« It’s Almost Official: It’s About an Uppity President
Tweeter Mocks New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg Spanish: Thinks It’s El Stinkingo »
The Important Whoops, or Climategategate
Sep 2nd, 2011 | 18 responses
One of the nicest things about living in a world of grays, where one can change one’s mind when presented with new facts, and when one doesn’t jump to extreme and absolute conclusions based on some article of belief is the one tends to make an ass of one’s self far less often. Case in point, the “peer-reviewed” science paper jumped on by the Usual Suspects just a couple of weeks past.
I wrote about it then, reserving any final judgment (although I admit that I had private qualms) because one writes based on what one knows, and not on what one believes must be true, or even imagines MIGHT be true. To Gateway Pundits everywhere, I offer my sincere condolences and a sympathetic “ouch!” Cause this has gotta hurt:
From July 28th’s “Global Smarming, or, Gone Fission“:
You can disagree with models and methodologies without disagreeing as to whether the fundamentals are correct. The sneaky sophistry of the blog swarmers and the Heartland Institute is that [they implicitly believe that] disagreement equals refutation.
Garbage. This is logical and scientific nonsense.
One paper does not necessarily alter all prior scientific observation, hypothesis and theory. Only an idiot would maintain that to be true.
Here’s the background (from the same blog post):
We begin at the periphery of the chain-reaction:
Dave Blount / Moonbattery: NASA Data Confirm Global Warming Is a Hoax
The atoms keep smashing — as with all chain-reactions, eventually damping down to zero, dependent on confinement and density as to the when but not the what. But when we trace the reaction back to its source, we find that the headline bears very little resemblance to reality. Here’s the beginning [Emphasis added]:
Abstract:The sensitivity of the climate system to an imposed radiative imbalance remains the largest source of uncertainty in projections of future anthropogenic climate change. Here we present further evidence that this uncertainty from an observational perspective is largely due to the masking of the radiative feedback signal by internal radiative forcing, probably due to natural cloud variations. That these internal radiative forcings exist and likely corrupt feedback diagnosis is demonstrated with lag regression analysis of satellite and coupled climate model data, interpreted with a simple forcing-feedback model. While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations.
by Roy W. Spencer * and William D. Braswell
[* Remember that name.] In plainer English, essentially, we’re losing more heat by atmospheric radiation than was previously thought, and, therefore, predictive models of atmospheric “feedback” (Greenhouse effect) need to be recalculated, taking the new information from satellite observations into account.
Which produced THIS instantaneous chain-reaction (which OUGHT to be an important data-set in ANY theory of Global Smarming produced):
There’s Delingpole of the UK Telegraph, who launched the “climategate” meme in the international press, as you’ll recall. And Hoft, of course, and Weasel Zippers whose very name just drips with credibility. All “know” that now THIS IS SCIENCE, DAMMIT!
I pointedly did not dispute Dr. Roy Spencer’s paper (though I did read it) and noted that the nice thing about peer-reviewed papers is that other peer-reviewed papers inevitably appear to contradict or take issue with the findings. And so on and so forth: it is how science works. And, with something this allegedly this “revolutionary” there surely would be experts far enough above my pay grade to analyze the science. I pointedly did NOT dismiss what I had no way of confirming or denying. I withheld judgment on those things that I was not qualified to offer an informed opinion on.
This is not to say that there were not aspects of the paper that I COULD offer facts and informed opinion on.
I traced the biggest push of Spencer’s meme to the “Heartland Institute” (and its blogs and publications and press releases) run by old Koch machine crony Joseph Bast, which has devoted itself to Denialism in the past few years, and found that the “scientist” at the University of Alabama whose “peer-reviewed” paper it was in Remote Sensing Journal had been featured at this year’s Heartland Institute Global Warming Deniathon, Conference and Hoe-Down:
Why, jeepers! It’s Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, who co-wrote that paper that launched the blogstorm.
The Heartland Institute’s 6th Annual Anti-Warming Wing-ding
And, I told you a couple days later that:
And, while we’re all chasing this one, Joseph Bast at the Heartland Institute (who ALSO gets Koch Summer Fellows to staff their offices) is in the midst of another phony attack on climate science using a “peer-reviewed” paper out of a “pay-to-play” set of scientific journals in Switzerland that costs you 500 Swiss Francs to submit your paper. Not exactly Science or the Journal of Atmospheric Studies, is it?
That was in August 6th’s “Wisconsin Money Laundering?” in which there are several nice pictures of the various players in the World of Kochtopus (not to be confused with Magic Mountain) seated together, like, say, the Wisconsin Club for Growth’s Eric O’Keefe and Heartland Institute’s Joseph Bast (who serves on O’Keefe’s Sam Adams Alliance Board of Directors) in lovely, suitable-for-framing photographs. Nobody much noticed that the “peer-reviewed” paper in question is in one of the cheapest “pay-to-play” science journals on the planet, from a Swiss megapublisher of such journals. 500 Swiss (whatever they use for money) gets your paper “reviewed” for publication.
Joseph Bast and Eric O’Keefe as trustees
So, where is this all headed? Well, Climate Progress reports THIS:
Science Stunner: Editor of Journal that Published Flawed Denier Bunk Apologizes, Resigns, Slams Spencer for Exaggerations
By Joe Romm on Sep 2, 2011 at 1:41 pm
Wow. Double wow. Stop the Presses, Deniers! Your effort to deny basic climate science based on bunkum has met its match.
Here’s an editorial by Dr. Wolfgang Wagner, Editor-in-Chief ofRemote Sensing, taking responsibility for the egregious blunder of publishing a “fundamentally flawed” paper by climate science denier Roy Spencer:
Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science. Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell [1] that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.
After having become aware of the situation, and studying the various pro and contra arguments, I agree with the critics of the paper. Therefore, I would like to take the responsibility for this editorial decision and, as a result, step down as Editor-in-Chief of the journal Remote Sensing….
Funny. I don’t see those same blogs suddenly rushing to correct their scientific error about the scientific proof that knocks over current scientific consensus. Why, it’s almost like Ann Coulter’s column-length takedown of Darwin and Evolution and its Liberal Believers the other day — any disproof will be forgotten and flushed down the memory hole as that rag-tag army of intellectual anarchists marches to the next kerfluffing, eternally outraged, never wrong.
And yes, it happens on both sides of the aisle, but while it may be qualitatively equivalent, it is in no wise quantitatively (or grammatically) equivalent.
There is a point to taking a moderate intellectual view, not jumping to conclusions and basing your informed opinion on the best available facts:
You may (and often WILL) be wrong about things, but you’ll never look like the posturing imbeciles that swallowed Roy’s “science” paper do right now.
Sometimes a lack of self-awareness can be bliss, however. So don’t shed any crocodile tears for them.
The crocodiles will thank you for it (until they go extinct, that is).
Courage.
=====================
A writer, published author, novelist, literary critic and political observer for a quarter of a quarter-century more than a quarter-century, Hart Williams has lived in the American West for his entire life. Having grown up in Wyoming, Kansas and New Mexico, a survivor of Texas and a veteran of Hollywood, Mr. Williams currently lives in Oregon, along with an astonishing amount of pollen. He has a lively blog His Vorpal Sword. This is cross-posted from his blog.
18 Responses to “The Important Whoops, or Climategategate”
It’s Swiss francs…
-[Nobody much noticed that the “peer-reviewed” paper in question is in one of the cheapest “pay-to-play” science journals on the planet, from a Swiss megapublisher of such journals.]-
I noticed.
Let me see if I get this straight… you consider this paper debunked because A) some ideologically driven group has put together a “vast-right-wing-conspiracy-theory” so looney they make Birthers and Truther look sane by comparison, and B) because some guy resigned because he felt like it.
How do either of those two things amount to a scientific conclusion?
Here is the answer: they don’t. Not on this planet. The only ones who could sign off on THIS being the equivalent of scientific proof are ideological hacks themselves.
Thank you for showing your true spots. Hempel or Popper you ain’t.
“some ideologically driven group has put together a “vast-right-wing-conspiracy-theory” so looney they make Birthers and Truther look sane by comparison”
You mean the theory most right-wingers and most republican presidential candidates think very credible?
“because some guy resigned because he felt like it.”
Yeah, purely coincidental.
“How do either of those two things amount to a scientific conclusion?”
This current matter is not proof for or against anthropogenic climate change. It is about skeptics of said theory being bad, untrustworthy people who only care about what is perceived as truth. You know, people who do what you are trying to do now.
Get back to me when you’ve read this. NOT BEFORE.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/09/02/paper-disputing-basic-science-of-climate-change-is-fundamentally-flawed-editor-resigns-apologizes/
Thanks Hart… well said and thank you, too, Absalon.
They’ll probably try to resurrect “intelligent design” for 2012, too.
Thanks, Steve.
As for the other stuff: there is a link to a page of scientific debunking of the paper itself at the Climate Progress link. I’m sure that your scientific insights will be appreciated in the discussion.
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/09/02/310889/editor-denier-bunk-resigns-spencer/
And thank you, Absalom. That Forbes link nails it perfectly.
But let me add one other observation that only occurred to me after the fact. The “Remote Sensing Journal” has only published ONE issue. It’s a spinoff of another of their multiplicity of journals, so the editor “resigning” only means that either somebody else edits it, or else that they shut it down and start a new journal called something else.
I promise you that Herr Doctor Wolfgang will not move so much as the stapler on his desk. But they had to repair their credibility, so, the Grand Gesture.
For a mere 500 Swiss Francs (and yes, I knew that, but I was failing, obviously, to be humorous) you, too, can be a respected and published scientist.
Heck, why go to the trouble of understanding what science really is when you have the option of driving your head into the sand instead.
Ann Coulter’s point (not the one on her head) exactly!
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2011-08-31.html
Sorry folks, science isn’t what you FEEL it to be. It’s about evidence. As Oxford physicist Jonathan Jones has stated on this matter:
“This is truly bizarre, and just shows how profoundly warped the climate science community has become. I make no judgement here on the correctness of the paper, but editors just don’t resign because of things like this.
Nobody resigned at Science when they published that utter drivel about bacteria replacing phosphorus with arsenic; they just published seven comments (IIRC) back to back with a rather desperate defence from the original authors.
Nobody resigned at Phys Rev Lett when I trashed a paper (on the evaluation of Gaussian sums) they had selected as one of the leading papers of the month: indeed nobody has formally ever accepted that I was right, but remarkably all the later papers on this subject follow my line.
I have been up to my neck for over a year in a huge row with Iannis Kominis about the underlying quantum mechanics of spin sensing chemical reactions, and either his papers or mine (or just possibly both) are complete nonsense: but nobody has resigned over Koniminis’s paper in Phys Rev B or mine in Chem Phys Lett.
Sure, my two controversies above never hit the popular press, but the arsenic stuff was discussed all over the place, far more than Spencer and Braswell.
What sort of weird warped world to climate scientists inhabit?
How have they allowed themselves to move so far from comon sense?
What is wrong with these guys?”
Yeah, what IS wrong with you guys?
Perhaps we’ve been growing our beards for so long that we’ve forgotten where we put our Occam’s Razor.
At that point, all that remains is Shavian cream.
As Wolfgang Wagner notes in his editorial:
In science, diversity and controversy are
essential to progress and therefore it is important that different opinions are heard and openly
discussed.
In this context, both the “deniers” and “believers” should be looked at with skepticism. Both groups seem to contain many people who know very little about science. Mr. Williams’ essay is partisan and emotional, and addresses the scientific concerns only tangentially.
Da Goat, as per usual, devolves to his default position: the ad hominem.
Pots lecturing alleged kettles.
As for “addressing the scientific issues,” I would commend him to the concept of “reading with comprehension,” as this criticism is, from the essay itself, a non sequitur, with, perhaps a soupçon of argumentum ad imperfectionem tossed in for good measure.
As rghwales is a scientist, he knows how every scientific field should behave and when editors are supposed to resign and when they are not, no matter the field or situation.
Any scientific field the members of which don’t behave as rghwales thinks they should simply isn’t a proper field.
“What sort of weird warped world do climate scientists inhabit?
“How have they allowed themselves to move so far from common sense?”
No wise man ever thought sense to be common. Sense isn’t even common among scientists, if you are any indication.
What we’re seeing again from the lefties is a dearth of reading for comprehension or any writing that would be indicative of this. Instead, we see the usual BS and some more florid failings. [shaking head]
Remote Sensing is not a recognized peer reviewed journal dealing directly with climatology or covering climatology on a regular basis as a wider survey of science, a la Nature or Science. Its problems are pointed out in the OP. Its peer review process is pretty weak. The way peer review works is a three step process (As I understand it.). First the paper is submitted to the journal. The editor(s) decides if it is something worth putting the effort of the next step into. The next step is that if it seems interesting enough and viable a committee to review it before publication is put together. Their review isn’t a really in depth one, though it should be capable of catching any egregious errors. The reviewers are chosen for their understanding of the field the paper is researching. Given that Remote Sensing probably doesn’t have very many people available to it who understand climatology how good a committee they put together is questionable. If the paper stands up to the committee’s review then it is published. This does not mean that it is considered to be the last word on the subject being addressed. Once it’s published is when the real reviews start. Spencer’s paper has not had one reviewer that I am aware of from trying follow developments in this story who defends his results on the basis of scientific considerations. There are more than a few articles pointing out serious errors in the paper. This is not particularly surprising. Why do think Spencer submitted the paper where he did? Without going into ad hominem, it is truly obvious by only doing a bit of research that Roy Spencer has gone into a realm where political and religious ideology trumps science. He has joined the ranks of those who consider the Discovery Institute serious science because they deny the existence of evolution as understood by the overwhelming majority of biologists after decades of research. This is far from the first paper that Spencer has published that just hasn’t stood up to further review and he seems to be a little peeved about it. But as someone said without really understanding what it means, science isn’t about what you feel. Or, as quantum physics makes abundantly clear, not always what most consider to be common sense.
The anti-science, global warming denier mindset is of course on a par with anti-evolution, etc. I always wonder how much the politization of science plays a part in people views on this, and to the extent that is does, it’s a terrible shame. As a country we’re already too far behind the curve when it comes to reality orientation when compared to some other countries. This didn’t use to be the case.
By the way, a defense of DaGoat is called for. He is one of the more down to earth and thoughtful right leaning commenters here in my opinion.
Thank you Jim Satterfield for that insight into the peer-review process.
As for DaGoat, whatever his other virtues, my characterization of his characterization is precise.
I certainly wouldn’t have lumped him in with others in the Snarking Blogosmear had his “thoughtful” nature been in any wise apparent in his comment.
Fwiw, my opinion of DaGoat is based on many posts, not just one. As for climate change, there is no longer any valid reason to believe all opinions deserve to be valued equally anymore than all opinions about the existance of gravity deserve to be valued equally. The populace in general is still behind the curve.