Like many, I have been astonished by the breaches of good scientific practice uncovered by the Climategate emails. But to my mind, the end goal here is not to punish those involved but to
- Enforce good data and code archiving practices. Our goal should be that no FOIA is necessary to get the information needed to replicate a published study
- Create an openness to scrutiny and replication which human nature resists, but generally exists in most non-climate sciences.
I worry that over the last few months, with the Virginia FOIA inquiry and the recent investigations of Michael Mann, skeptic’s focus has shifted to trying to take out their frustration with and disdain for Michael Mann in the form of getting him rung up on charges. I fear the urge to mount Mann’s head in their trophy case is distracting folks from what the real goals here should be.
I know those in academia like to pretend they are not, but professors at state schools or who are doing research with government money are just as much government employees as anyone in the DMV or post office. And as such, their attempts to evade scrutiny or hide information irritate the hell out of me. But I would happily give the whole Jones/Mann/Briffa et all Climategate gang a blanket pardon in exchange for some better ground rules in climate science going forward.
Skeptics are rightly frustrated with the politicization of science and the awful personal attacks skeptics get when alarmists try to avoid debate on the science. But the correct response here is to take the high ground, NOT to up the stakes in the politicization game by bringing academics we think to be incorrect up on charges. I am warning all of you, this is a bad, bad precedent.
Postscript: I now your response already — there are good and valid legal reasons for charging Mann, here are the statutes he broke, etc. I don’t disagree. But here is my point — the precedent we set here will not be remembered as an academic brought down for malfeasance. It will be remembered as an academic brought down by folks who disagreed with his scientific findings. You may think that unfair, but that is the way the media works. The media is not on the skeptic side, and even if it were neutral, it is always biased to the more sensational story line.
Cedric,
You’re not answering any of my or anyone else’s points.
Just repeating “peer review” “peer review” is not making any sense let alone answering the many questions and points that have been directed to you.
You are ignoring the actual scientific method and making the claim that just because some scientists have published papers that passed peer review that this somehow renders them impervious to criticism or falsification by counter evidence.
Peer review is just a step in the current process of getting papers published in scientific journals. You do realize that it is not even part of the scientific method right?
Doesn’t it concern you that these emails show scientists actively engaged in attempts to hide data? Doesn’t it bother you that these emails show scientists colluding with their “peers” to evade FOI requests?
You seem to view science as some sort of sanctioning body that puts a stamp of approval on theories via peer review. I suggest you review the scientific method.
When Einstein’s theory of relativity threatened to topple the nearly sacred consensus of classical Newtonian physics a mob of physicists came forward and published a “peer reviewed” paper called One Hundred Scientists Against Einstein.
Einstein wryly responded by saying, “If I were wrong, it would only have taken one.”
You, no doubt, would have aligned with the consensus.
You are ignoring the actual scientific method and making the claim that just because some scientists have published papers that passed peer review that this somehow renders them impervious to criticism or falsification by counter evidence.
No I’m not.
If I was it would be simple enough for you to quote me directly doing this.
I’m not talking about “some scientists”.
There is no cherry-picking going on by me.
I have not made any claim that peer review somehow makes some scientists “impervious”.
Doesn’t it concern you that these emails…
No.
I don’t get my science from emails.
Nor does NASA or any other scientific community.
If a scientist wants to get my attention then they must do scientific research.
Not just write emails.
Anybody can write emails.
A scientist must publish their scientific research in an open forum and submit to scientific scrutiny.
Writing emails don’t interest me one way or the other.
No short cuts allowed.
A scientist that disagrees with the data and conclusions presented in the vast body of peer reviewed scientific literature is welcome to do so. Let them enter the the scientific arena. Let them claim the Nobel Prize.
Let them do the hard work necessary.
They can keep their emails and their TV interviews and their coffee table books.
They don’t interest me in the slightest.
All sources of information are not equal.
You seem to view science as some sort of sanctioning body that puts a stamp of approval on theories via peer review.
Science is a meritocracy.
Either you do the work or you don’t.
If you do the work then you display your work…and others who understand your field check your work and (hopefully) add to your work.
Peer-review (though an imperfect process) is accepted by all the branches of science.
That’s the standard that is accepted by science in the modern era.
It’s an excellent method that helps weed out the cranks and the loons out there.
Nobody has come up with a better alternative.
…a mob of physicists came forward and published a “peer reviewed” paper…
Liar.
There was no “peer-reviewed” paper.
You are maliciously misusing the term and twisting history to suit your own ends.
Shame on you.
You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts.
You, no doubt, would have aligned with the consensus.
No.
I would have followed the process of peer-review.
Just like NASA does.
Just like all the other scientific communities do covering all the branches of science.
I get my science information the boring, old-fashioned way.
I don’t just “go with my gut”.
One standard covers all the sciences.
No exceptions allowed.
You are trying to discount and denigrate the system of peer-review because it is a hurdle that climate deniers have repeatedly failed to successfully jump.
The same rhetoric you employ in your comment (word for word) serves perfectly well for any other denier community out there.
No need to change a thing.
Hundred authors against Einstein
A collection of various criticisms can be found in the book “Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein” (Hundred authors against Einstein), published in 1931. It contains very short texts by 28 authors, and excerpts of publications of other 19 authors. The rest consists of a list that also includes persons, which only for some time were opposed to relativity. Besides philosophic objections (mostly based on Kantianism), also some alleged elementary failures of the theory were included, however, as some recipients of the book commented, those failures were due to the misunderstand of the relativity by the authors. For example, Hans Reichenbach described the book as an “accumulation of naive errors”, and as “unintentionally funny”. Albert von Brunn interpreted the book as a backward step to the 16th and 17th century, and Einstein is reported to have said with irony, that one author alone would have been sufficient to refute him. According to Goenner, the contributions to the book are a mixture of mathematical-physical incompetence, Hubris, and the feelings of the critics of being suppressed by the modern physicists. The compilation of the authors show, Goenner continues, that this was not a reaction within the physics community – only one physicist (Karl Strehl) and three mathematicians (Jean-Marie Le Roux, Emanuel Lasker and Hjalmar Mellin) were present – but an inadequate reaction of the academic educated citizenship, which didn’t knew what to do with relativity. As regards the average age of the authors: 57% were substantially older than Einstein, one third was around the same age, and only two persons were substantially younger. Two authors (Reuterdahl, von Mitis) were antisemitic and four others were possibly connected to the Nazi movement. On the other hand, no antisemitic expression can be found in the book, and it also included contributions of some authors of Jewish ancestry (Salomo Friedländer, Ludwig Goldschmidt, Hans Israel, Emanuel Lasker, Oskar Kraus, Menyhért Palágyi).
To wear the mantle of Galileo, it is not enough to be persecuted: you must also be right.
–Robert Park
Cedric:
Where to start? I echo Lance’s question: You do understand that peer-review is not part of the scientific method?
You do understand that the scientific method that was used to develop vaccines (double blind, clinical trials) cannot be applied in climate science?
You do understand that many people (including me) have been able to make independent judgments about the science of the anti-vaccine crowd, the HIV deniers etc and can see the flaws in their arguments and evidence? The fact that they do not publish in peer-reviewed journals is of little importance in evaluating their science.
Cedric:
What does one do when the peer-review process is flawed. Here is a good example. Steven McIntrye has recently shown evidence that Briffa concealed data that is important to evaluating his peer-reviewed article. see http://climateaudit.org/2011/03/23/13321/ . McIntrye has clearly disclosed the source of his information and disclosed the computer code necessary to reproduce his conclusions.
When an article is submitted for review, most reviewers will assume that the author is presenting his data in good faith. What happens when the author is being intentionally misleading and is deliberately concealing important information? Should the well-documented evidence from the climategate uncovered by McIntrye be ignored because his blog post was not published in a peer-reviewed journal? Should it be ignored even when he provides the information necessary for anyone to independently evaluate his conclusions? Should we expect a response from Briffa or should we allow him to hide behind the shield that McIntrye hasn’t submitted his evidence for publication?
You do understand that peer-review is not part of the scientific method?
Do you understand that all science fields use the process of peer review-without exception?
That’s not just an empty whim on their part.
It’s not a dark conspiracy to enforce some mystery orthodoxy.
Do you understand that all mainstream scientific theories are back up by scientific research that is available in peer reviewed scientific literature?
Lots of it. Not just a handful.
Do you understand that all cranks, all loons, all 9/11 troofers, all creationists, all tobacco lawyers, all HIV deniers, all anti vaxers and all climate deniers use the same arguments to discount the process of peer review?
The arguments are the same.
The motivation is the same.
Only the science topic label is different.
You do understand that the scientific method that was used to develop vaccines (double blind, clinical trials) cannot be applied in climate science?
Who says?
Seriously, who?
Where exactly did you get this from?
How is this argument any different from what the HIV deniers say?
(Or the creationists for that matter?)
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA220.html
If climate science is not “real science” then why has no scientific community blown the whistle on this?
Why are all the other science communities remaining silent on this amazing news…or are they in on it too?
How deep does the global conspiracy go?
You do understand that many people (including me) have been able to make independent judgments about the science of the anti-vaccine crowd, the HIV deniers etc and can see the flaws in their arguments and evidence?
How is your statement any different from what an HIV denier would say?
“You do understand that many people (including me) have been able to make independent judgments about the science of the anti-vaccine crowd, the climate deniers etc and can see the flaws in their arguments and evidence?”
Again, it’s not the conclusions that you come to that are important. It’s your methodology.
Are you smart? Good.
Are you educated in some field or other? Good.
Do you read a lot? Good.
Are you prepared to keep an open mind? Good.
Yet NONE of this protects you from being fooled.
You are not adopting any objective safeguards to ensure that you will not be taken in by professional-sounding scientific guff.
I get it that you are sure that you are smart enough to take care of yourself.
But…no fraudster will contradict you.
There’s the danger.
In fact, they will stroke your ego plenty and at the same time pick your intellectual pocket.
It’s flattering to have some talking head with a Phd on TV smile at you and ask your opinion on an important scientific issue. The talking head sounds good.
He’s smiling at you.
He’s interested in your opinion.
He talks to you and he’s explaining to you something and he just knows that you will understand him because you are smart and educated and you “read a lot”.
Buy his book.
You like books, don’t you?
You trust books, don’t you?
I don’t do that.
(Not with climatology, not with biology, not with chemistry etc.)
Some Phd tries to get my “vote” on a scientific issue then my first response is “Take whatever it is you are selling and talk to the professionals first. Jump though some hoops. Do the work. Otherwise, eat your book for all I care. Any clown can write a book.”
Somebody tries to sell me a second-hand car?
Same procedure.
I call in a licenced mechanic to give the car I’m thinking of buying the once over.
In fact, if it’s worth it, I’ll be happy to call in a dozen licenced mechanics.
That’s because I don’t know all that much about cars and car salesmen can be very, very slick operators. They know all the tricks. I don’t.
Not a perfect system-but it’s much, much better than just relying on my own “gut feeling”.
The fact that they do not publish in peer-reviewed journals is of little importance in evaluating their science.
You just made Ken Ham and Dr Peter Deusberg very happy.
One method is to read extensively on both sides of various disputes and apply one’s own judgment to the arguments that are presented. That is what I choose to do.
That’s what the HIV deniers do. It’s the ol’ “He said, she said” routine.
I think my own research and my training and experience in relevant fields outside of climate science allows to me to make reasonable judgments…
Yes. Exactly.
That’s how the anti-vaxers do it too.
You have no methodology that clearly and objectively separates you from the other science deniers that you disapprove of.
This is not about your personal opinions.
This is not about how many books you read.
This is not about how smart you are.
This is about your methodology.
“Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.”
Richard Feynman.
You do understand that the scientific method that was used to develop vaccines (double blind, clinical trials) cannot be applied in climate science?
Who says?
Seriously, who?
Where exactly did you get this from?
How is this argument any different from what the HIV deniers say?
Well, Cedric, can you describe how one can do a double-blind controlled experiment on the effects that CO2 has on global climate?
What does one do when the peer-review process is flawed.
The first step is to demonstrate how the peer-reviewed process has been subverted by the global scientific community.
Individual scientific papers may well have flaws of one sort or another.
That’s why you publish them and let everybody in your field see them and inspect them and try and build on them. If there’s a problem, then others get to publish a rebuttal in a detailed, merciless, step-by-step manner.
They enter the arena. They fight. Two enter. One leaves.
Here is a good example. Steven McIntrye has recently shown evidence…
A couple of problems here:
1) How do you know that “it’s a good example?”
Am I supposed to just take your word for this?
2) Why should I be interested in some guy called Steve McIntrye as opposed to say, NASA, for example?
3) How did he show his evidence? Who looked at it?
Why should I trust it? Where’s the quality control?
When an article is submitted for review, most reviewers will assume that the author is presenting his data in good faith.
Reviewers are not rubber stamps. They are supposed to critique the initial submission. If they don’t, then that is bad. While individual papers may indeed be flawed (and indeed will be from time to time) that does not mean that the peer-review process covering all the Earth sciences is flawed in some horrible, scandelous way.
Don’t cherry pick.
Take the good with the bad in fair and reasonable proportion. Otherwise you are just hunting around for an excuse to ignore the preponderance of evidence gathered over the many decades.
Nobody (least of all scientists) is claiming that the process of peer review is perfect.
That goes for all science topics.
Not just for climatology.
What happens when the author is being intentionally misleading and is deliberately concealing important information?
Why do you think peer review happens in the first place?
What’s the point?
Why do the “peers” “review”?
What’s the point of publishing?
Should the well-documented evidence from the climategate…
Are we talking about emails again?
Why?
For the love of all that’s holy, why are you hypnotised by emails?
Either you have standards or you don’t.
Either you judge science (all of it) one standard way or you don’t.
No selective treatment.
It’s dishonest.
Well, Cedric, can you describe how one can do a double-blind controlled experiment on the effects that CO2 has on global climate?
Wait a minute.
You said…
You do understand that the scientific method that was used to develop vaccines (double blind, clinical trials) cannot be applied in climate science?
You are making a claim here.
You are saying that “x” (in this case double blind, clinical trials) cannot be applied in climate science.
I don’t believe you.
You are just some guy on the internet.
Yet maybe you are right. Maybe.
(I don’t mean that as an insult. I would say the same to anybody, including my friends, on any science topic.)
Your claim is exactly the same one that creationists and HIV deniers make and, as we both know, they don’t know what they are talking about.
There’s no reason why I should just take your word on this. I would be foolish to do so.
Maybe you are right, maybe you are wrong.
Yet you need to support your claim about “x”.
How do you know this?
Where did you get your information from?
Don’t shift the burden of proof.
You make the claim-you get to back it up.
If it turns out you are right, then I will happily admit it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro
Cedric:
Nice try. You reply to me, in part, as follows:
“Here is a good example. Steven McIntrye has recently shown evidence… (me)
1) How do you know that “it’s a good example?” (me, I read his post)
Am I supposed to just take your word for this? (no, you should read it too)
2) Why should I be interested in some guy called Steve McIntrye as opposed to say, NASA, for example? (You shouldn’t be concerned about his name. You should evaluate his work)
3) How did he show his evidence? Who looked at it?
Why should I trust it? Where’s the quality control? (You shouldn’t trust him. He has provided his sources and his computer code. If you don’t trust him, either double check things for yourself or wait for the response 🙂 from Briffa and his “team”. Read the comments to the post. See how others respond or don’t respond on different blogs. McIntrye has laid out a very strong charge and very strong evidence. If there is good response, it will appear most likely at Realclimate.org . If there is not, expect the post to be ignored by the mainstream paleoclimatology community. Listen for excuses such as we only respond to published articles.
For the love of all that’s holy, why are you hypnotised by emails?
Either you have standards or you don’t.
Either you judge science (all of it) one standard way or you don’t.
No selective treatment.
It’s dishonest.
I read his post.
So you are just asking me to take your word that it’s a good example?
No thanks.
You should read it too.
Why?
Why should I read it too just based on your say so?
You should evaluate his work.
Again. Why?
Life is short and there are plenty of cranks out there. Opinions abound. Why should I give my valuable time to some guy or other as opposed to, say, NASA?
You shouldn’t trust him. He has provided his sources and his computer code.
So? How does that help? Where’s the quality control?
If you don’t trust him, either double check things for yourself…
Why? What if I know nothing about computer code?
How can I (or anybody else) effectively double-check anything about computer code?
Read the comments to the post.
Yeah, there’s a good idea-not.
How you can judge good science from bad? Oh, that’s easy.
Read comments on a blog.
Just like HIV deniers do.
See how others respond or don’t respond on different blogs.
Blogs?
Wonderful.
The scientific process of peer-review? Pshaw. Who needs it?
Go for blogs.
All science, all the time.
Awful.
Climate denialism and all other forms of science denialism operate the same way.
The hurdle of peer-review is discounted and denigrated because the outliers cannot compete in the scientific arena.
But there’s alway the Internet…
Obviously, not everything written on the internet or the popular press is insightful or correct. So how does one separate the good from the bad? One method is to read extensively on both sides of various disputes and apply one’s own judgment to the arguments that are presented. That is what I choose to do.
Yep. That’s exactly what you do.
That’s exactly what all the others do to.
Word for word.
No need to change a thing.
You do understand that the scientific method that was used to develop vaccines (double blind, clinical trials) cannot be applied in climate science?
Who says?
Where did you get this from?
Cedric:
Here the thing. I don’t really care what you think. There are plenty like you who will not take the time to investigate a topic on their own and draw their own conclusions.
People within the field of climate paleontology will read what Steven McIntrye wrote. People outside the field who have followed the debate will read what he has written. They will understand the significance of the charge that Steven McIntyre has made and they will have the ability to evaluate whether the charge is important and has substance. They will consider this evidence or choose not to in evaluating Briffa’s credibility and integrity. That is what is important. Not what you think.
“You do understand that the scientific method that was used to develop vaccines (double blind, clinical trials) cannot be applied in climate science?
Who says?
Where did you get this from?”
It is science 101. If you cannot understand why it would be impossible to conduct a double-blind controlled experiment regarding how CO2 effects global temperatures, then there is no point in continuing this discussion.
Here the thing. I don’t really care what you think. There are plenty like you who will not take the time to investigate a topic on their own and draw their own conclusions.
People within the field of climate paleontology will read what Steven McIntrye wrote. People outside the field who have followed the debate will read what he has written. They will understand the significance of the charge that Steven McIntyre has made and they will have the ability to evaluate whether the charge is important and has substance. They will consider this evidence or choose not to…
Word for word. No need to change a thing. Only the topic of the specific science denial changes.
“Here the thing. I don’t really care what you think. There are plenty like you who will not take the time to investigate a topic on their own and draw their own conclusions.
People within the field of biology will read what Ken Ham wrote. People outside the field who have followed the debate will read what he has written. They will understand the significance of the charge that Ken Ham has made and they will have the ability to evaluate whether the charge is important and has substance. They will consider this evidence or choose not to…”
Word for word. No need to change a thing. Only the topic of the specific science denial changes.
“Here the thing. I don’t really care what you think. There are plenty like you who will not take the time to investigate a topic on their own and draw their own conclusions.
People within the field of vaccines will read what Jenny McCarthy wrote. People outside the field who have followed the debate will read what he has written. They will understand the significance of the charge that Jenny McCarthy has made and they will have the ability to evaluate whether the charge is important and has substance. They will consider this evidence or choose not to…”
Word for word. No need to change a thing. Only the topic of the specific science denial changes.
“Here the thing. I don’t really care what you think. There are plenty like you who will not take the time to investigate a topic on their own and draw their own conclusions.
People within the field of HIV research will read what Dr Duesberg wrote. People outside the field who have followed the debate will read what he has written. They will understand the significance of the charge that Dr Duesberg has made and they will have the ability to evaluate whether the charge is important and has substance. They will consider this evidence or choose not to…”
Word for word. No need to change a thing. Only the topic of the specific science denial changes.
“Here the thing. I don’t really care what you think. There are plenty like you who will not take the time to investigate a topic on their own and draw their own conclusions.
People within the field of tobacco-cancer research will read what Dr Fred Singer wrote. People outside the field who have followed the debate will read what he has written. They will understand the significance of the charge that Dr Fred Singer has made and they will have the ability to evaluate whether the charge is important and has substance. They will consider this evidence or choose not to…”
Total shameful bankruptcy.
It is science 101. If you cannot understand why it would be impossible…
You are mistaken.
It’s creation science 101.
Claim CA220:
Science requires experiments that can be replicated. Evolution can not be replicated, so it is not science.
I will start at the end. I never claimed that science requires experiments that can be duplicated. I made the point that the science involving the safety and efficacy of vaccines are on the strongest scientific foundation i.e. double-blind, countrolled experiments. The most important assertions of climate science are not based on this foundation.
In medical science, researchers applying evidence based standards have attempted to classify medical findings based on the strength of the evidence supporting them. The findings assigned the highest level of support are those based on repeated, double-blind clinical trials. That is the gold standard. The findings assigned the lowest level of support are those based on clinical reports. Many findings that are well accepted in medical community are supported only by clincial reports, this weakest tier (e.g. the clincial diagnosis of “shaken baby syndrome” is accepted in the medical community based on a large number of clincial reports. Controlled experiments involving shaking babies or even animals and seeing what happens are not ethical.)
It is not possible to conduct controlled experiments regarding the most important issue in climate science: what is the effect of CO2 on global climate. That does not mean that climatologists are not scientists. It does mean that they will never establish their conclusions to the level of certainty that can be acheived through a controlled experiment.
With respect to everything else you say you seem to being asserting that peer-review is the only mechanism that can protect scientists, and informed laymen from being taken in by fraudsters. If some misinformed and intellectually careless portion of the public has on some issues fallen for fraudsters, then everyone must defer to “peer-reviewed” literature in order to avoid being misled. I simply disagree. You, of course, are free to so limit yourself.
By the way, Cedric, it is true that scientists and informed laymen read what Ken Ham, Jenny McCarthy, Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Fred Singer write outside of the peer-reviewed literature. Scientists and informed laymen do understand the significance of the claims they make and do have the ability to evaluate whether the claims are important and have substance. Based on the strength of the arguments and evidence presented, scientists and informed laymen reject the claims made by Ken Ham, Jenny McCarthy, Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Fred Singer and respond with counter arguments. They for the most part do not go around saying over and over again that Ken Ham, Jenny McCarthy, Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Fred Singer haven’t published peer-reviewed articles.
Cedric,
“You are not getting this.
Scientists are not taken on trust.
Science is not a secret club or a religion.
They must submit their work to their peers.
They must publish.
They must enter the scientific arena.”
I’m sorry, at this point all I can do is gasp at your ignorance. The truthfulness of a scientist’s raw data is absolutely taken on trust when going through the peer review system. Then, in fields where the proper statistical methods for evaluation are still being developed and modified, the lack of personal motivation to cook those methods to produce a favored result is also taken on trust. The part where trust is finally lost will be in replication and validation by other groups.
“It’s not good enough for someone to write a “review”.
Or a book or keep a blog or go on TV.”
Science is science, son. Passing your science through peer review is just one method of dissemination, and no method ensures something is actually good science. In most cases peer review is helpful, but mostly just in ensuring that figures and the text are intelligible. It is most does not ensure that someone’s data is actually correct, much less their theory explaining the data. A blind belief in peer review giving you those things counter productive. Science requires skepticism of those passing peer review, as well as someone writing a book or going on TV. As soon as you lose that skepticism, just because a couple of “peers” OKed something, the scientific process is weakened.
This is what Lance and other are trying to tell you. You’re trying to shout us down by screaming PEER REVIEW at the top of your lungs, saying if we ignore peer review we’re ignoring science. However, not only are you creating a strawman, it is the complete reverse. Science requires skepticism of everything, and as soon as those emails where leaked out, we all now had great reason to distrust the truthfulness of the raw data, the honesty of the data analysis and presentation methods, as well as the proper functioning of the peer review system in fairly disseminating data and theories opposed to that held by the select few.
“All you are doing is looking around for an excuse to ignore the science.”
See, this is you confusing peer-review with science. I’m not ignoring any “science” (which is such a broad term that it is pretty much impossible to know what exactly you think I’m ignoring). What I am doing is being skeptical of certain finding published through peer-review due doubts of honest reporting of data and data analysis methods, as well as preventing the dissemination of data supporting alternative theories. I am not ignoring anything. I am skeptical that the scientific method has been functioning properly. All you’re doing is distorting my words to ridicule my argument. Shouting, YOU’RE IGNORING SCIENCE has no meaning. Be specific. Make a counter argument, using your own facts and logic, highlighting flaws in my facts or logic and propose another theory. To put it differently, follow the scientific process. Shouting ridicules is not going to convince anyone here.
Cedric,
“Liar”
Well, That about does it for me.
I put “peer review” in scare quotes for a reason, since it wasn’t a common practice at that time and simply meant that one hundred physicists and mathematicians contributed, directly or indirectly, to the book.
Now please don’t misinterpret my next remark as a “tit for tat” insult It is meant as constructive criticism.
You are ignorant and self-satisfied.
You would do well to invest some time in the basic science and mathematics necessary to evaluate these “peer reviewed” papers you are currently taking on faith. After doing this admittedly heavy lifting you will find that there isn’t much “there” there
I began my replies to you by saying that I have every confidence that the scientific method will prevail and the outrageous claims of catastrophic AGW will be shown to be vastly overstated, and indeed laughable, in a relatively short time (on the order of decades).
I just hope your’e forthright and humble enough (and still alive) to come to an open forum, whatever form it may take in decades hence, and admit that you were duped.
If the planet overheats and imperils the very existence of human civilization, and a vast number of other species that share the planet with us, I will do the same.
Nice chatting with you.
I made the point that the science involving the safety and efficacy of vaccines are on the strongest scientific foundation i.e. double-blind, countrolled experiments.
No.
That’s not what you said.
What you did was to ask me to take your word on how climatology is done (or in this case not done.)
When I asked you how you actually knew what you knew this you started waving your hands.
This is what you said…
“You do understand that the scientific method that was used to develop vaccines (double blind, clinical trials) cannot be applied in climate science?”
Back up this statement with evidence or abandon it.
How do you actually know this?
The most important assertions of climate science are not based on this foundation.
Assertions?
In medical science…
The medical science community has no objections to climatology being somehow not real science whatsoever.
The same goes for all science communities representing all the fields of science without exception.
With respect to everything else you say you seem to being asserting that peer-review is the only mechanism that can protect scientists, and informed laymen from being taken in by fraudsters.
No, I am not “asserting” anything.
It is the standard that is used in all the fields of science.
It’s a uniform standard.
It’s the way science is done in the modern era.
I’m not making this up.
This is not just me saying this.
If some doctor shoots his mouth off about the terrible dangers of vaccines then other doctors shout out “Where’s your research?” “How did you conduct your clinical trials?” “What observations did you make”. “What protocols did you use to maintain the integrity of your work and not allow possible bias to interfere?”
Those are fair questions.
The answers may be very long and (for the sake of fairness) they must be taken in context.
Emails don’t cut it.
However, a paper published in a journal is a realistic and open way of presenting scientific work.
Science is complicated. It seldom lends itself to sound-bites.
Having the paper vetted by several anonymous reviewers for procedural errors before publication is a sane and reasonable thing to do.
Having the publication journal target audience being other specialists in the field is also fair and reasonable.
There is nothing underhand about this.
Anything that is going to be taken seriously by the scientific community goes through the exact same process.
No exceptions are made.
It’s a quality control measure.
Climatology passes this hurdle with ease. Multiple times. Climate denial fails.
If some misinformed and intellectually careless portion of the public has on some issues fallen for fraudsters, then everyone must defer to “peer-reviewed” literature in order to avoid being misled.
No.
In their eyes, they are not misinformed nor intellectualy careless.
In their eyes, they have not fallen for fraudsters.
They use the same methodology that you do.
That’s the problem.
It’s not about your conclusions.
It’s the METHOD that you use to come to your conclusions.
Your methodology has NO SAFEGUARDS.
There’s no quality control.
You are forced to go with the blog that just sounds the most convincing to you personally.
You have no way to stop yourself from betting on the wrong horse.
If NASA doesn’t sound convincing to you personally-then that’s just too bad for NASA.
They for the most part do not go around saying over and over again that Ken Ham, Jenny McCarthy, Dr. Duesberg and Dr. Fred Singer haven’t published peer-reviewed articles.
Yes they do.
The science community makes a big song and dance about the value of peer-review.
The bane of all cranks and fraudsters out there is the process of peer review.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZhmG97lYog
The truthfulness of a scientist’s raw data is absolutely taken on trust…
Trust?
Nonsense.
How do you know this? Reveal the scandal.
Science is science, son.
Thanks, umm, Dad.
Passing your science through peer review is just one method of dissemination…
Two problems here:
1) It’s not “my” science. I have nothing to do with it.
and
2) Peer review is not just “one method”. It’s the method. All science in the modern era covering all the various fields of science enters the scientific arena of peer-review. No exceptions are made. No special favours.
It is most does not ensure that someone’s data is actually correct, much less their theory explaining the data.
Where did I say anything to the contrary? Why are you so intent on building a strawman? If you object to something I have said..then quote me in my own words.
A blind belief in peer review…
No. The scientific community does not have a “blind belief” in peer review. Science is not a religion.
It works differently.
Honest.
As soon as you lose that skepticism, just because a couple of “peers” OKed something, the scientific process is weakened.
You are building a strawman.
This is not about “a couple” of papers. Why are you trying to trivialise things?
As I have said before:
“If you want to judge the veracity of a scientific issue-then you look at the WORK. You look at the RESEARCH. You demand PEER-REVIEW and tonnes of it.”
Nothing here about losing your skepticism over “a couple” of papers.
“If you want to understand the veracity of the science that is being done in the field of climatology…then you go to the peer-reviewed research. All of it.
Nothing else matters.
If you are concerned about possible hanky-panky in the field of climatology…then you go to the peer-reviewed research. ALL OF IT!
That’s the meat.
Nothing else matters.
If you start scrabbling around for other stuff then you are automatically abandoning the scientific process.
Focus on the work. ALL OF IT!”
I don’t cherry-pick just a couple of papers.
Nor do I cherry pick even a few hundred peer reviewed papers.
I accept all of them. ALL of them.
What I am doing is being skeptical of certain finding published…
Yes, you focus on specific papers from the vast pile available. You cherry pick.
You listen to those that would criticise a peer-reviewed paper from the safety and the comfort of their own armchair but refuse to actually stand up and enter the scientfic arena.
Climatology has proven itself again and again and again in the process of peer review.
There have been no short-cuts.
It’s science done the boring, old-fashioned way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRH2mFXIGn8
I have every confidence that the scientific method will prevail and the outrageous claims of catastrophic AGW will be shown to be vastly overstated, and indeed laughable, in a relatively short time (on the order of decades).
I just hope your’e forthright and humble enough (and still alive) to come to an open forum, whatever form it may take in decades hence, and admit that you were duped.
If the planet overheats and imperils the very existence of human civilization, and a vast number of other species that share the planet with us, I will do the same.
“I have every confidence that the scientific method will prevail and the outrageous claims of Big Pharma will be shown to be vastly overstated, and indeed laughable, in a relatively short time (on the order of decades).
I just hope your’e forthright and humble enough (and still alive) to come to an open forum, whatever form it may take in decades hence, and admit that you were duped.
If a real link can be shown between HIV and AIDS that threatens the gay community and the brave people in Africa, I will do the same.”
I think I’ll sign off on this discussion. Cedric, nothing you have said persuades me that you have a clue about what science is, how it is done and how scientists and reasonable people evaluate scientific claims. You seem to be stuck on a few talking points that you heard from someone.
I will mention before I leave, however, the facts and analysis that cause me to be skeptical about predictions of catastrophic global warming are all found in peer-reviewed literature.
Cedric,
Me: “The truthfulness of a scientist’s raw data is absolutely taken on trust…”
You: “Trust?
Nonsense.
How do you know this? Reveal the scandal.”
How do I know this? I’m a scientist, and having been through the peer review process on both ends, I can tell you no one double checks your raw data during peer review. If you are in doubt of this basic fact regarding the peer-review process, I don’t think we have any hope of having an informed discussion regarding the pros and cons of peer-review. I really don’t know what else to tell you here. Your raw data is only “checked” or not “taken on trust” through replication of your work, not through peer review. One of the great weaknesses of the peer-review system is that it requires ethical, or scientific integrity, from those who participate in it. Meaning the authors, reviewers and editors.
“1) It’s not “my” science. I have nothing to do with it.”
No kidding, I was using the general “you”. This is why I’m starting to talk to you like a child, you’re behaving like one.
“Peer review is not just “one method”. It’s the method. All science in the modern era covering all the various fields of science enters the scientific arena of peer-review. No exceptions are made. No special favours.”
Not true at all. Where do you think private companies engaged in science publish their work? Right, most of it stays in house, is sent for patents, and used to generate a profit. Just look, for example, at the great many new technological developments in DNA sequence. A great deal of “science” goes into producing those things, but only the very basic explainations are published due to companies not wanting to give away their “secret”. This can go for drug companies, computer tech, engineers, etc. If you where to limit your statement to “acedemic science”, you would at least be more right. But your statement above only highlights your ignorance.
“Where did I say anything to the contrary? Why are you so intent on building a strawman?”
All right cedric, if you think I’ misrepresenting your argument, how about you more fully explain your position beyond these short, snarky statements?
This behavior of cropping sentence fragments and coming up with what you think is some sort of witty ridicule is even confusing yourself. For example:
Me: “A blind belief in peer review…”
You: “No. The scientific community does not have a “blind belief” in peer review. Science is not a religion.
It works differently.
Honest.”
No kidding, son. And no where did I make any such claim. If you kept reading, you’d infact notice I was explaining quite the opposite. And instead attempting to explain to you your faith in peer-review is misplaced. Now, if your position is not that of putting faith in peer-review, well, feel free to explain what you position really is. Because, from where I sit, it sure seems like you’re arguing that we can not find exception in anything published in peer-review.
“If you want to judge the veracity of a scientific issue-then you look at the WORK. You look at the RESEARCH. You demand PEER-REVIEW and tonnes of it.”
Nothing here about losing your skepticism over “a couple” of papers.”
This is the part you keep missing though. The process of peer-review has been compromised. Things where published that can not be replicated. There are strong reasons to believe reviewers and editors of journals behaved unethically it prevent publication of theories supported by alternative hypotheses. This is how peer review can fail, and why you can not simple scream “we need tons of peer review”. Volumn does not make up for quality when it comes to science. Further, we don’t need to look at ALL OF IT, if raw data can’t be found or methods can’t be reproduced. And we certainly have to start looking out side peer review, if we believe reviews and editors have been behaving unethically.
Now, like your father might tell you, I suggest you read this post and refain from making your little snarky ridicules. Instead, just stop and give a little thought to what I, and others, have said to you. As its quite obvious from your posts, very little thought is actually going into them. Next time, think before speaking.
Cedric,
“I have every confidence that the scientific method will prevail and the outrageous claims of Big Pharma will be shown to be vastly overstated, and indeed laughable, in a relatively short time (on the order of decades).”
Interesting ridicule you have chosen here, considering the vast majority of the science done by “big pharma” is not peer reviewed, nor available for any of us to read.
The suggestion that Mann should not be brought up on charges because of likely media reaction is immoral and cowardly. He deliberately committed a crime–using taxpayer money to perpetrate a scientific fraud–and he should go to jail for it, regardless of the consequences. He is not special and exempt from the law just because there are political aspects to this scandal.
It is irrelevant what the media does with it. However, regardless of how much they agitate, global warming is a scam, and no amount of martyr-mongering by the media can make the untrue true. The global warming scam is going through death rattles because it has zero actual scientific evidence to back it up, and that is not something that can be covered up with endless propaganda blitzes. Man up.
Cedric,
First you called me a liar and now you mock my words with idiotic, and self-indulgent, non sequiturs.
I look at this as an opportunity wasted.
I reiterate my advice to take a few math and science courses. You could do it in a few months really, unless you are dispossessed of the mental faculties for scientific and mathematical thought.
There would be no shame in this of course, I can’t play a musical instrument to save my life, but scientific inquiry is really the only way you are going to be able to access the scientific position to which you so feverishly, and illogically, cling.
Knowledge is power, but faith is a frail shield against reality.
Take care.
I will mention before I leave, however, the facts and analysis that cause me to be skeptical about predictions of catastrophic global warming are all found in peer-reviewed literature.
Yep, the creationists and the HIV deniers and the anti-vaxxers say that too.
(They usually say it in between bouts of taking shots at the process of peer-review.)
The beauty of cherry-picking is that you can take a vast pile of information and focus on the stuff that supports (somehow kinda sorta maybe) your position.
Wakefield produced one paper that was very bad.
Yet it was that paper that the anti-vaxxers focused on exclusively.
That ONE paper was savaged repeatedly by the peer review process very quickly. Medical scientists demonstrated again and again in other studies just how badly wrong it’s conclusions were.
Yet did that matter to the anti-vaxxers?
Nope.
Not even a little bit.
They paraded that one solitary study every chance they got.
Somehow that one study trumped the preponderance of evidence.
Count the hits and gloss over the misses.
I don’t do that.
I accept all the peer-reviewed literature.
ALL of it.
I will mention before I leave, however, the facts and analysis that cause me to be skeptical about predictions of catastrophic global warming are all found in peer-reviewed literature.
Any science denier from any topic can say the exact same thing-just as long as they cherry-pick and aren’t too choosy about the quality or importance of the papers concerned. They even like to create little lists of them and trot them out from time to time.
The process of peer-review is flawed and untrustworthy…unless somebody points to a paper that props up your position…then it’s ok.
How do I know this? I’m a scientist, and having been through the peer review process…
The wonderful thing about the internet is that everybody is a scientist.
Simply everybody.
I’m not going to take your word for anything.
If there’s some terrible flaw in the process of peer-review which the global scientific community has failed to see then reveal the scandal.
Not true at all. Where do you think private companies engaged in science publish their work?
This affects climatology or biology or geology or the general integrity of the peer review process how exactly?
I am skeptical that the scientific method has been functioning properly.
Then demonstrate it.
Get out there and demonstrate it.
Talk is cheap.
Opinions abound.
How is “the fix” in and applied accross the global scientific community?
What are the nuts and bolts of the operation?
Expose the conspiracy or get off the damned pot.
Because, from where I sit, it sure seems like you’re arguing that we can not find exception in anything published in peer-review.
Then you have failed to read what I have written.
I have repeatedly acknowledged that the peer review process is less than perfect. Any other scientist would say the same.
Let’s take a trip down memory lane:
“Yes, I agree with you. That is why it is so very important to follow the process of peer review. That’s how possible weaknesses in data and flaws are exposed.
That’s the mechanism.
……………………………….
Correction: That’s the necessary but not sufficient first step of the mechanism. From peer-reviewed papers, other researchers can take the experiments and obeservations clearly explained therein and conduct their own independent work on them. If the results obtained are not verified by others in the field, then the value of the paper and the quality of the work will be judged accordingly.”
(…)
“The point is that peer review is the best that we have but is no proof of correctness.
Where did I say it was? How have I misrepresented the process of peer review in any way?”
(…)
“Peer reviewed research is done by scientists, just like the good people at NASA. Peer-review is not a perfect system but it does do a jim dandy job of weeding out the crackpots.
Creationists simply hate peer-review.”
(…)
I welcome all peer reviewed research. ALL OF IT. When such research withstands continued scrutiny and is built upon then I will be the first to cheer. If a paper withers on the vine…then thems the breaks.
(…)
Glad to hear it. Peer-review does indeed have limitations. Scientists from all branches of science know and understand this. Nobody is blindy worshipping peer-review. It’s a system created by humans, after all. But it’s the best system science has created so far. Focus on the research presented in that arena and it becomes clear that the preponderance of evidence is firmly weighted on one side, just like the Theory of Evolution and Germ Theory. NASA’s conclusions on climate are not considered to be “out there” or oddball.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X50lH-XxHI
The process of peer-review has been compromised.
Horrors!
How did they do it?
How?
When will the details be forthcoming?
@ Wally
Interesting ridicule you have chosen here, considering the vast majority of the science done by “big pharma” is not peer reviewed, nor available for any of us to read.
Jenny McCarthy just did her little happy dance.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/vaccines/view/
I began my replies to you by saying that I have every confidence that the scientific method will prevail and the outrageous claims of catastrophic AGW will be shown to be vastly overstated, and indeed laughable, in a relatively short time (on the order of decades).
Claim CA110:
Evolution is a theory in crisis; it will soon be widely rejected.
Cedric,
“I’m not going to take your word for anything.
If there’s some terrible flaw in the process of peer-review which the global scientific community has failed to see then reveal the scandal.”
I’m not asking you to take me on faith, but you did ask how I knew raw data is taken on trust in the peer-review system. I simply told you. I’ve seen it; I’ve done it. There isn’t any other way to tell you just what the peer-review system does or does not check. I guess you could read the instructions for authors and reviewers on various journal websites if you like. I assure you won’t see any requirement of reviewers to check the validity of the raw data.
Second, don’t twist my words into some sort of hyperbole. I didn’t say their was a terrible flaw, I’m just arguing that the system can be manipulated by unethical behavior. Like you’ve said so many times, if you think I’ve said such things, how about you quote me in my own words?
“This affects climatology or biology or geology or the general integrity of the peer review process how exactly?”
You’re moving the goal posts, son. You said, “Peer review is not just “one method”. It’s the method. All science in the modern era covering all the various fields of science enters the scientific arena of peer-review. No exceptions are made. No special favours.”
To which I pointed out peer-review is just ONE method, not coving ALL science. Academic science is dominated by peer-review. But even in academia, scientific results are sometimes published through books, or, if the funding is from private sorce, not published at all and used by private companies to create some product. Thus, the point was never about how something effects peer-review. The point was about other methods of publishing science.
“I am skeptical that the scientific method has been functioning properly.
Then demonstrate it.”
We’ve seen it through the emails. We’ve seen it through reports by various other scientists and those investigating the people sending those emails. There is no need for me to further ellaborate. You’re on the internet, the evidence has been described to you, and you can find them with one quick google search.
“Expose the conspiracy or get off the damned pot.”
Open your eyes, son. Its been exposed for all to see for about 18 months now. I’ll say it again, there is no action on my part required to expose anything, others have already done it.
“That is why it is so very important to follow the process of peer review. That’s how possible weaknesses in data and flaws are exposed.”
I’ve said the same thing before, but I guess I have to say it one more time. If those producing the flawed research are also preventing others from publishing data demonstrating the flaws, the peer-review system is broken. Evidence for all of this can be found in the climategate emails, and corroborated by statements made by other scientists. Nothing you say can make these truths disapear. You can not burry your head in the sand, and just wait from them to go away.
“The process of peer-review has been compromised.
Horrors!
How did they do it?
How?
When will the details be forthcoming?”
I can not show them to you, if you willfully burry your head in the sand.
This will be my last post to you if you can not get away from cutting out some sentence fragment of mine and twisting it into some hyperbolic strawman or red herring. Further, you will have stop these one or two line demonstrations of willful ignorance, more fully explain your argument and accept the data proving unethical behavior among some participating in peer-review in the climate sciences. If you can not do those things, I wish you a long and happy life. After all ignorance is bliss right? I guess willful ignorance must be even better. You’re certain to make yourself happy no matter what. Good luck with that. I hope it gets you far in life.
Cedric,
For Christ’s sake transposing evolution with climate science was silly and irrelevant the first time you did it, and just pathetic the second.
Is it your opinion that no current “consensus” hypothesis will ever fall from favor? One needn’t look too deeply into the history of science to show the folly in this proposition.
As has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, the little incestuous community that keeps the gate of “peer review” in climate science has been exposed as corrupt and the self-correction is no doubt close behind.
I have invested the time and effort to, you know, actually read the literature and evaluate the evidence to make my decisions. All I have asked is for you to do the same before criticizing my assessment of the science.
You provoked this response with a juvenile rejoinder, that wasn’t even in response to my most recent post. I won’t be goaded into responding by such silliness again.
You’ll have make a valid argument that actually addresses the points you have been ignoring for me to respond again.
Cheers.
The “consensus” 100 years ago was that aetherial vibrations caused plasma waves. If the world at the time had all followed Cedric’s view of things, then we’d still believe that. Among other things, what this likely means is that what we now call “climate science” would not even exist.
Thank goodness not everyone considers “consensus” and “truth” to be the same thing.
I’m not asking you to take me on faith, but you did ask how I knew raw data is taken on trust in the peer-review system. I simply told you. I’ve seen it; I’ve done it.
So you’re not asking me to just take your word?
Oh good.
It’s just that, well, you’ve seen it yourself and you’ve done it.
Yet you are not asking me to just take you at your word?
Hmm.
There isn’t any other way to tell you just what the peer-review system does or does not check.
So there’s no objective way of verifying what you say?
Hmm.
Pity that.
Funny how often that happens around here.
I didn’t say their was a terrible flaw, I’m just arguing that the system can be manipulated by unethical behavior</i.
Yes, it can be. I agree with you. There can be an unethical scientist or a team of scientists or an unethical journal but…
But even in academia, scientific results are sometimes published through books, or, if the funding is from private sorce, not published at all and used by private companies to create some product. Thus, the point was never about how something effects peer-review.
Then perhaps we can move back to climatology and the peer review process?
Then demonstrate it.
We’ve seen it through the emails.
Emails?
Again?
How does that work? How do emails (of any sort, shape or flavour that you like) affect the work done in climatology or biology or whatever?
Of course we need to judge they science through the data and logic presented and not through emails. However…
Wonderful. All science, all the time.
There is no need for me to further ellaborate. You’re on the internet, the evidence has been described to you, and you can find them with one quick google search.
Which blog should I go to?
Are there any readers comments I should pay special attention to?
Maybe there are some books I should buy?
How about a few opinion pieces in some Texas newspaper somewhere?
Should I get my information on the Theory of Evolution this way too?
Awful.
Open your eyes, son. Its been exposed for all to see for about 18 months now. I’ll say it again, there is no action on my part required to expose anything, others have already done it.
18 months? You are talking about the emails again, right?
If those producing the flawed research are also preventing others from publishing data demonstrating the flaws, the peer-review system is broken.
How?
Why is this such a terribly difficult question?
HOW?
How are “they” keeping the good guys down?
Spell it out.
What is the mechanism that “they” are using?
Do “they” hold the children of editors hostage?
Do “they” sneak into people’s homes and wipe their hard-drives of data using Black-Bag teams?
Is there a central clearing house that gives all the scientists their marching orders?
How does the global conspiracy work?
I can not show them to you, if you willfully burry your head in the sand.
You have explained precisely nothing.
You have not bothered even to try.
It’s just all assertions and hand-waving and dark mutterings about emails.
Somehow “they” have managed to silence you.
The nuts and bolts of the operation remain a total mystery.
…and accept the data proving unethical behavior among some participating in peer-review in the climate sciences.
I don’t care about “unethical behaviour” amongst “some”.
I accept all the peer-reviewed literature.
No cherry picking to make any one science topic look good or bad.
Burn the “some” to death.
Burn all their research they were personally involved with.
Burn all their co-workers too.
Get rid of it all. Cleanse it all with purifying fire and focus on only the work done by all the Japanese scientists or the USGC or the AGU or the AAAS.
It changes nothing.
Unless you want to try and stitch together a proper global conspiracy covering all the Earth Sciences then you have nothing.
Or (gasp) are “they” all magically doing the same thing?
Somehow?
Ok, how?
@Lance
For Christ’s sake transposing evolution with climate science was silly and irrelevant the first time you did it, and just pathetic the second.
You are saying nothing that creationists haven’t said before.
The arguments are the same. Your words work perfectly well for any creationist or HIV denier out there.
No need to change a thing.
(Especially the bit where you assure me that you really, truly, absolutely have read the literature and evaluated the evidence.)
Behold:
For Christ’s sake transposing Germ Theory with Evilution was silly and irrelevant the first time you did it, and just pathetic the second.
Is it your opinion that no current “consensus” hypothesis will ever fall from favor? One needn’t look too deeply into the history of science to show the folly in this proposition.
As has been pointed out to you, repeatedly, the little incestuous community that keeps the gate of “peer review” in Darwinism has been exposed as corrupt and the self-correction is no doubt close behind.
I have invested the time and effort to, you know, actually read the literature and evaluate the evidence to make my decisions. All I have asked is for you to do the same before criticizing my assessment of the science.
You provoked this response with a juvenile rejoinder, that wasn’t even in response to my most recent post. I won’t be goaded into responding by such silliness again.
You’ll have make a valid argument that actually addresses the points you have been ignoring for me to respond again.
Beautiful. Just beautiful.
All science deniers follow the same methodology, use the same rhetoric and can even be the same people.
Read the homeschooling textbook on the evils of biology and you can use the same words to expose the evils of climatology.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07WX3F7UQWA
@ Lance Is it your opinion that no current “consensus” hypothesis will ever fall from favor? One needn’t look too deeply into the history of science to show the folly in this proposition.
Claim CA250:
Scientific theories are always changing. You cannot trust what scientists say, since it may be different tomorrow.
Cedric,
Still amusing yourself with cut and paste mockery huh?
Sadly, that’s about what I expected.
Is it that you don’t have the courage to make a substantive reply or that you don’t have the ability?
Perhaps it’s both.
Politics is hard. We should fight for good science and against bad science by whatever means are available.
I should know better, but Cedric here my last question for you.
You seem to think that climate skeptics are similar to creationists, HIV deniers, etc.
Do any of these groups have supporting their positions, the equivalents of Freeman Dyson, the Noble Prize winning theoretical physicist (http://www.ias.edu/people/faculty-and-emeriti/dyson); Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/CV.pdf), or Judith Curry, the Department Chair, Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology (http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html)
Opps. A mistake. Freeman Dyson is often called the best physicist who never won the Noble Prize. Given his accomplishments, I assumed that he had.
Cedric:
I accept all the peer-reviewed literature.
—
http://www.icr.org/education/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj
Looks like our dear Cedric is a creationist.
Just checked back for a lark.
I often find “You’re a fucking wanker, etc.” a convincing argument.
I’ve changed many of my worldviews because of that forceful nomenclature.
Well played, Gavin.
The argument seems to be over blindly believing the current consensus in the climate science field. A point that I don’t understand: Why is everybody so outraged that everyone does not accept their climate models without question? In my computer modelling days, I was delighted to answer questions and criticisms from my colleages. If I was wrong, or the model could be improved, I wanted to know it.
Another point I have made repeatedly and have never received an explanation from AGW believers: If you eliminate fossil fuels from the oconomy, what do you replace it with? All of the proposed “alternative energy” schemes are either completely uneconomical or are only feasible on a small scale. Also, what if the Chinese and Indians don’t get on board?
If we push through anti CO2 legislation without addressing the last two points, all we have is a catastrophe.
It seems to me that the AGW pushers owe it to the rest of the scientific and engineering community to have a comlete package. You can’t take a piece of it out of context. Even if the CO2 based global warming thing is true (which is not universally accepted), how do we implement it? The idea that “we will think of something” is not sufficient basis to wreck everything.
I learned long ago, as a young engineer, that you must consider the whole process, not just a piece of it. Until I see a complete scheme, including a workable energy plan, and agreement by everyone on the planet, we have nothing. Who cares about “peer review” etc. if there is no way to implement it even if it is correct?
I believe that the IPCC and the members of “the Team” have gone much further than violate scientific protocols. They have committed fraud on taxpayers on a scale that no embezzler could hope to equal.
@Cedric
You keep comparing climategate to deniers of moon landings. That is about as accurate as comparing the Enron Scandal to Holocaust Denial.
Do people claim that climategate proves that ACC is not happening? Yes, but they are the small minority.
For a more accurate comparison it would be comparing Climategate to the Apollo 1 disaster.
While documents showed that everything was fine and ready to go for the mission there was unrest below the surface. Letters and documents that came out afterwards from Engineers and people involved in the various aspects of the ship. Engineers and technicians at North American Aviation had written about poor design and other hazards. These were not in peer-reviewed papers, technical documents, mission statements, or any official literature. However when it came time to save jobs and figure out what went wrong these letters and memos showed a clear breach of the proper process.
This is why these communications are important. When an individual responsible for a project says, “The numbers didn’t work so I changed them, don’t worry I cleaned up afterwards.”
You can’t just bury your head in the sand and say. “Well yes he said that in the email, but if you look at his peer-reviewed work you will find that the numbers he used are accurate. Oh, you can’t test them because the original data set no longer exists and we deny your requests for them. Well I guess you’d better go and spend 10 million pounds recreating and redoing everything, we’re not going to help you as you may prove him wrong.”
The emails are important, saying they don’t matter would be like saying. “The memos and internal documents of North American Aviation need to be ignored. Look the science and technical papers all say that everything is fine. Yes I know it was inconvenient for Apollo 1 to spontaneously combust, but the documentation shows that it shouldn’t have.”
@amabo Looks like our dear Cedric is a creationist.
No, I’m not. Creationists cherry-pick their data.
I accept all peer-reviewed research.
That’s why I reject creationism and accept the prepoderance of evidence that is overwhelmingly in favour of the theory of evolution.
Science is not the same as religion. They work differently.
@Ashley
Do people claim that climategate proves that ACC is not happening? Yes, but they are the small minority.
Not on climate denier sites all over the internet.
Certainly, not on this thread.
Everybody seems to be absolutely fascinated by the emails. It’s all “Sure, you can’t judge the science by emails but…but…but…hey look at this email!”
Awful.
Either you have scientific standards or you don’t.
“Climategate” was an exercise in stupid.
For a more accurate comparison it would be comparing Climategate to the Apollo 1 disaster.
Bad analogy.
You don’t demonstrate the existence of the Apollo 1 disaster by looking at personal letters, emails or toilet graffitti.
You look at the charred corpses and you examine the wreakage and you read the engineer reports.
When an individual responsible for a project says, “The numbers didn’t work so I changed them, don’t worry I cleaned up afterwards.”
If they cleaned them up, then that would reveal itself in the peer-reviewed literature. The global scientific community cannot just “change the numbers” at a whim.
It’s physically impossible.
There is no conspiracy. It wouldn’t work.
You can’t just bury your head in the sand and say…
Demanding peer-reviewed literature is the very opposite of burying your head in the sand.
Only the work matters.
The scientific work.
That’s where any flaws or hanky-panky will be exposed.
…you can’t test them because the original data set no longer exists…
This is a lie. The data was always there. It still is. It’s not lost forever in some alternate universe. There is no central clearing house for climate data tightly guarded by some evil mastermind.
…we deny your requests for them…
Burn all the the work done by all the scientists mentioned in the emails.
Burn it.
Not just deny requests.
Actually burn it and burn the actual scientists that were involved in any “requests”.
Burn it all.
It changes nothing.
@ Cedric
<Certainly, not on this thread.
Looking through the posts I do not see that anyone here has claimed that ACC has been disproven by the climategate. You are wrong.
<You don’t demonstrate the existence of the Apollo 1 disaster by looking at personal letters, emails or toilet graffitti.
You are deliberately misrepresenting the facts again. I never stated that the Apollo 1 disaster didn't exist or that anyone in their right mind would try to disprove that it happened. A huge part of the Apollo 1 investigation was the inter-office communications at NAA. You are flat out wrong by saying that personal letters did not play a part in showing what happened and what went wrong. Official documents and engineering reports, the "peer-reviewed literature", showed that everything was fine, it was only after the fact when the disaster happened that it was shown that the "peer-reviewed literature" was not correct and it was shown through "toilet graffiti". That you attempt to deny this shows how wrong you are.
<If they cleaned them up, then that would reveal itself in the peer-reviewed literature. The global scientific community cannot just “change the numbers” at a whim.
Except in Peer reviewed literature you are taken what you are given and check it. There is no way to know that 3 out of 20 data points have been adjusted.
Have you ever taken part in the peer-review process. There is no global scientific community in the peer reviewed process. There are three to five individuals who take the data they are given. They do not actually go out and recreate the entire work from scratch checking all the original sources.
<This is a lie. The data was always there. It still is. It’s not lost forever in some alternate universe. There is no central clearing house for climate data tightly guarded by some evil mastermind.
Except if the data is collected by a group such as the CRU and is only in the possession of the CRU then how does anyone else know what that data is without getting it from the CRU. The phrase tightly guarded is well used, when a person is attempting to recreate your work and you fail to send them the data necessary to recreate your work then yes that is wrong. That is what happened.
<It changes nothing,
That is not true, it is completely reasonable that upon discovery of a personal vested interest in a scientist to question and more closely look at their findings. One example would be anti-vaccination science. The science appeared sound, demonstrably so, however the first chink to appear came when it was revealed that the Doctor responsible for the initial research had a vested interest in court cases and made himself rich with fraudulent research. After learning of this it was investigated more closely, private research was forced into the light and it was shown to be garbage. However it started with the courts and non-scientific methods.
You ascribe a purity to the research that does not exist. If there can be shown to be a clear reason why the data may not be trustworthy, even when it is non-scientific reasons such as money or politics that are involved, then a closer independent investigation is required. You don't have someone, say Lord Oxburgh, who has tons of money riding on the results of the investigation be the man chairing it.
Looking through the posts I do not see that anyone here has claimed that ACC has been disproven by the climategate. You are wrong.
Let me spell it out for you.
“I have been astonished by the breaches of good scientific practice uncovered by the Climategate emails.”
(…)
“There is always the hope that if Mann is found guilty of defrauding the public he may turn over evidence on the conspiracy to mislead the political world and the honest public with regard to the threat presented by emitting CO2 in return for a wrist slap.”
(…)
“There are a lot of people in academia who have developed the notion that they have an “absolute right” to taxpayer (or student loan, but I repeat myself) dollars with which they can do whatever the hell they want.”
(…)
“However, if the science has been compromised through unethical behavior or even illegal behavior, you then have doubt in the truthfulness of the science being presented, including in this case most specifically, the publication of data opposing the theory pushed by a select few. Anyway, that’s why emails can matter.”
(…)
“No one says the e-mails prove CAGW is not valid.”
But, do I hear a but?
What the e-mails do show is blah, blah, blah…”
(…)
“The “Climategate” emails do not prove much of anything about the science. HOWEVER, the code and data sets that were also released DOES prove that…”
(…)
“What exists is a “conspiracy of self interest”. It is to the best interest of all climate scientists for enough plausibility be found in Global Warming AKA climate change AKA climate disruption AKA weirding weather to keep the lights on and their paychecks coming in.”
(…)
“The climategate emails are important because they demonstrate rather clearly to anyone paying attention the lengths to which some of the most important paleoclimatologists were not honest and transparent.”
(…)
“The emails disclose the intent and methods of their authors to keep hidden important information that would be valuable in evaluating their published works. The “hide the decline” emails, for example, disclose that the “divergence” problem with climate proxies was intentionally obscured in published articles, as well as the IPCC.”
(…)
“Their self admitted willingness to hide the contradictory evidence and to exaggerate the certainty of their pet theory has turned them into the Rodney Dangerfield of the sciences.”
(…)
“The “climatgate” emails show just how shoddy and petty some of the main players in the current climate science landscape have become to defend their vested interests and personal pet theories.”
Etc…
So to recap, the emails are evidence of breaches of good scientific practice. Evidence of fraud and conspiracy. Lots of people in academia that are clearly up to no good. Doubts of the truthfullness of the science. Look at the codes and data sets! Just look at them!!! A conspiracy of self interest to keep the paychecks coming in. Paleoclimatologists are not transparent and honest. They’re keeping the information hidden. There’s contradictory evidence out there and “they” are keeping it hidden. Pet theories and vested interests.
Oh the humanity.
It’s dumb. Really, really dumb.
The emails are worthless as evidence of anything.
If there what a breach of good scientific practice, where would it show up? In the peer-reviewed research.
If somebody has a beef with how the science is done, then get off your lazy butt and enter the scientific arena.
If there is fraud or conspiracy, then where would it show up? In the peer-reviewed research.
That’s where Wakefied got smacked around. Nobody needed to read his emails.
Have a problem with codes or data sets?
Then demonstrate the problem.
Enter the scientific arena before we all die of old age.
Demonstrate the hideous conspiracy.
They are keeping “the information” hidden?
Then reveal the bloody information. Don’t let them keep it hidden. Get out there and do the work and enter the scientific arena.
You are flat out wrong by saying that personal letters did not play a part in showing what happened and what went wrong.
Strawman. I did not say this.
Emails do not mean anything by themselves. We don’t know that Apollo 1 happened just because of emails. All the emails in the world don’t add up to a real life disaster.
The “Climategate” broohaa however, is made up solely of emails.
There’s no supporting evidence.
It’s all smoke and mirrors.
There’s no charred bodies. There’s no wreckage. There’s no NASA engineer reports.
The “Climategate” emails are just isolated quotes mindlessly repeated with no understanding. They have lead to nothing concrete because there is nothing concrete there. The emails don’t even say what the climate deniers think they say.
Except in Peer reviewed literature you are taken what you are given and check it. There is no way to know that 3 out of 20 data points have been adjusted.
Climatology and AGW in general does not hang by 3 out of 20 data points. There is no one team or body with a secret monopoly on what goes in to the process of peer-review.
There is no global scientific community in the peer reviewed process.
Yes, there is.
All countries, all sciences, all scientists follow the process of peer-review. Climatology and and the theory of AGW is a global effort. It all gets published and anyone can compare one paper to another. Hard to keep a global conspiracy alive in that environment.
Except if the data is collected by a group such as the CRU…
The data can be collected. The CRU does not have a monopoly on this. Anybody can get off their backside and do what the CRU does. There is no secret monopoly.
The CRU could disappear tomorrow and all it’s hard-drives be smashed into little tiny pieces. Nothing would be lost. The CRU is not some super-special nexus point that magically “controls it all”. The CRU doesn’t run things.
…it is completely reasonable that upon discovery of a personal vested interest in a scientist to question and more closely look at their findings.
Yes it is. Look at their findings. Look very carefully.
You will find their findings in the peer-reviewed literature.
Exactly where they should be.
The old-fashioned way.
If you have a problem with them, then enter the scientific arena and thrash it out properly.
One example would be anti-vaccination science. The science appeared sound, demonstrably so,…
No, it didn’t. The scientific communtiy has it’s suspicions from the start and could not replicate his studies. Only the anti-vaxxers were suckered in.
…however the first chink to appear came when it was revealed that the Doctor responsible for the initial research had a vested interest in court cases and made himself rich with fraudulent research.
No. That came later thanks to investigative reporting.
If there can be shown to be a clear reason why the data may not be trustworthy…
Then show it. Don’t just quote-mine emails. Enter the scientific arena. Demonstrate that the data is not trustworthy. Start from afresh and go back to the original data sources and bypass the CRU entirely. Do it the way it should be done.
Here is an essay that I think is worth reading about the current state of the AGW debate by by Don Adkin. http://judithcurry.com/2011/03/29/an-essay-on-the-current-state-of-the-climate-change-debate/ . While the entire essay is worth reading, I agree in particular with what he says regarding the debate on the internet and the effect it is having on the development of science. He writes:
“Why does anyone take notice of what happens in cyberspace? Surely, you might say, most of this is opinionated nonsense. Well, apart from the problems with the journal form, we should note that many of those who participate in website discussions are retired or otherwise active scientists and academics who are highly competent in their own fields, and able to comment sensibly on published work. They no longer have much interest in publishing themselves, and nor do they need to possess an alternative ‘theory’, but they find the intellectual game that is alive in the AGW domain interesting and even exciting. I share their view. Websites like Judith Curry’s ‘Climate etc.’ offer what is an extended and continuing seminar in every aspect of climate science, led by people who are not only able scientists but often excellent educators as well. In my judgment, what appears in our newspapers, radio or television about climate change is usually well behind what you can find on the web. I have no doubt that the main websites are read and studied by those in any government who have to provide advice.”
His comments on climategate are also quite interesting.
Also, I agree entirely with this point:
“Proposition three, the role of carbon dioxide, depends on the physics of atmospheric radiative transfer, and while this is the most robust component of climate models, both in theory and experimentally, a great deal depends, in practice, on what is called ‘climate sensitivity’ — that is, how climate actually works and the role within it of greenhouse gases other than carbon dioxide. To simplify: most participants, though not all, will accept that a doubling of CO2 would by itself produce an increase of about 1 degree C, but that outcome will be much affected by the role of the main greenhouse gases, water vapour and its manifestation in clouds. AGW proponents see water vapour as amplifying the warming caused by carbon dioxide, dissenters generally see the effect as a minimisation. There are plausible arguments both ways, and not much evidence. Here, as elsewhere, the orthodoxy makes great use of models (General Circulation Models, or GCMs), but dissenters argue that we know too little about climate for such models to produce anything more than that with which they were initially fed.”
@Cedric
Strawman. I did not say this.
“You don’t demonstrate the existence of the Apollo 1 disaster by looking at personal letters, emails or toilet graffitti.”
Yeah, you flat out said so, you completely ignored what I said and made your own strawman argument. You are 100% correct in it, there was no way I could argue it, Apollo 1 did happen without need for proof from the other sources. However the memos and letters were what showed fault in the official engineering reports, and it was only after looking at them that the errors were found.
>All countries, all sciences, all scientists follow the process of peer-review.
That wasn’t my statement, you are arguing a point which I am not. I understand that you can only write in single sentences, however it is important not to quote-mine/cherry pick and look at the other sentences in these things we call paragraphs. I stated that in a peer-review there aren’t, “the entire scientific community”, there are just a handful of other individuals.
An excellent example of this would be Michael Mann’s Hockey stick graph. It was peer-reviewed, by Bradley and Hughes. Two people who worked with Mann and had a vested interest in it. Attempts to get the data by McIntyre, McKitirick, and others were blocked by Mann claiming proprietary information. He would not give the data to recreate his tests out except to people he personally selected. Strangely enough these hand picked scientists seemed to always agree with him. When, years later, McIntyre was able to get the data he, and others, without peer-reviewed papers pretty much blew open the whole graph. They showed what was wrong with it and how it was wrong. This lead to a huge flood gate of papers that showed how wrong the data was and yet McIntyre who more or less single-handedly built the case against Mann’s work was hardly even credited because he only published one peer reviewed paper.
That is why people are not simply able to take your “peer-review alone” statements as anything serious. There are many cases where it is the non-peer reviewed work that breaks the case and it is only later that “peer-reviewed papers” come in to explain how it happened.
Conspiracy, Conspiracy, Conspiracy, repeated ad naseum
There does not need to be a huge overarching conspiracy. If a single organization has access and control of certain information, such as Mann was with his Hockey Stick data and Algorithms or CRU has been with other proprietary climate data. That organization refuses FOIA requests for data that only they have that is malfeasance on the part of just a small group, not some overarching conspiracy. You have made it very clear that you can’t accept one without the other, however there are numerous cases in science as well as other areas where a group has refused to release their information to others, the majority of the time they can’t get away with this, but sometimes they can. This is the situation going on. I would point out that even the biased investigation said that while they did not break any laws they did deliberately mishandle FOIA requests.
You are 100% correct in it, there was no way I could argue it, Apollo 1 did happen without need for proof from the other sources.
It’s not that “it did happen” that’s important. What is important is HOW we KNOW it happened.
“Climategate” didn’t happen. It’s just all froth and bubble. There’s nothing really there.
“Climategate” is built ONLY on isolated quotes taken out of context from stolen emails.
No charred bodies have been discovered. No wreakage.
All the conspiracy theorists have are tiny, tiny, phrases that they repeat again and again.
That’s all they need. That’s all they want.
Idle talk about “data” and “fingers on the scales” is just that; idle talk.
I stated that in a peer-review there aren’t, “the entire scientific community”, there are just a handful of other individuals.
The papers are published. The entire global scientific community gets to read them. Anybody and everybody can subscribe to a journal and read a paper and try and pick it to pieces. All the physicists in the world, all the chemists, all the atmospheric scientists, all the biologists etc. The journal reviewers are just the first, modest hurdle that has to be jumped.
An excellent example of this would be Michael Mann’s Hockey stick graph.
Yes, which has passed the process of peer-review and been accepted by the scientific community. Others have taken his work and updated it and made their own “hockey sticks”. It’s been fruitful. People have built upon his work and compared it to their own, independent research. Anybody can go out there and do what he did or try to to better. He published for all the world to see.
The skeptics are left to grumble like a bunch of old men on the internet.
There are many cases where it is the non-peer reviewed work that breaks the case and it is only later that “peer-reviewed papers” come in to explain how it happened.
Nonsense. This is the sort of thing that a creationist would say. It’s a case of sour grapes. Climate deniers cannot compete successfully in the scientific arena of peer review so they are forced to denigrate it.
You were completely mistaken about Wakefield.
The process of peer-review and the scientific community had him squirming like the toad he is from the beginning.
Only the anti-vaxxers were willingly hoodwinked.
Peer-review is not perfect.
(Let me say that again because at least four people on this thread seem to not understand this point that I have repeatedly tried to make in plain English.)
The process of peer review is not perfect.
Yet it does an excellent job of weeding out the crackpots.
If a single organization has access and control of certain information…
Idle fantasy.
No such thing exists.
No one scientist or secret cabal of scientists or scientific organisation somehow “controls it all” or even a vital part of it.
It’s a global collaborative effort.
That organization refuses FOIA requests…
Burn whatever organisation you like to the ground.
Nobody gives a damn.
There is no central clearing house.
No underground lair.
No secret space station.
There is no “Dr Evil”.
…however there are numerous cases in science as well as other areas where a group has refused to release their information to others, the majority of the time they can’t get away with this, but sometimes they can.
Numerous cases?
In “science”?
Some group?
“Sometimes” they get away with it?
Gosh. Haven’t seen vague handwaving like that in a long time. You’ll be mentioning Piltdown Man next.
…just a small group, not some overarching conspiracy. You have made it very clear that you can’t accept one without the other…
Rubbish.
A single scientist or a very small group could conspire to do some scientific hanky-panky but…a global conspiracy is just daft. There can be no more a conspiracy of any flavour in Climatology than there can be in Biology or Chemistry. Really hard to pull off a global conspiracy in the face of peer-review. Even tiny conspiracies suffer badly.
Climatology is a global collaborative effort.
Climatology has no prophet.
It’s not a religion or a secret society.
There is no big, bad, control room.
There is no one, important paper that “proves” or “disproves” any theory.
Climatology works just like any other scientific field.
Creationists obsess about Darwin. Climate deniers obsess about Mann. Creationists obsess about Origin of Species and climate deniers obsess about “Hockey Sticks”.
The mentality and the ritual objections are the same.
I would point out that even the biased investigation said…
“Biased” investigation?
(My, the conspiracy just gets bigger and bigger. How do they do it, the fiends!)
How many investigations have there been?
Do you even know?
Cedric: Your mantra about relying upon peer-reviewed literature is not persuading most people who read this blog. To understand why it is helpful to define the questions that are in controversy in the global warming debate.
First, if you read some of the material posted on this blog, you will find Mr. Warren’s argument that what is called the AGW theory is actually comprised of two parts. The first part is what effect does adding CO2 to the atmosphere have when everything else is held constant. On this issue, there is a clear consensus on which almost all informed people agree and that is well supported by the peer-reviewed literature. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some warming. This consensus view is expressed in the IPCC’s TAR , section 1.3.1:
“If the amount of carbon dioxide were doubled instantaneously, with everything else remaining the same, the outgoing infrared radiation would be reduced by about 4 Wm-2. In other words, the radiative forcing corresponding to a doubling of the CO2 concentration would be 4 Wm-2. To counteract this imbalance, the temperature of the surface-troposphere system would have to increase by 1.2°C (with an accuracy of ±10%), in the absence of other changes.”
Informed skeptics, such as Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christie, generally accept this figure of 1.2 degree warming from a doubling of CO2 in isolation. I am not aware, however, that anyone would view an increase in global temperatures of 1.2 degrees from a doubling of CO2 to be a problem. We are already about ½ the way to doubling the amount of CO2 from pre-industrial levels and the earth’s temperature has already risen about .7 degrees. An additional, .5 degrees from a full-doubling would not likely result in harm.
Second, there is good evidence that the earth is warming and because most scientists agree that adding CO2 to the atmosphere will cause some warming, there is a consensus that human beings are effecting global climate through CO2 emissions. Again, informed skeptics such as Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. John Christie do not dispute this. In fact, Dr. Roy Spencer is charge of publishing one of the most important temperature records from Satellite observations and his own data shows warming.
However, the amount of warming that we have thus far experienced is hardly alarming. If current trends over the past century are linearly extended, the earth temperature will rise by less than 2 degrees over the next century.
The two propositions set forth above are well accepted and are supported by the peer-reviewed literature.
So where is the controversy? The controversy arises when from the second prong of the AGW argument. Those who think that global warming may present a problem suggest that the relatively small amount of warming from CO2 alone will be significantly amplified by positive feedbacks in the climate system. In fact, the alarmists contend that the amplification from positive feedbacks will be in the order of two to five times. Thus a warming of 1.2 degree from a doubling of CO2 alone could result in an increase of global temperatures in the range of two to six degrees.
The most important positive feedback that is hypothesized is that warming will cause an increase in water vapor. Water vapor has a much more powerful greenhouse effect than CO2 and thus, an increase in water vapor may cause additional warming creating a positive feedback. It is not clear from the peer-reviewed literature, however, whether water vapor will be a net positive or net negative feedback. If more water vapor causes more rain or more high altitude cloud cover, it is possible that the net effect will be negative.
So how strong are the positive feedbacks and to what extent are they offset by possible negative feedbacks. The fair answer based on the peer-reviewed literature is that no one knows.
More generally, if one reads any of the IPCC reports, they all acknowledge that the net feedback effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere are not well established and estimates are subject to great uncertainty. For example, the IPCC acknowledges that clouds have an enormous influence of global temperatures, yet the IPCC acknowledges that the effect of clouds as feedback is not well understood and it is not even established whether the net effect of changes in cloud cover caused by increases in CO2 will be a net positive or a net negative feedback.
Some scientists have attempted to analyze feedbacks using empirical data and have published their results in the peer-reviewed literature. Their estimates vary widely and are all subject to a variety of shortcomings. Other scientists have attempted to analyze feedbacks with computer models, and again their estimates vary widely. Moreover, the ability of computer models to accurately portray the global climate system has never been empirically verified. Informed skeptics question whether computer models accurately reflect the real climate system or simply generate answers that follow from the assumptions made by their programmers.
At the end of the day, we simply do not know whether the effects of adding CO2 to the atmosphere will be amplified or dampened by the climate system. The real controversy is what we should do in the face of a plausible but not well-established hypothesis that adding CO2 to the atmosphere could result in detrimental warming. The answer to this question depends on how one assesses whether we can realistically curb greenhouse gas emissions, how much will it cost to curb greenhouse gas emissions and how likely are the hypothesized strong positive feedbacks. The IPCC does not provide clear answers to any of these questions nor does the peer-reviewed literature. In short, on the critical questions, there is no consensus.