Bishop Hill The snail paper
Oct 20, 2014 Climate: WG2 Greens Readers who have been following the saga of the extinction and resurrection of the Aldabra banded snail will be interested in this posting. As you no doubt recall, the snail was declared exctinct by researcher Justin Gerlach in 2007. His findings were hotly contested by another expert in the area, Oxford's Clive Hambler.
In their wisdom, the Royal Society, who had published Dr Gerlach's original paper decided that the rebuttal should not see the light of day, a decision that turned out to be a bit of a problem when the snail was rediscovered a few months ago. Dr Hambler has now published the rejected manuscript on his website and I have to say it makes rather interesting reading.
R. aldabrae has apparently existed in the region for over 125,000 years, despite substantial changes in Aldabra’s habitat and land area (Taylor et al. 1979). The species survived very low rainfall around the 1950s (Stoddart & Walsh 1979), including years drier than any since 1968. Rainfall data for Aldabra are fragmented and will require expert analysis. Gerlach’s data and analyses require correction: 1981 had c. 970 mm (not 1702), and 2006 was the wettest on record (1787 mm). Fuller data (including 1984-1993) show generally dry periods between both 1980 - 1991, and 1999 - 2004.
The statistical handling looks to my untrained eye like an unmitigated disaster as well.
I think the Gerlach paper may well fall into the category of "so bad that it would be too embarrassing to publish a rebuttal pointing out all the problems. You can see why Hambler had no joy with the journal.
Reader Comments (44)
I had a chat on twwiter, about how the science was supposedly misrepesneted, how on earth did he media get it wrong (and Paterson) -/irony
Red List (assessor Gerlach) "concluded that this species [snail] is extinct as a result of climate change (Gerlach 2007)
http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/168122/0
Nature: "unfortunate distinction of being 1 of the few species whose extinction can be attributed directly to climate change"
http://www.nature.com/climate/2007/0709/full/climate.2007.43.html
Nature:"[snail] has been driven to extinction by reduced rainfall associated with climate change, according to new research"
Title of snail paper was.. Short-term climate change and the extinction of the snail Rhachistia aldabrae
"First tied directly to global warming, according to Oxford University biologist Justin Gerlach. " @richardabetts www.treehugger.com/clean-technology…
--
I then heard the argument that he did not say AGW, which shows how misledaing 'climate hange' is if it is sed to mean eith natural/AGW interchangeably
"We predict “rediscovery” when resources permit."
At last, an accurate prediction.
The RS has been corrupted and remains so. The members who aren't global warming alarmist stooges need to regain control.
Well, the findings are science; the decision not to publish the rebuttal and findings of the snail is politics. How deep can we sink, even with snails?
The Royal Society sinks still further in my estimation. It publishes a paper in the peer reviewed literature, subsequently receives a well argued, data rich comment, from an expert in the field that completely undermines the original paper and refuses to publish it.
Was Bob Ward employed by the RS at this period I wonder?
The Snailgate story now has a post at retraction watch appropriately called “At a snail’s pace”.
This notes that the editor of the journal, Richard Battarbee, has made a half-hearted attempt to address the problem by writing an Editorial article about the case. But there is no retraction, and no warning flag on the original paper.
Andrew's link to the original paper goes to the pubmed page (not quite the same thing as the original paper). The paper in the Royal Society journal Biology Letters is here. At the bottom of that version there is a link to the editorial written by Battarbee.
Is it endemic, wasn't Richard Betts proclaiming that the demise of the snail had nothing to do with AGW, without an explanation that 'short term climate change' is something completely different.
How stupid of us to not realise that 'short term climate change' is as far unrelated to AGW as science is to postmodern science!!!!
Can we not realise that climate change/global warming/ AGW is a long term concept covering periods greater than 30 years, unless it's the hottest year/month/day 'eva', and climate change/natural variability is a short term concept covering periods of less than a decade/17 years/25 years just according as to how long the hiatus/pause/slow down in warming lasts.
Clear now!!!
Thanks for the link, Paul Matthews.
Richard Battarbee considers that the false declaration of extinction in the Gerlach paper does not constitute "honest error". It quite clearly is an error and one hopes that the wrong conclusion was made honestly and in good faith. I cannot understand the reluctance to retract, I'd have thought the authors would be keen to see a paper that reaches a clearly erroneous conclusion retracted, I know I would.
Missing treehugger link:
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/is-the-aldabra-banded-snail-the-first-global-warming-related-extinction.html
"First tied directly to global warming, according to Oxford University biologist Justin Gerlach. "
"He reached this conclusion after observing that the smaller shells once commonly picked up by collectors were vanishing
with the advent of the longer, hotter summers — a phenomenon he attributes to global warming. If his intuition is correct, that would make the Aldabra banded snail the first climate change related casualty."
"In their wisdom, the Royal Society, who had published Dr Gerlach's original paper decided that the rebuttal should not see the light of day"
Given the RS previous and present presidents (Lord May, Lord Rees and Sir Paul Nurse), it is not surprising that it has abandoned real science. Their support for AGW has never been based on science but on the beliefs of a few. It is difficult to see how RS can sink any lower in reputation. And we have the pleasure of knowing they use public funds for this.
Carl Sagan, a well-known American astronomer, wrote:
“There are many hypotheses in science which are wrong. That’s perfectly all right: it’s the aperture to finding out what’s right. Science is a self-correcting process.”
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/401015-there-are-many-hypotheses-in-science-which-are-wrong-that-s
The Royal Society is obviously in complete agreement with Carl Sagan. Why bother to publish a rebuttal of the snail paper when you can simply let the science correct itself?
Here is Justin Gerlach's current activity:
I wonder how many of the 51 extinct French Polynesian species are still alive and well?
James Delingpole missed Paterson's talk because he was talking to Radley School about the Aldabra Banded Snail.
I trust that he will be reading this post.
The slimy trails of the MRN period of the Royal Society's evolution will surely be subjected to much further study. When measures of integrity and rigour in leadership are devised, we may well discover that the Society is currently in an historic minimum from which a long, slow recovery may be the best that can be hoped for.
Terry S:
According to the IUCN 281 terrestrial snails are extinct globally. I don't know if this is an accurate number, but I do know that a lot of the extinctions are well-documented and individuals of the species in question haven't been seen for a long time.
Note that as far as I know climate change has not contributed to these losses. They have generally occurred on small islands where species are represented by small populations. The main causes are probably introduced species (plants and other snails, predatory ones), deforestation (obviously can be catastrophic on small islands) and possibly over-collecting.
You can browse some of the detail at the IUCN website. Search for Gastropoda and exclude marine species. The threats are nicely summarised for the living species, but they don't seem to put detail for all the extinct ones.
R. aldabrae is still listed there as extinct....................
@Lord Beaverbrook I found yesterday that the term CAGW is banned in alarmists circles
As ever that sounds like greens having a wacky unevidenced conspiracy theory.- That is bizarre to me as how do you differentiate between the scenario where you really need to do something against CO2 CAGW and the scenario where the AGW is at only a small level ?
- I can only figure that they are afraid of acknowledging that there can be anything other than the path to catastrophe.
From the ironically named Rationalwiki
I retired from science a number of years ago, but cannot believe how corrupt the Royal Society has become since my working days. Every working scientist looked up, perhaps even in awe, to the primary scientific institution of our country. Now it seems to have shrunk into a rather unsavoury lobby group, led by men devoid of any guiding principles. In my working life, a scientist good enough to have a paper read at the Royal Society 'had arrived'. I am sure that is not the case now.
A perceptive observer has written about the Royal Society's MRN period here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100136432/the-royal-society-is-a-joke/
But don't take his word for it. Let Nullius in Verba be our guide.
It seems wrong is the new right.
Extinction is absolute. Species do not spontaneously regenerate.
Given empirical evidence that it was wrong then and is wrong now, how can the paper stay on the record?
Terry S: "I wonder how many of the 51 extinct French Polynesian species are still alive and well?"
Supplementary question: Is any of these escargot species edible?
Stewgreen:
"Rational"wiki indeed.
presumably then, if one suggests that the Didcot B gas fired power station suffer a "catastrophic failure", rather than simply a "failure", one is just using a "snarl word in a derogatory fashion to diminish the event witohut guilt"
Rumours of the unfortunate demise of Aldabra have been greatly exaggerated!
Hmm, and in a similar vein and entirely related rumpus, some uni geek decided that the Himalayan glaciers would melt circa 2035, ah and numerous NGO affiliated twerps averred that, the equatorial rainforests of the Amazon were in danger thanks to man made emissions of CO2 and it all turned out to be just what it was, very idle speculation by a set of jerks wanting to make a name for themselves but also a business opportunity! Golly, and gee whizz and what a surprise that, journalistic hyperbole: always hits the spot in the western media and press.
The groupthink of charlatans.
Mind you the once august RS, is now just another climate sorcery advocacy agency, it is ever so slightly soiled but disconcerting [well it was....... at one time] that even there, money talks louder than the truth of - in the RS - and thus brings shame, which now is turning to opprobrium - we scoff at and chide you all - for even the remnant honest scientists are bedaubed with the same s%*7 brush.
As to Betts, still all equivocation, still break dancing on pin heads and thus, no change there then.
Another (s)nail in the AGW coffin
The ministry of truth has spoken!
It is stated that infallible peer review confirmed Gerlach's findings. Reality must be wrong and so the paper shall stand!
stewgreen Oct 20, 2014 at 10:36 AM |
I always like to use "newsworthy" AGW whenever I comment on websites.
If they are talking about it they must accept it as "newsworthy". But that raises the question of why is it "newsworthy" if it can't be detected or noticed? It puts the onus on them to say what the problem is - 2°C means what to you?
In the end, it always comes down to their dystopian faith in the future.
Which undermines the persuasiveness of their arguments, somewhat.
>"catastrophic anthropogenic global warming," is a snarl word - derogatory label that can be attached to something, in order to dismiss its importance or worth, without guilt
I'm not sure that CAGW becoming a general term of abuse is such a bad thing. If it reinforces the idea that climate alarmism is exaggerated and overblown, and if that's the general perception, I'm in favour!
BTW, has anyone yet canvassed the opinion of resident snail expert S.Jones on the similarly exaggerated extinction of his banded friend?
Science has always been a slightly venial activity; you waved on through the odd weak paper and that was just part of the mix. Science has now been subverted by sociology and politics. It's now the norm. I'm not sure there's a way back.
Pointman
Srewgreen
I am in no doubt whatsoever that we will receive an update on climate phraseology eventually, which will of course be backdated to cover tracks, and of course when it does happen I shall tether my glee behind a smug smile and a large whiskey without making an utterance.
Someone called GrrlScientist has just tweeted "the most-read BIOLOGY LETTERS #science papers from my fav journal now listing Sept 2014", linking to this page of the most-read paper in Biology Letters in September. Gerlach's 2007 "Short-term climate change and the extinction of the snail Rhachistia aldabrae" is number 3 on the list.
Yes RE: failure/ catastrophic failure
asserting that when an engineering components fails, it is never anything other than "catastrophic failure" ..is of course DENIAL
@John Shade the Telegraph article has a comment worth repeating
Pointman,
That's too sweeping and too narrowly focused.
Don't forget Lysenkoism in the USSR, which had a serious effect in the USSR for a couple of decades, but wasn't much more than a shocking curiosity in the rest of the world.
Science has been a very successful means of finding out how the universe works and there's no particular reason that's going to change, because it's a valuable thing.
Because it's been so successful, various bodies of learning have grabbed the term to describe themselves; management science, political science, computer science (in fact computer technology) and climate science. It would be more appropriate to substitute "studies" for "science" in each case.
What's surprised me about this is the elevation of peer review (basically a protection mechanism so that journals don't publish too much unadulterated tosh) into God's Seal of Approval. I assume that's an import from the humanities.
I'm inclined to think of this as a mass mania, made worse because it's infected the political systems, but it will wash out, because it's in conflict with reality. Shame about all the quite needless damage, but it seems to be in our nature as a species to go through these excursions from time to time.
Small children are given blunt scissors to play with, so they can't take somebody's eye out.
A "Bayesian estimation" is a dangerous tool in the hands of those with poor vision.
"He reached this conclusion after observing that the smaller shells once commonly picked up by collectors were vanishing "
Another unscientific extinctionist jumps to a conclusion which suits his worldview.
Simple response to these characters; show us robust, verifiable proof that the species in question no longer exists, or it didn't happen.
"We think", or "we haven't seen them around" or the old favourite "habitat loss leads to extinction of a proportionate number of species" canard does not constitute such proof.
Claims such as knowing how many Scottish Wildcats or Sumatran Tigers exist should be treated with the derision that they deserve.
"...the smaller shells once commonly picked up by collectors were vanishing "
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Collecting perhaps?
Don't worry, Mr Passive-afggressive at Andthentheresphysics knows better:
Firstly, you don’t retract a paper simply because it’s wrong ...
"I wonder how many of the 51 extinct French Polynesian species are still alive and well?"
Probably very few since they were exterminated by a carnivorous snail introduced by idiot french bureaucrats despite repeated warnings of the disastrous effects of previous introductions of the same species elsewhere. Predators are unfortunately much more thorough searchers than snail researchers.
Pointman,
Aside from pathological cases, one could say about scientific peer review something similar to what Winston Churchill said about democracy - that it's the worst system in the world for vetting scientific results except for every other one that could be imagined.
rw
don't get caqrried away about peer-review...it is meant to catch stuff that has been said already or stuff that does not make sense. It is not meant to guarantee correctness. It just says to the relevant community, this is interesting, so let's discuss. Sadly, Climate Science does not do discussion. It does Helpful or Not Help-ful. And the scientists involved, often, do not seem to realise this.
For the record, (please forgive the repetition, but I believe it belongs in this thread) ...
A few days ago (over in the Paterson at the GWPF thread), appropos of nothing that had previously been mentioned in the thread, Richard Betts evidently felt obliged to expand upon a drum he'd been banging on via twitter:
---begin---
Mr Paterson mentions the mistaken extinction of the Aldabran banded snail as if this were evidence that 'forecasts of effects of climate change have been consistently and widely exaggerated'.
However, the paper mistakenly claiming the extinction never did actually attribute this to AGW. The author wrote:
This 'example' is therefore merely a strawman.
----end-----
Along with John M, Mike Jackson, and Brownedoff, I had added my .02 as follows:
---begin---
Oct 17, 2014 at 12:55 AM | Richard Betts
Well, this is a slight improvement over your banging on this particular drum via twitter (which I had commented on over in Failure to Deny [Oct 17, 2014 at 9:50 AM]).
And I see that at least we now agree on Paterson's intro: 'forecasts of effects of climate change have been consistently and widely exaggerated' (even if you didn't paste in the full paragraph).
But, considering that:
a) The title of this paper is:
and (setting aside the lack of any definition for "Short-term climate change")
b) The paper's abstract reads:
and
c) As Brownedoff noted, above, neither Paterson nor this paper's author, Justin Gerlach, even mentions "AGW" (or even the word "anthropogenic" for that matter!)
and
d) While you now quote the following from Gerlach's "Conclusion":
I'm not quite sure I understand why you chose to omit the immediately following sentence:
Perhaps your view is that "abstracts" cannot - and should not - be relied on (nor, it would seem, should final sentences!)
If so, where might we find your critique of Cook et al's "award winning" 97% paper - which (amongst its many faults) relied entirely on abstracts?
Come to think of it, Gerlach's abstract would have been a great item for Cook et al wouldn't it?!
But that aside ... could you share with us the steps you have taken to encourage the Royal Society to withdraw or update this paper, so that there's one less alarm we should worry about?!
Or is it the case that you intend to keep on beating this same (context-free) irrelevant drum?!
----end---
But a funny thing happened on my way to pasting these posts here ... I followed the link that John M. had included:
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41223/title/Snail-Revival-Raises-Peer-Review-Debate/
And here's what I found there:
Fancy that! Gerlach even got a mention in AR5's WGII. Correct me if I'm wrong, Richard ... but wasn't that the WG in which you were involved?!
So, in light of all of the above, perhaps you could enlighten us as to how and why you determined that Owen Paterson's mention of the Aldabra Branded Snail (and here it is in context) ...
... is "merely a strawman"
Thanks.
Hilary
My IPCC WG2 chapter did not claim that the snail had gone extinct due to anthropogenic climate change.
We actually wrote:
and:
(my bold here)
So you are incorrect that we mentioned Gerlach - you check the reference list for my chapter here. We did cite Cahill, who had suggested there was a link, but as a matter of documenting what's in the literature - but it's clear from our assessment that we thought the links were tenuous.
So the piece you cite above is not representing what we actually wrote - we didn't even actually mention the snail itself.
Personally I agree with Clive Hambler that too much emphasis on trying to attribute extinctions to climate change (anthropogenic or otherwise) distracts from other more pressing causes of extinctions, such as habitat loss.
Regarding your question on twitter about whether I'm doing about this - well, in addition to making sure that there was no over-statement of attribution of extinctions to AGW in my IPCC chapter, I did contact Clive to see if he's still pursuing the issue of his unpublished rebuttal of Gerlach, and asked whether I can do anything to help.
Richard,
Perhaps a post on the Met news blog highlighting the tenuous claim and stating the accepted scientific position as per IPCC would assist!
Regardless of how others have used his paper, I think that Gerlach definitely linked the snail's extinction to man-made climate change by his citation of Thomas et al. 2004.
From Gerlach:
Thomas et al. 2004 ('Extinction risk from climate change' Nature 427, 145-148) models different emissions scenarios to estimate species extinctions by 2050. It is entirely about the possible effects of future anthropogenic climate change.
From Thomas et al. 2004:
If Gerlach meant something other than anthropogenic climate change, he chose an inappropriate reference to make his case.
Richard betts,
Your position and work now makes you unacceptable to the Royal Soceity.
Who'd a thunk it possible?
Oct 21, 2014 at 4:03 PM | Richard Betts
Thank you for your response, Richard. It was a very enlightening explanation of matters that had evidently unfolded (presumably!) prior to your original tweet, which gave rise to much that has come to light since the U.K. Royal Society gave its (unwarranted?!) 2007 peer-reviewed blessing to Gerlach's paper.
For the record - and benefit of those here who (probably quite wisely!) steer clear of the twitterverse - your original far from the then unbeknownst** IPCC/UNFCCCs green yonder, your original tweet was:
[**Well, unbeknownst at least to me - and quite possibly even to Owen Paterson and/or those who might have assisted him in the preparation of that particular part of his address to the GWPF audience on Wed. Oct. 15]
This certainly confirms that the real problem here lies in the hands of the choices that were made - for whatever reason - by the (decreasingly credible standards of) the powers that be at the U.K. Royal Society's editorial and/or publishing arm(s). As Andrew had quite correctly noted in his post above:
Also, for the record, I did try to locate the actual text in AR5's WGII that might have precipitated Jyoti Madhusoodanan's link thereto within the Oct. 15:
However, unfortunately Madhusoodanan's link did not point to any specific chapter (or even part!) of the report.
Nor did my own (admitted) stab-in-the-dark search of the - IMHO, unfathomably non-"Tagged" and non-"Fast Web View", in this day and age - pdf of Part B (based on my obviously mistaken reading of the Title, i.e. "Part B: Regional Aspects" and keywords, i.e. "climate change impacts, adaptation, vulnerability") when I should have been looking within your http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-Chap4_FINAL.pdf.
For the record, I was looking in that which I found within https://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-PartB_FINAL.pdf. Consequently, in the absence of simplicity and clarity on the IPCC's AR5 WGII site, I blew it! Mea culpa!
But that aside (although I do think it would be a very good idea if you were to convey to the powers that be at the IPCC that there is room for considerable improvement in their presentation of pdf's - as well as the "user-friendliness" of their "products") ...
Perhaps - on the "content" side of things - you could approach the-scientist.com and request that Madhusoodanan amend their AR5 WGII link - and/or text - accordingly.
The mileage of some may vary, but to my mind - notwithstanding any and/or all of the foregoing - 'twould be a far, far better thing that you do (now) than your repeated attempts to cast aspersions on Paterson (and/or the GWPF), via your still unexplained (and, IMHO, inexplicable) emphasis on your repeated, embellished - and totally unsubstantiated - claim that (in context, as noted in my comment to which you are now responding) Paterson's:
is deserving of your (IMHO) dismissive and doubt-casting original and subsequent tweets; and, in particular, your earlier "assessment" and unwarranted comment here, to the effect that the above paragraph is "merely a strawman".
Clearly, if there is any "blame", doubt or aspersion to be cast in this sorry saga, it lies squarely at the feet of the U.K. Royal Society, not at those of either Paterson or the GWPF. Wouldn't you agree?!
If so, perhaps you could apologize to Paterson and the GWPF - and redirect your twitter-followers' attention to where it more appropriately and rightfully belongs.