J Thomas on May 14, 2011, 10:07:50 pm

 Remember that wonderful phrase "hide the decline" in the CRU e-mails?  What the AGW fraudsters were discussing was an indicated temperature decline in one of the proxy climate temperature indicators upon which they'd relied for allegedly valid measurements of global temperatures in the past.  "Mike's Nature trick" was to erase the declining proxy indicator data and substitute instead the readings of thermometers from selected stations, many of which were "sited next to a lamp" (i.e., located in places where local heat sources - air conditioners, sunbaked parking lots, jet aircraft exhaust - imposed grievous instrumental errors such that they could not be honestly included in any data set purported to measure actual climate conditions).

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/03/climate_change

J Thomas on May 14, 2011, 10:14:20 pm
Understanding that no matter what the AGW fraudsters did to "distort the peer-review system" (what the hell is this "more than usual" bit? any purposeful distortion of peer review is a violation of ethical standards), or how they did it (colluding with each other to arrange for themselves what is commonly called "pal review"), the fact that they did do it is enough to make every damned thing they published absolutely invalid as material to which other scientists can make reference in future.


No, that's what people say when they are looking for a way to deny results. If the peer review process failed, then the actual papers become no worse than papers that did not go through peer review.


Thus proving that you really don't seem to have a good handle on what peer review is, how it operates, or even what the significance of the expression "peer-reviewed literature" has been in the context of the AGW hypothesis and its impact upon political economics. 

....

The point is that the papers of the AGW fraudsters had, by virtue of their corruption of peer review, become no better than if they had never undergone peer review at all.

I said they were no worse. You said they were no better. This is your proof that I don't know?

J Thomas on May 14, 2011, 10:20:55 pm
The climategate files give us good reason to doubt any paper that has undergone peer review, and all papers that undergo peer review.


Well, I dunno about that.  Kind of a "baby with the bathwater" thing. While nothing is infallible, what peer review provides is actually expanded editorial input for a submission in manuscript.  

See, he just took it farther than you did.

You appeared to me to say that if a paper on climate science has been peer reviewed that proves the paper itself must be worthless. You believe that the entire climate science peer review process is bad, (there's a few steps missing here) then any paper they approve must have been fraudulent or it wouldn't pass their review. Or something like that.

You appeared to say that passing peer review meant it was a paper we should ignore as worthless. No good climate science papers could pass peer review.

And Sam just takes it farther and assumes that what you figure is true for all of climate science will also be true for the rest of science. If a scientific paper passes peer review it must be garbage. The same argument taken farther than you wanted to take it.

Tucci78 on May 14, 2011, 10:28:23 pm
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

J Thomas on May 14, 2011, 10:36:30 pm
http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2011/03/climate_change

Fair's fair.  I'll give you two in return:

(1) http://tinyurl.com/4d6e977

(2) http://tinyurl.com/3jox4wg

Wanna play more "dueling URLs"?

No, life is too short. You clearly have made up your mind completely.

Tucci78 on May 14, 2011, 10:57:19 pm
The climategate files give us good reason to doubt any paper that has undergone peer review, and all papers that undergo peer review.

Well, I dunno about that.  Kind of a "baby with the bathwater" thing. While nothing is infallible, what peer review provides is actually expanded editorial input for a submission in manuscript.  

See, he just took it farther than you did.

You appeared to me to say that if a paper on climate science has been peer reviewed that proves the paper itself must be worthless. You believe that the entire climate science peer review process is bad, (there's a few steps missing here) then any paper they approve must have been fraudulent or it wouldn't pass their review. Or something like that.

You appeared to say that passing peer review meant it was a paper we should ignore as worthless. No good climate science papers could pass peer review.

And Sam just takes it farther and assumes that what you figure is true for all of climate science will also be true for the rest of science. If a scientific paper passes peer review it must be garbage. The same argument taken farther than you wanted to take it.

Nope. You elided the next sentence in my earlier post, which reads:

If it's conducted honestly - as opposed to the way the AGW cabal has long been perverting the process - reviewing officers serve a pretty valuable function in quality assurance and quality improvement.

It emphatically did not appear in my post that I had stated or implied that "passing peer review meant it was a paper we should ignore as worthless" but rather that manuscripts passing through the AGW pimps' perversion of peer review, their biased and corrupted simulacrum of legitimate examination for qualities of validity and adherence to established standards of methodological rigor, must necessarily be disregarded as unreliable and even arguably deceitful.  

You leap to the unfounded conclusion that I had meant to imply - hell, that I had implied - that "the entire climate science peer review process is bad" (though the great majority of it most certainly has been corrupted in climatology, atmospheric physics, and related disciplines).

With the improving understanding of this corruption, and in light of the failure of the AGW hypothesis ab ovo, it is necessary - not just because the AGW fraudsters have been shown to be untrustworthy - to regard as bogus everything based upon any supposition that carbon dioxide tropospheric heat trapping is responsible for global climate change until the supporting data has been extensively re-examined with particular attention paid to those factors which degrade the accuracy of the information gathered and the validity of interpretations based thereupon.

One of the horrors of the AGW fraud - as I've mentioned - is the fact that this hideous deception has led thousands of young scientists into a figurative blind alley and clubbed them to death like baby seals.  The work to which they had dedicated themselves as graduate students and post-doctoral fellows in climatology, in oceanography, and in more than a dozen other disciplines has been relatively invalid, and continues to be invalid. There is need for enormous work in salvaging what might yet be worthwhile in the results of all that effort.  

Even if we don't focus upon the monetary waste directly induced by the AGW priesthood in the form of grant funding allocated by the political prostitutes for whom the fraudsters were pimping, the professional lives of so many well-intentioned young men and women have been irrevocably blighted, and so much of the literature in the polluted areas of scientific endeavor are going to need revision before anyone can vest any reliance on anything these filthy bastards have tainted.  

Fantasize all you like about what I'd supposedly "implied," but when you try to pass that off in a post, quote what I'd written and let's see whether or not you're offering a reasonable supposition.  

Thus far, you haven't.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2011, 11:09:20 pm by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

Tucci78 on May 14, 2011, 11:01:05 pm
No, life is too short. You clearly have made up your mind completely.

Nope. I just try like hell to take seriously the "verify" part of that "Trust but verify" aphorism. 
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

J Thomas on May 14, 2011, 11:18:55 pm
The climategate files give us good reason to doubt any paper that has undergone peer review, and all papers that undergo peer review.


Well, I dunno about that.  Kind of a "baby with the bathwater" thing. While nothing is infallible, what peer review provides is actually expanded editorial input for a submission in manuscript.  


See, he just took it farther than you did.

You appeared to me to say that if a paper on climate science has been peer reviewed that proves the paper itself must be worthless.


It emphatically did not appear in my post that I had stated or implied that "passing peer review meant it was a paper we should ignore as worthless" but rather that manuscripts passing through the AGW pimps' perversion of peer review, their biased and corrupted simulacrum of legitimate examination for qualities of validity and adherence to established standards of methodological rigor, must necessarily be disregarded as unreliable and even arguably deceitful.

And the difference between what I said and what you said is.....

the difference is....

you claim that *real* peer review is good, but that any paper which has passed through the *fake* peer review that climate science papers get must necessarily be disregarded as unreliable and even arguably deceitful.

And you tell me that I got it wrong?

Quote
You leap to the unfounded conclusion that I had meant to imply - hell, that I had implied - that "the entire climate science peer review process is bad" (though the great majority of it most certainly has been corrupted in climatology, atmospheric physics, and related disciplines).

I think I see. It isn't every peer reviewed paper in climate science that's necessarily bad, just the great majority of them. And how do we tell which of them are arguably deceitful and which are not?

Quote
With the improving understanding of this corruption, and in light of the failure of the AGW hypothesis ab ovo, it is necessary - not just because the AGW fraudsters have been shown to be untrustworthy - to regard as bogus everything based upon any supposition that carbon dioxide tropospheric heat trapping is responsible for global climate change until the supporting data has been extensively re-examined with particular attention paid to those factors which degrade the accuracy of the information gathered and the validity of interpretations based thereupon.

I see! If it supports AGW which you know is wrong, then it is wrong and must be disregarded. But if it opposes AGW then it is good. Am I right about what you mean here, or did I get that wrong?

Tucci78 on May 14, 2011, 11:54:27 pm
you claim that *real* peer review is good, but that any paper which has passed through the *fake* peer review that climate science papers get must necessarily be disregarded as unreliable and even arguably deceitful.

And you tell me that I got it wrong?

Honestly blinded peer review works reasonably well, within its intrinsic limitations.  Review officers have their prejudices, but if the editorial staff isn't screwing the pooch too badly, the people they pick will have a track record of expertise in the pertinent area, and - as I'd mentioned - they're going to be a fair sample of the kinds of people who are gonna read the journal or attend the conference to which the manuscript is being submitted.  

What was being gotten with the machinations of the AGW pimps has been dishonest "peer review," unblinded review by complicit fellow pimps (what's mockingly called "pal review"), and the selection of review officers not to provide dispassionate evaluation of the qualities of the submitted work but rather to maintain the suppression of information which tends to disprove the AGW hypothesis.

You leap to the unfounded conclusion that I had meant to imply - hell, that I had implied - that "the entire climate science peer review process is bad" (though the great majority of it most certainly has been corrupted in climatology, atmospheric physics, and related disciplines).

I think I see. It isn't every peer reviewed paper in climate science that's necessarily bad, just the great majority of them. And how do we tell which of them are arguably deceitful and which are not?

Ceteris paribus, I'd start with the presumption that if it is based upon the AGW hypothesis, it is either intentionally deceitful or the authors have been suckered by the AGW fraud.

As I've said, the tropospheric CO2 forcing hypothesis is a failure.  Any allegation that anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide might in any significant way cause any kind of effect upon the global climate or processes affected by such a climatic effect has got to be tested with the sort of honest review that such papers had been denied by virtue of the AGW pimps' influence.  

With the improving understanding of this corruption, and in light of the failure of the AGW hypothesis ab ovo, it is necessary - not just because the AGW fraudsters have been shown to be untrustworthy - to regard as bogus everything based upon any supposition that carbon dioxide tropospheric heat trapping is responsible for global climate change until the supporting data has been extensively re-examined with particular attention paid to those factors which degrade the accuracy of the information gathered and the validity of interpretations based thereupon.

I see! If it supports AGW which you know is wrong, then it is wrong and must be disregarded. But if it opposes AGW then it is good. Am I right about what you mean here, or did I get that wrong?

If it assumes (or supports) the AGW bogosity, then there's too damned much presumptive evidence that it's worthless for any honest and conscientious person to take it as "settled science."  It's escaped honest peer review, and that makes it as unreliable as a hand grenade assembled for you by somebody who wants you dead.  

I don't know if the legal expression "fruit of the poison tree" applies here in any way, but there's the same sentiment.  In clinical research and in the medical literature, I've seen lots and lots of situations in which an error (or a deceit) in a published report has come to do damage to many subsequent publications, including not only review articles, textbooks, and therapeutic guidelines but also research in the same and in associated areas of inquiry.  

Carving out such cancerous rot is troublesome, and the scale of the AGW fraud's rot in climatology and meteorology and atmospheric physics and all over the rest of science is horrendous.  Even a poetic reference to the Augean Stables understates the scale of the task.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 12:27:04 am by Tucci78 »
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

sam on May 15, 2011, 12:26:30 am
The climategate files give us good reason to doubt any paper that has undergone peer review, and all papers that undergo peer review.


Well, I dunno about that.  Kind of a "baby with the bathwater" thing.

We did not have widespread peer review until 1945 or so, and since 1950 or so academic science has been gravely ill.

It is a vampire baby.

Peer review is contrary to the scientific method as it was understood before 1950 or so.  At about the same time as peer review was introduced, science history was rewritten to deprecate the scientific method, or what was previously understood to be the scientific method.

Before 1947, history said that Roger Bacon did hard time for advocating the scientific method, and quoted his letter to the pope saying he was doing hard time in solitary on bread and water.

After 1947, history said that Roger Bacon was "under a form of house arrest" for advocating astrology - and primary information about the conditions of his arrest was no longer quoted in the history books or referenced in the bibliography.  In the pre 1947 version of history, the pope was suppressing science by telling scientists what to think.  In the post 1947 version of history, the pope was encouraging science by telling scientists what to think, because that is how proper science is rightly done. "Science" after 1947 is that which respectable authority tells you what is scientific.


« Last Edit: May 15, 2011, 12:33:32 am by sam »

Tucci78 on May 15, 2011, 12:45:49 am
The climategate files give us good reason to doubt any paper that has undergone peer review, and all papers that undergo peer review.

Well, I dunno about that.  Kind of a "baby with the bathwater" thing.

We did not have widespread peer review until 1945 or so, and since 1950 or so academic science has been gravely ill.

It is a vampire baby.

Peer review is contrary to the scientific method as it was understood before 1950 or so.  At about the same time as peer review was introduced, science history was rewritten to deprecate the scientific method, or what was previously understood to be the scientific method.

Before 1947, history said that Roger Bacon did hard time for advocating the scientific method, and quoted his letter to the pope saying he was doing hard time in solitary on bread and water.

After 1947, history said that Roger Bacon was "under a form of house arrest" for advocating astrology - and primary information about the conditions of his arrest was no longer quoted in the history books or referenced in the bibliography.  In the pre 1947 version of history, the pope was suppressing science by telling scientists what to think.  In the post 1947 version of history, the pope was encouraging science by telling scientists what to think, because that is how proper science is rightly done. "Science" after 1947 is that respectable authority tells you what is scientific.

I had never heard of any sort of "Ministry of Truth" revision imposed upon the story of Roger Bacon, but having been raised Catholic (parochial education through the 12th Grade and then four years under the influence of the Jesuits), I can sure take it as credible.

How d'you conjure "Peer review [to be] contrary to the scientific method" in any way?

As I'd said earlier, it has always seemed to me to be a kind of extension of the editorial function. If the editorial people of a particular journal or scientific conference don't have the time or the fund of knowledge to sift effectively through a manuscript to get some idea of the method and completeness of the submission, they farm it out - by way of blinded hand-off - to somebody the editor has found to be familiar with the area of study, willing to work for free, and able to get his comments back with some kind of reliability.

In my case, I think it was mostly the "willing to work for free" feature that made me an attractive option.

Peer review doesn't prevent validation of observation and experiment by replication, does it?
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

quadibloc on May 15, 2011, 01:08:19 am
I see! If it supports AGW which you know is wrong, then it is wrong and must be disregarded. But if it opposes AGW then it is good. Am I right about what you mean here, or did I get that wrong?
He explained himself a few posts back.

The "climategate" E-mails proved that the evidence showed that temperatures were actually decreasing, but the cabal of scientists was determined to "hide the decline" at all costs.

I understood this to simply mean that caution was to be exercised in media communications to avoid sound bites that would be twisted to mislead the general public.

He understands this to mean that the scientists in a position to control what could get into the respectable journals were deliberately conspiring to manufacture a complete and brazen hoax of rising world temperatures, and carbon dioxide causing them, out of essentially nothing at all.

Of course if I know someone is out to deceive me, I will basically ignore everything he says. But while his conclusions follow logically from his premise, I find his premise incredible.

Tucci78 on May 15, 2011, 03:20:53 am
The "climategate" E-mails proved that the evidence showed that temperatures were actually decreasing, but the cabal of scientists was determined to "hide the decline" at all costs.

I understood this to simply mean that caution was to be exercised in media communications to avoid sound bites that would be twisted to mislead the general public.

Actually, the Climategate file confirmed that the CRU e-mail correspondents had been lying about the failure of their proxy temperature indicators to conform to the heavily cherry-picked and otherwise "cooked" instrumental temperature readings in the three principal global temperature datasets, all of which had come under pimp control and had been purposefully corrupted to show alarming "hockey stick" rates of recent warming.

You are, of course, wrong in your understanding that the communications exposed in the e-mails portion of the Climategate draw were for no purpose other than refining the "messaging" among the conspirators. That was their best grab at a plausible lie when their connivances hit the 'Net, and you got suckered by it.

He understands this to mean that the scientists in a position to control what could get into the respectable journals were deliberately conspiring to manufacture a complete and brazen hoax of rising world temperatures, and carbon dioxide causing them, out of essentially nothing at all.

Not "nothing at all."  It's been acknowledged that since the end of the Little Ice Age (LIA), there has been a very slow, very steady rebound in global temperatures which has not in any way accelerated, nor does it trend likely to achieve within the next century (and more)  the temperatures prevailing during the pre-LIA Medieval Warm climate optimum, about which honest climatologists had accumulated ample well-supported and therefore convincing evidence.

It should be noted that the AGW fraudsters have lied their asses off to "blank out" the Medieval Warm and the earlier Roman Warm climate optima. 

Were it the case that global warming to the extents seen in those two well-documented climate optima could put humanity in the 21st Century at any hazard, one would think that the AGW "climatologists" would be drawing upon the historical evidence provided by these two periods of recorded human history to prove their case for the aggressive mitigation of the supposed CO2 tropospheric temperature forcing mechanism upon which their hypothesis is predicated.

But, of course, those two climate optima were actually times when planet Earth was far more hospitable to Homo sapiens than the preceding and succeeding low-temperature centuries had proven to be, not only in terms of land surface area available for habitation (the seas did not rise so as to cause great inundations), agriculture was not blighted, proportions of deaths due to contagious diseases did not increase, etc.

Insofar as the greenhouse gas effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is concerned, the AGW fraudsters have also failed utterly to account for how the same proxy temperature indicators in which they've vested so much confidence have shown that during periods of the Earth's prehistory, there have been periods of much, much higher atmospheric carbon dioxode concentrations in which global temperatures were much, much lower than they had been even during the relatively recent LIA. 

If CO2 is the culprit, why the hell have things been so damned cold during times when there was a boatload more carbon dioxide in the air than another century of much-increased human petrochemicals combustion could ever come close to causing?

Then there's the fact that their computer simulations - the "models" that impress the botched and the gullible so goddam much, drawing their "hockey stick" curves - bear no real relationship to anything except the underlying assumptions built into them by the AGW fraudsters, who have enormous incentive to "keep up the skeer" in any way they can.

Feed "red noise" - Brownian random numbers - into those computer models and you get (guess what?) those same "hockey stick" graphs. 

One of the most wonderful things about those pimp-peddled computer models is that even if you close your eyes to their utter bogosity, were the entire human race to cease the combustion of petrochemicals altogether, and totalitarian government were to impose upon everyone that level of technology prevailing in Europe circa 1645, there could be no significant abatement of the warming trends those models had been "cooked" to depict

Do you get that? According to the AGW fraudsters who have you so completely, abjectly, and helplessly suckered out of your socks, even if everybody goes completely "carbon-free," the supposed catastrophe they've been banging at your ears with is going to happen anyway.

Jeez, why don't you just shoot yourself right now and be done with it?

Of course if I know someone is out to deceive me, I will basically ignore everything he says. But while his conclusions follow logically from his premise, I find his premise incredible.

The thing about scientific method that you really don't understand - and appear to be refusing to understand, just like any other True Believer - is that what you find credible or "incredible," believable or unbelievable, matters not one goddam teensy tiny bit because science has absolutely nothing to do with belief.

Really pisses off the gullible to be told that their treasured totemic fetishes (see http://tinyurl.com/2lz6yl) and rituals of sacrificial propitiation (see http://tinyurl.com/97ahk) have no beneficial effect upon the world around them, and aren't going to do anything to preserve them from their own willful stupidity.
"I is a great believer in peaceful settlements," Jik-jik assured him. "Ain't nobody as peaceful as a dead trouble-maker."
-- Keith Laumer, Retief's War (1966)

J Thomas on May 15, 2011, 07:25:22 am
The climategate files give us good reason to doubt any paper that has undergone peer review, and all papers that undergo peer review.


Well, I dunno about that.  Kind of a "baby with the bathwater" thing.

I didn't say that, you accidentally put my name to something Tucci said. I have no firm opinion about peer review in general.

It can be helpful -- sometimes reviewers find flaws that the original researcher missed. We can make similar arguments in favor of government, police, banks, the mafia, etc. There are circumstances where it can be argued that they can be helpful.

Is it helpful on average? Is it helpful in the important cases, the small fraction of published papers that make a big difference? I don't know, and I don't know how to find out. It is voluntary, so that's good. If you prefer to publish your paper in a journal that doesn't do peer review, you can.

I do point out that Tucci admitted my criticisms. He has evidence that he believes shows a small minority of AGW papers had improper peer review. He considers this evidence that all AGW papers which have had peer review are worthless themselves.

He claims that AGW is wrong, therefore every AGW paper must be wrong and its data must be wrong.

And he accuses various others of not understanding scientific method....

mellyrn on May 15, 2011, 10:08:03 am
Tucci has evidence -- the emails -- that shows the big names in AGW lied, and conspired to lie.

Why would we read any further works by, or associated with, proven liars?

If you'd like to argue that we're putting unprecedented amounts of toxins (Corexit, fission products, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, ... ) into the environment and maybe we want to pause in that, I'm with you.  But the warming?  Feh.