Scientists discover that climate-change skeptics are bozos

[Ulaven_Demorte]

This is probably worth a thread all by itself. Without trusting peer review, what option do we have? Become experts in every field of science and review every study ourselves? When one of us comes down with cancer, who do we trust to have reviewed the literature on drugs, radiotherapy, surgery, etc?

For all of the bluster and blow the Cap'n and those like him emit toward the "Religion of AGW", theirs is the much more religious view. Any scientific studies (which are the vast majority of them) that conflict with what they so desperately want to be true are not credible. It's obviously a global conspriracy involving scientists from all over the world and government cooperation on a scale never before seen..

It's like trying to argue evolution with a creationist. Show them the fossils and they will claim that the Devil created them just to tempt you away from God.

 

[trysail]

Another commentator:

...In their scientific paper, submitted for peer review, the Berkeley scientists disclaim knowing the cause of the temperature increase reported by their project. However, their research paper comments: “The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.”

I commend them for their honesty and skepticism.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

This is probably worth a thread all by itself. Without trusting peer review, what option do we have? Become experts in every field of science and review every study ourselves? When one of us comes down with cancer, who do we trust to have reviewed the literature on drugs, radiotherapy, surgery, etc?

It occurs to me that the people making profound dismissals of 'peer review' don't know what the term actually means. Even reading the language people use around it, it seems pretty clear that they're looking at the word "peer" and the word "review" and making up the definition that seems most logical. They haven't got the slightest idea how the process works, what purpose it serves, who initiates it, and what the stakes are all around for producing, publishing, or negligently scrutinizing faulty work--or even what the professional benefits would be to uncovering the flaws in that work, for the one who discovered it.

I think they think it goes like this:
"Hey, Chuck, can you 'review' my ozone study"
"Sure Dave."
[Holds it up to the light.]
"Looks good to me! Let's play Myst!"
[Chuck and Dave head off to play Myst, laughing maniacally.]

 

[trysail]

It occurs to me that the people making profound dismissals of 'peer review' don't know what the term actually means. Even reading the language people use around it, it seems pretty clear that they're looking at the word "peer" and the word "review" and making up the definition that seems most logical. They haven't got the slightest idea how the process works, what purpose it serves, who initiates it, and what the stakes are all around for producing, publishing, or negligently scrutinizing faulty work--or even what the professional benefits would be to uncovering the flaws in that work, for the one who discovered it.

I think they think it goes like this:
"Hey, Chuck, can you 'review' my ozone study"
"Sure Dave."
[Holds it up to the light.]
"Looks good to me! Let's play Myst!"
[Chuck and Dave head off to play Myst, laughing maniacally.]

Whether you like it or not, there's been some rotten, shonky science passed off as "peer reviewed" in the field of climatology. It's no stretch to label that garbage, "pal reviewed."




Read these:

"Caspar and the Jesus Paper"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

"The Yamal Implosion"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

 

[Peregrinator]

Whether you like it or not, there's been some rotten, shonky science passed off as "peer reviewed" in the field of climatology. It's no stretch to label that garbage, "pal reviewed."




Read these:

"Caspar and the Jesus Paper"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

"The Yamal Implosion"
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/9/29/the-yamal-implosion.html

What percent is rotten and shonky, and what percent is correct?

 

[patrick1]

Peer review is like democracy - it's crap, except for all the other ideas and systems, which are worse.

The fact is that blogged articles which haven't been peer-reviewed, like the one Trysail quoted, have had no (avowed) independent scrutiny. They therefore need to be treated with even more caution than peer-reviewed scientific articles.

Much of the criticism of climate science is of its methods - for instance an earlier set of exchanges in this thread was about 'scientific method' - so I feel it behoves its critics to be clear in their turn about their methods and their self-scrutiny.

Patrick

 

[Peregrinator]

For all of the bluster and blow the Cap'n and those like him emit toward the "Religion of AGW", theirs is the much more religious view. Any scientific studies (which are the vast majority of them) that conflict with what they so desperately want to be true are not credible. It's obviously a global conspriracy involving scientists from all over the world and government cooperation on a scale never before seen..

It's like trying to argue evolution with a creationist. Show them the fossils and they will claim that the Devil created them just to tempt you away from God.

It occurs to me that the people making profound dismissals of 'peer review' don't know what the term actually means. Even reading the language people use around it, it seems pretty clear that they're looking at the word "peer" and the word "review" and making up the definition that seems most logical. They haven't got the slightest idea how the process works, what purpose it serves, who initiates it, and what the stakes are all around for producing, publishing, or negligently scrutinizing faulty work--or even what the professional benefits would be to uncovering the flaws in that work, for the one who discovered it.

I think they think it goes like this:
"Hey, Chuck, can you 'review' my ozone study"
"Sure Dave."
[Holds it up to the light.]
"Looks good to me! Let's play Myst!"
[Chuck and Dave head off to play Myst, laughing maniacally.]

And, similarly to how every conversation about the existence of God comes down to "well, I just believe it," nearly every discussion about AGW comes down to "peer review is bullshit/peer review is the gold standard."

Don't ask the first group to apply that standard to any other branch of science, though. They'll blithely cite economists, theoretical physicists, astronomers, etc, etc, etc, and never once stop to consider that maybe their stuff is also suspect.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Whether you like it or not, there's been some rotten, shonky science passed off as "peer reviewed" in the field of climatology.

There's no good reason to place the argument in the realm of what I may or may not like, since it's not the topic. Would you mind describing the peer-review process as you understand it?

 

[Peregrinator]

Peer review is like democracy - it's crap, except for all the other ideas and systems, which are worse.

The fact is that blogged articles which haven't been peer-reviewed, like the one Trysail quoted, have had no (avowed) independent scrutiny. They therefore need to be treated with even more caution than peer-reviewed scientific articles.

Much of the criticism of climate science is of its methods - for instance an earlier set of exchanges in this thread was about 'scientific method' - so I feel it behoves its critics to be clear in their turn about their methods and their self-scrutiny.

Patrick

Peer or not, I doubt that any branch of science except maybe evolution has borne more scrutiny than climate science.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

Peer or not, I doubt that any branch of science except maybe evolution has borne more scrutiny than climate science.

It's like this: If one doctor tells you you have cancer, and the next 99 doctors you visit all say they've checked and you don't have it, you'll believe the 99 over the one.

If 99 doctors in a row tell you have cancer, and the last says he really doesn't think you have it, you'll believe the 1 over the 99.

It's not about "the science" or "peer review" or any of the other lofty terms people like to invoke. It's about personal desire.

That's fine, but man are the ways they try avoid copping to that boring.

 

[Peregrinator]

It's like this: If one doctor tells you you have cancer, and the next 99 doctors you visit all say they've checked and you don't have it, you'll believe the 99 over the one.

If 99 doctors in a row tell you have cancer, and the last says he really doesn't think you have it, you'll believe the 1 over the 99.

It's not about "the science" or "peer review" or any of the other lofty terms people like to invoke. It's about personal desire.

That's fine, but man are the ways they try avoid copping to that boring.

Boring at times, fascinatingly intricate at others.

 

[thør]

There's no good reason to place the argument in the realm of what I may or may not like, since it's not the topic. Would you mind describing the peer-review process as you understand it?

Many of these papers are published in either a journal or in conference proceedings. Usually, the papers are reviewed prior to publication or presentation, but that review is generally limited to 2 - 4 reviewers that the editor of the journal or the moderator of the conference session can find to perform the review. So, peers are chosen by the editor or moderator. Most journals have a discussion period that's open after publication for comment, and that's where some real comments can be made on the work, methodology, etc. I find that the discussions and closures section of the journals I read to be most informative, however, those discussions and closure articles are not normally referenced as part of the work. After a paper is presented at a conference, there's a few minutes for questions, but there's really no good documentation of discussion and the paper goes into the proceedings with just the pre-presentation review. I have watched some engineering icons tear apart work that was presented at a conference during question and answer, and later, that very work was published in the proceedings as peer reviewed (without any changes).

 

[Sonny Limatina]

(Thor, I know you understand the process. I wanted to know Trysail's understanding of it. Moot now, however...)

 

[thør]

(Thor, I know you understand the process. I wanted to know Trysail's understanding of it. Moot now, however...)

Is it time to play Myst?

 

[Peregrinator]

Is it time to play Myst?

I never got past the pump station.

 

[thør]

I never got past the pump station.

I've never played Myst.

When you say pump station, I think Alyeska Pipeline. Of all the pump stations, I believe I've spent the most time in PS#1.

 

[Peregrinator]

Another commentator:

Hitched your wagon to a star with that one. That's S Fred Singer. Also noted for saying the ozone hole isn't a problem, that the planet is cooling, that second hand smoke isn't linked to cancer, etc, etc, etc. He's made a career out of using a degree in physics to allow him to be trotted out by every pro-pollution numbnut who will pay him.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer

 

[Peregrinator]

I've never played Myst.

When you say pump station, I think Alyeska Pipeline. Of all the pump stations, I believe I've spent the most time in PS#1.

It's actually really cool. I wish my copy weren't buried in the storage unit.

 

[Sean]

None of the "you can't model chaotic systems" crowd want to argue non-laminar flow and aircraft wings with me? Fuck, I'm gonna have to go back to this barrel of fish with my shotgun.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

None of the "you can't model chaotic systems" crowd want to argue non-laminar flow and aircraft wings with me? Fuck, I'm gonna have to go back to this barrel of fish with my shotgun.

I haven't read everything in the thread, since it serves as a constant reminder that I started this mess, but: Who is claiming you can't model chaotic systems?

 

[Peregrinator]

I haven't read everything in the thread, since it serves as a constant reminder that I started this mess, but: Who is claiming you can't model chaotic systems?

The most consistent voice is probably 4est, but Trysail has also made the claim by proxy, iirc.

 

[Sonny Limatina]

The most consistent voice is probably 4est, but Trysail has also made the claim by proxy, iirc.

I read an AJ post about once every three months, because of the poor signal to noise ratio. Needless to say, though, the 'chaotic systems' statement is uninformed at best, and I'm stating that very gently.

 

[Peregrinator]

I read an AJ post about once every three months, because of the poor signal to noise ratio. Needless to say, though, the 'chaotic systems' statement is uninformed at best, and I'm stating that very gently.

I've repeatedly posted stuff for him showing that it's not and he generally just says "Yes it is."

 

[Sean]

I haven't read everything in the thread, since it serves as a constant reminder that I started this mess, but: Who is claiming you can't model chaotic systems?

AJ and Trysail. I took font boy off iggy for a while, mistake, he obviously hasn't got a clue about the stuff he c+ps.

 

[trysail]

We have a serious reading comprehension problem around here.


F'rinstance, someone needs to find my citation of "chaotic systems."












Signing off; it's time to go whup some folk who think they know how to play tennis.