in CO2 levels (IANAS)]"
Not really sure what you're asking there, but I think it is something like how did the planet warm in the past before we were here to cause it? If so nobody is saying that fossil fuels are the only way to warm the climate, or that they explain every past change in history, just that this is what is happening recently.
I think your question is a bit like asking how can we convict anyone of murder today, given that people died of natural causes in the past. But maybe I've misunderstood your question.
Times they, sure, are a'changing.
And the Telegraph, the Daily Mail and now, gasp, the mighty Guardian!
I feel pretty proud of that last bit- the guardian I mean- I had to bite my lip to stop myself calling it the Graundian.
But times change and so must we.
For all its past sins, the Guardian has always allowed contrary comments. With moderation, for sure, but it does publish dissent. I like that. Sometimes I even purchase a copy off the news-stands as a sign of respect.
As much as I cannot associate with the ideas of GM and,his familiar, macFinney2 (sick) the guardians answer to Dhogoza of RC, I do admire their tenacity when confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Gentlemen and Ladies, from now on, let us pledge to be respectful, considerate and compassionate to those who've been led up the garden path and are only now having to come to grips with reality!
Thank you Frank, I will be sure to check out each and every one.
My comment regarding the laying down of the fossil fuels that are now being, in large part, blamed for the [possible] warming is that there are instances citing 'unprecedented' warming.
I find this circle hard to square.
I live near a huge area of chalk, laid down in the Cretaceous period. Much warmer then than now. IIRC 1m of chalk == 100,000 years of deposition, so we are talking big bucks here.
Millions of years of much higher temperatures does not, imo, equal 'un-precedented'.
Dennis,
"Millions of years of much higher temperatures does not, imo, equal 'un-precedented'."
It isn't unprecedented, certainly not over the whole geological record, and it doesn't need to be. To take the argument to extremes it was certainly warmer at the time of the big bang, but I wouldn't want to live there.
Think about that 'not unprecedented' argument generally. A meteorite is thought to have caused the extinction of the dinosaurs - let's say that is a fact. If that was going to happen tomorrow would you accept the argument 'well, hey, it's not unprecedented. This happened before and we're all still here, so what's the problem?'.
Or apply the same argument to anything else - the black plague, the holocaust, WW1 or WW2. Would you argue those would not be a problem if they happened again now, just because it happened before?
That said, what is unprecedented, I think, is the rate of the warming, at least during the period that we have evolved. And the CO2 levels are higher than they have been for hundreds of thousands of years if not 20 million years. The rate of CO2 increase is probably unprecedented for at least a similar period also.
As for the temperatures, they may be unprecedented or not for the last X 1000 years - let's say the MWP was as warm as now for the sake of argument. The fallacy in that argument is that time has not stopped. We are still raising CO2 and so the warming should be expected to continue or even accelerate (in fact it should continue for a while even if CO2 levels stopped increasing).
[And no, the last 10 years don't refute that - see the snowfall analogy of the grumbine science link, or the trend analysis over at tamino's blog]
OT but you need to check - is Al Gore getting his hands on your super?
http://twawki.com/2010/02/03/warning-future-cataclsym/
Peer review has always been broken, but this is now becoming recognised. Nice article on what to do next at
http://is.gd/7p4kz
I enjoyed the article and thanks recompense posting such valuable poop appointment perquisites of all of us to skim, I notice it both of leak and instructional and I method to constrict from it as again as I can.
ray ban 3025
@Frank O'Dwyer
Glad to see you stopped talking about networking, which you obviously don't know much about. However, since you want to be so helpful, perhaps you could come over and help me shove the snow on my driveway? The SSI is at four, and perhaps going up to five this week.
And failing that, explain why its so frig'n cold this winter? Not only California, but Europe, Russian and China. Or is that just 'Weather"?
http://www.chinapost.com.tw/china/national-news/2010/01/06/239531/China-to.htm
Get real fanboi. You are wrong.
Can any reader recall a reference by the BBC or The Guardian to FOIA.ZIP containing source code and climate data?
I haven't heard one such reference all week. A listener/viewer/reader new to the subject might conclude the archive contained only emails.
Anyone reading the source code comments in HARRY_READ_ME.TXT would have a far better idea of the temperature record than Fred Pearce's reports indicate. Perhaps the code, as yet unexamined, must have some real stinkers in it.
Andrew,
You are correct in pointing out the issue of the source code, but perhaps it is only the trained eye of a software engineer that will see what Harry is talking about -- the code he is working on is abominable -- just his comments say that.
There were several threads earlier that discussed the quality of the code, the languages used and so forth that covered this topic. Several very talented and experienced software engineers expressed their doubts about the code in those threads. I suggest you go through the archives and read them.
For the little that I saw embedded in the Harry_Read_Me file, Harry was the typical academic trying his hand at programming -- intelligent but inexperienced. Many years ago I was both the statistical consultant as well as a programming consultant at the Cornell Office of Computer Services and saw many examples of total crap code written by other graduate students who thought nothing of writing 4000 line main programs with thousands of "goto" statements. They had no idea about basic things like computability, 32-bit rounding errors, truncation errors and mixed mode issues. And I have no idea how many had made the classic "DO 15 J= 1.1000" error, but that was the first thing I checked for. There must have been ten each day That is a in-joke among old-time Fortran programmers.
Hint on that error - read it as "DO15J = 1.1000" instead of the intended "DO 15 J = 1,1000"
Those who understand FORTRAN will understand the consequences.
Hey Frank, do you understand?
The Guardian’s position is becoming clearer with this article
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/feb/04/climate-consensus-under-strain
though Monbiot is, as usual, trying to straddle two stools, and risking a serious Graun injury when he claims at the same time that “data [which] isn't public and contestable [is] not scientific” and that no damage has been done to the canon of climate science. (Yes, he reallly did use the word “canon”, as in “Canon Law”).
To the Guardian’s credit, they managed to track down some sceptics, including Roger Pielke Jnr and Ben Pile of Clilate Resistance.
I don't know whether anyone else noticed this. One commenter on a Guardian article by Pearce asked the question "What is the purpose for publishing all these articles by Fred Pearce?". This was replied to by staff writer James Randerson, who inter alia replied:
[JRanderson, 3 Feb 2010, 9:30PM, Staff]
"The Guardian's editorial line is that global warming is happening and caused by human actions..."
In other words, it's not interested in looking where the science leads. AGW is the editorial line. It is being pushed from the top. Articles must support the AGW agenda even if it's phoney. If Monbiot and Pearce want to continue writing for the Guardian they are obliged to toe this editorial line. Therefore Pearce, who is getting involved in lots of articles now (over two months too late) simply cannot behave as a proper investigative journalist since he has to conform to an editorial line. This thus taints everything he says. Do bear this in mind when reading Pearce's articles in the Guardian.
Dan Pablo,
"Glad to see you stopped talking about networking, which you obviously don't know much about"
Networking? Are you feeling OK? Where have I even mentioned networking here?
"And failing that, explain why its so frig'n cold this winter?"
Ask your fellow 'sceptic' Roy Spencer of the UAH satellite record. He just posted that Jan 2010 is the warmest January in that record. Perhaps there is a reason that they call it GLOBAL warming?
Or maybe it is a big urban heat island effect affecting the satellites and ocean?
Feb has also started off globally warm. Looks like barring a major volcanic eruption we are headed for the warmest year on record.
If you think otherwise feel free to head over to intrade.com and put your money where your mouth, and your foot, is.