Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
DC said:
about the cook paper.

has anyone actually looked into the accusation and the paper? i did not.
but i also do not use it as a source for the concencus, but so many deniers cry about the paper that i wonder if there might actually be flaws in his paper.
Click to expand...

DC said:
about the cook paper.

has anyone actually looked into the accusation and the paper? i did not.
but i also do not use it as a source for the concencus, but so many deniers cry about the paper that i wonder if there might actually be flaws in his paper.
Click to expand...


The absence of a peer reviewed paper that addresses any errors and presents new results with those improvements strongly suggests that even Shollenberger hasn’t really looked into the Cook paper.

The notion that every complain about a peer reviewed paper needs to be investigated by others is fundamentally flawed, because the relative work involved with inventing a complaint is vastly lower than the work involved with investigating that complaint. This is especially true when the details are as vague as this cases. The right way to deal with flaws in a scientific paper is to craft a response to that paper and publish it yourself. Ideally this should include an improved version of the same result.
 
Rabett Run: L'Affaire Bengtsson

A recurrent feature of Lennart Bengtsson's rhetoric is his complaint on the politicization of climate issues... This position, combined with his actions in general, verges on incomprehensible if one does not realize that Bengtsson...refers only to politicization in a different direction than the one he wants. A clear example of how he happily mixes climate policy and climate science is the following exchange between him and me from a Summit on Climate Change at the KVA in May 2012; I quote from what I wrote to some friends later that day:

Today, he [Bengtsson] presided over a discussion session in which he (in spite of the very qualified panel) perceived his function as chair to be that he must be sure to talk at least half the time and explain the whys and wherefores. He ranted about how feedbacks operate on very different time scales, and that we need to be practical and focus on the time scales that are relevant to our policy decisions, namely "a couple of decades" - When I requested the floor and asked, "You said Lennart, That the practically relevant timescale for climate politics is a couple of decades. Do you REALLY mean that?? Do you really mean that whatever happens after 2050 is unimportant?" He replied that he regretted its obscurity, and that he certainly would find it serious if it turned out that we risk climate disaster in 2100, but if that was the case then we have plenty of time to put things right, and therefore there is nothing that has any bearing on the decisions we make today.

Yes, so he actually said. I was completely speechless. In the silence that occurred, he said "Do not you agree with me? ... I Can Tell That You Do Not Agree ...".​
Click to expand...


Bengtsson appears to highly politically motivated and his rejected paper is probably a result of that motivation.
 
Last edited:
lomiller said:
The absence of a peer reviewed paper that addresses any errors and presents new results with those improvements strongly suggests that even Shollenberger hasn’t really looked into the Cook paper.

The notion that every complain about a peer reviewed paper needs to be investigated by others is fundamentally flawed, because the relative work involved with inventing a complaint is vastly lower than the work involved with investigating that complaint. This is especially true when the details are as vague as this cases. The right way to deal with flaws in a scientific paper is to craft a response to that paper and publish it yourself. Ideally this should include an improved version of the same result.
Click to expand...

good point
 
carlitos said:
ETA - does anyone have any more perspective on this Bengtsson thing? At a blog I frequent, this is a big deal akin to "Climategate." Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

The paper was rejected because it had little or no scientific value. Furthermore it was apparently mis-labeling expected differences between the various assessments as “errors” in order to use as political fodder later.

Read the referee report here:

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times
The referee’s recommended rejecting the paper because all it does it look at 3 different assessments and finds out they are different (duh!) and instead of making constructive scientific points to help understand what the differences it tries to score political points.

It would be a bigger scandal and a bigger sign of politics being inserted into the peer review process if this paper gets published anywhere in its current form.
 
carlitos said:
ETA - does anyone have any more perspective on this Bengtsson thing? At a blog I frequent, this is a big deal akin to "Climategate." Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
I've no doubt it's a big deal for them, but consider what sort of things appear a big deal to, say, Truthers.

Underlying both stories is the belief that an alternative reality is being suppressed by a cabal of scientists under 70 years old. Growing up in the 60's they were subverted by drugs and free love, oh that sweet, sweet loving, into being entirely wrong about everything. Unlike guys over 70 who missed out on all that and are right about everything. Very right. Way, way right.
 
Once again, bloggers are the worst source of unbiased (and fact based) information. The rabbit blog is a travesty of skeptic thought.
 
Interesting video about climate sensitivity and a possible answer to why there is this difference between the CS of the 20th century and those from other methods like models or paleorecord.
very short but informative.
 
Elf Grinder 3000 said:
Has anyone posted this?

Papers are being denied because they contradict the global warming crowd

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html

It seems if you disagree with any aspect of global warming you are tarred and feathered
Click to expand...

Firstly, the paper has been denied publication because it is crappy. If you had read the reviewer opinion which by now is available everywhere you would understand that rather than being the caught-red-handed-witch-hunt that denier seems to think it is, it is actually not the case. Hint : the reviewer even precised what would need to be modified to be acceptable.

Secondly, denied publication does not mean the paper is dead, it means some stuff must be corrected before publication. I had half my paper denied publication on first review before correction, and after correction I was accepted.

By hey , please continue citing the daily fail. Faily Fail. A newspaper well known to be serious and a supporter of solid climate science. Now excuse me while I am rolling on the floor laughing.
 
DC said:
global warming is an observed fact. hard to deny that.
sounds like temperature measurements to me.
Click to expand...

It sounds like a political tool

Its not a fact, its a fact that CO2 is a global warming agent

However there is no fact that the earth's temperature is rising due to man made CO2, there is plenty of evidence but not a fact
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom