Peer Review And The Center Of The Universe
I’ve been chuckling, nearly without pause, since the CRU email hack as the staunch defenders of the “settled science” argument have held up idea that “peer review” cements as fact that AGW is real and decided. The reason I chortle is that, although I’m neither a scientist nor a statistician, is that I know the limitations of statistical modeling. Let’s just look at the simple mathematics of combinations and permutations of a group of independent variables. If we have a set of 3 input variables the total number of combinations is represented as “3!” (3 factorial) which is equal to 3X2X1 = 6. Then, as statisticians, we need to determine the influence that B has on A and C has on A to come up with correlation coefficients. Of course it gets much more complicated than that as we try to figure out if the correlations between B and C have interrelationships that either exacerbate of reduce the independent coefficients. Until the 1960’s, with the advent of computers, it was almost impossible to build such complicated models of higher orders because the manual math was simple too involved. Just to demonstrate how exponentially more difficult this task becomes we just need to know that 10! = 3,628,800.
So when I hear the argument by good guys like Ed Begley, that only climate scientists can be taken seriously in climate peer review, I am struck by the ignorance of that holding. Many scientific disciplines rigorously use statistical modeling to reach conclusions. Thus, not just climate scientists are capable of evaluating climate models – since most modeling comes from the same mathematical discipline.
The elements of Ptolemaic astronomy
But let’s get back the issue of peer review in general. Before Copernicus devised his elegant math explaining heliocentric cosmology, the peer reviewed literature accepted that Ptolemy of Alexander had defined a mathematical set of formulas that fit the understanding of the earth being at the center of the Universe (ED: but we have yet to “know” that’s it’s not – regardless of how celestial bodies move – in that accepting the abstraction of infinity, either everywhere is the center or there is no center. And after all, I am convinced that I am the center of the Universe when dealing with my id.) Ergo, as we know now, a peer group can be wrong.
I also find the newly invigorated embrace of peer review to be at odds with many of the tenets to which “progressives” – the group that appears most stridently holding on to the AGW “consensus” – hang on. This gives us the opportunity to point this out:
We review the burgeoning literature on the employment effects of minimum wages – in the United States and other countries – that was spurred by the new minimum wage research beginning in the early 1990s. Our review indicates that there is a wide range of existing estimates and, accordingly, a lack of consensus about the overall effects on low-wage employment of an increase in the minimum wage. However, the oft-stated assertion that recent research fails to support the traditional view that the minimum wage reduces the employment of low-wage workers is clearly incorrect. A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages. In addition, among the papers we view as providing the most credible evidence, almost all point to negative employment effects, both for the United States as well as for many other countries. Two other important conclusions emerge from our review. First, we see very few – if any – studies that provide convincing evidence of positive employment effects of minimum wages, especially from those studies that focus on the broader groups (rather than a narrow industry) for which the competitive model predicts disemployment effects. Second, the studies that focus on the least-skilled groups provide relatively overwhelming evidence of stronger disemployment effects for these groups.
The science of studying minimum wage gives us both a directional consensus and is highly peer reviewed as well. That said, I look forward to any study that disproves the consensus.
I will, however, be reminding those who bow at the alter of the AWG peer reviewed consensus of just that. And I equally look forward to their response.
What this matter reveals is there is a vast chasm between legitimate peer review and an incestuous circle jerk.
“A sizable majority of the studies surveyed in this monograph give a relatively consistent (although not always statistically significant) indication of negative employment effects of minimum wages.”
Sounds reasonable to me. So does this similarly modest appraisal by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Yet the first statement is regarded in certain conservative circles as gospel. The second is regarded as deranged speculation or outright fraud. Why?
Why? You’ll have to ask those who make those kind of assertions. Most skeptics I know only hold out that AGW is not “settled science” and to commit literally 100’s of trillions of dollars over the next century is a bit premature. Then, of course, are those who think that to whatever extent we commit resources to “cure” the ills of the world they would be better directed elsewhere.
But I must say that AGW believers who have painted skeptics as horrible as those who stood by and allowed the Holocaust to happen are equally as hyperbolic as those at which you point your finger. I propose that if you’re inclined to point fingers you point them at anyone who approached the issue with certitude. You’ll find plenty of them on both sides of the argument.
So you would agree with me that Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are irresponsible idiots on this issue?
I don’t listen to them so I have no idea what they’ve said. I will say this, however; anyone who says that the science is settled is either uninformed, a fraud, or a liar. The science is not settled.
They both say that global warming is a hoax. And while you say I should point fingers at all sides equally, nobody on the other side has quite the access to a daily national audience that these two have. They are, to a disturbingly large extent, the national voice of conservatism, and it troubles me that “real” conservatives are so reluctant to call them out when they are this irresponsible.
Let me get this straight, David Crisp: Because you say that someone is asserting that AGW is a hoax, which you feel to be incorrect, you are entitled to rely on questionable science to justify your position?
Seems to me that you are no different than those you complain of.
Dave, I like the title of your post. Mostly because the universe, or more definitely our solar system holds the key.
Seems to me in the process in establishing a relation between man’s effect on warming there should be a control group, such as planets devoid of human inhabitants.
From the old fruit fly experiments to molds in petri dishes even 10th grade science class had a base, AGW’s base just happens to be Jupiter, Mars and Saturn.
We can cuts trees down in Siberia, take pictures of polar bears on melting ice flows, and compile temperature data from biased sources, but hey, can’t any of these peer reviewers look through a telescope? How about some correlation comparisons between solar flares on the sun and warming cycles?
Peer reviewers, sounds more like yes men.
Climategates’s first victims, from down under.
>>TONY Abbotts Liberal leadership is a remarkable result for the Liberal party and a victory for those two camps who wanted to remove Malcolm Turnbull and oppose the Rudd Governments ETS.
Abbott’s position will now be to oppose the ETS but faces the prospect of rebels immediately undermining his leadership by supporting the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Mr Divisive – as he is seen – will now have to be the conciliatory and healing leader that Joe Hockey had promised to be.
In the end Abbott’s decisiveness as a potential leader as triumphed over Turnbull’s dictatorial style and crash through approach and Hockey’s attempts to compromise so much he threatened to leave the party without a policy position.
The Liberals have voted for decisiveness and character over indecision from Hockey and overbearing character from Turnbull.
The scene is now set for further ructions within the Liberal party or revolts in the Senate and a Liberal-nationals Coalition attacking the Rudd Government’s ETS as a new tax.<<
Dave – Before quantum mechanics , peer reveiwed science explained all motion in the universe that we could observe using Newtonian mechanics . Newton would have been the first to accept the short fall in his work that came about through peer review science. Peer review is the best way we have found to advance the relative changing truths we find in science .
The point is that conservatives aren’t bothering to do the hard work of science to prove man caused climate change wrong. They use morons like limbaugh who parrot a few science whores who don’t do the work , but just point to some true and some false weakness in others hard work. Papers in the journals over the last couple decades have run 10 to 1 climate change to skeptic.
When Begley says to listen to the scientists he is correct because guys like you and I truely are just passing on what we hear. The true debate must ,and already has to a great extent, taken place over the last couple decades in the peer reveiw process. The fact that you mock that process shows that your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance .
Ken, first let me ask you where I mocked the peer review process and state that your assertion that I did proves that you read with just your left eye.. Secondly, tell me how you know that some of the scientists aren’t, in fact, ” conservatives” (that’s a bullshit assumption on its face since you have no way of knowing.)
Third, you make a circular argument in that A) a real scientist like Newton would be the first to accept shortcomings in his work and B) since only 10% of peers (where you get that number is a product of propaganda BTW – I’ve seen no definitive data on that all too bandies about stat) that we should accept the other 90% as correct.
Steve,
Uh, no. I’m saying that it’s fine to question the work of scientists on a scientific basis. But if you ignore the science and just dismiss as corrupt or foolish everybody who disagrees with you, then you aren’t in the game. Hannity and Limbaugh aren’t in the game. But Republicans keep treating them as if they were.
David, does Al Gore have a large stage while asserting that the debate is over?
Thoughts from a real climate scientist who insists the science is NOT settled: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574567423917025400.html
Flow chart for the scientifically challenged. Includes a “control” step.
http://arewelumberjacks.blogspot.com/2009/11/scientific-method.html
Craig, didn’t you know that Lindzen has received money from “big oil” hence all of his work is bullshit? Notwithstanding the logical fallacy of guilt by association – which AGW alarmists deny is a logical fallacy – you’ll get nowhere with the warming religious by employing his name.
“…if you ignore the science and just dismiss as corrupt or foolish everybody who disagrees with you, then you aren’t in the game.”
After you read the CRU memos, you realize that this is what the scientists who are quoted in them are saying and doing. They often fret that they can’t get the numbers or scenarios to add up in ways that back up their assertions. They also devote a lot of ink to attacking their critics and devising ways to keep any scientists with divergent points of view from being published in their scientific journals. These are signs of people who are not confident in their findings, but fear that they’ve constructed a house of cards that could easily come tumbling down if subjected to even gentle probing.
Global-warming advocate Clive Crook explains it a lot better than I can in a recent article in the Atlantic, saying: “The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science, their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering….
Remember that this is not an academic exercise. We contemplate outlays of trillions of dollars to fix this supposed problem. Can I read these emails and feel that the scientists involved deserve to be trusted? No, I cannot. These people are willing to subvert the very methods–notably, peer review–that underwrite the integrity of their discipline. Is this really business as usual in science these days? If it is, we should demand higher standards–at least whenever “the science” calls for a wholesale transformation of the world economy.”
http://clivecrook.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/11/more_on_climategate.php
In other words, these guys have taken themselves out of the game. They’ve lost their credibility.
[...] has been done in good faith. I also know that complexity of statistical modeling. I wrote about it here. As in the example in my post one can see how a flawed basic construct can result in an entire body [...]
Dave Budge, just like the money changers in the temple, follow the money wherever the faith leads.
From the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703939404574566124250205490.html?mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular
As to peers, it appears that China’s intend a joint walkout. Did the Salahi’s cause this? http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/china/Copenhagen-conference-India-China-plan-joint-exit/articleshow/5279771.cms
Then there is this look into life at the Peer Review hive: http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/11/iowahawk-geographic-the-secret-life-of-climate-researchers.html
On a related note, if ya got 1200 bucks you can shake Al Gore’s hand.
Via Newsbusters.
>>Al Gore Asking $1,200 To Shake His Hand In Copenhagen
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
December 1, 2009 – 11:00 ET
Still think there’s no money in spreading global warming alarmism?
Well, how’d you like to make $1,200 just for shaking someone’s hand and having your picture taken with the sycophant?
This is what Al “I’m Only Doing This To Save The Planet” Gore is charging for such an honor at next week’s climate change conference in Copenhagen.
Nice work if you can get it, huh?<<
I would be tempted to pay $1,200 not to have to shake his hand.
The plot thickens: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-fraud-is-everywhere-suny-albany-and-queens-university-belfast-join-climategate-pjm-exclusive/
Maybe all those peer reviewers called in and talked him into it.
Right, Millie?
>>UK climate scientist to temporarily step down
(AP) – 2 hours ago
LONDON — Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.
The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.<<
Whose laughing now?
Craig Moore Says (December 1st, 2009 at 8:26 am): “Dave Budge, just like the money changers in the temple … ”
The money changers in the Temple were performing a necessary and needed service of converting coins with the idolatrous (raised) image of Caesar with coins that did not have an idolatrous image so that Jews could make their required by Commandment (Lev. 27:2-8, Lev. 27:11-13, 27:16-24 and others) contribution without violating the prohibitions against idolatry in the Second Commandment (Ex. 20:3-6).
Walter, don’t get too upset about that. It’s a direct reference to a specific story in the Christian Gospel. It’s not a blanket condemnation of Jewish orthodoxy.
Walter I meant no disrespect. I was think about the new “green” orthodoxy and how real money is being transformed into capped chits of faith embodied in dubious green technologies as the Gorean druids invoke hell fire and damnation for tipping point unbelievers.
Big Swede:
Swede, you just get more charminly stupid by the day.
So what if he’s stepping down? So what if they fire him? So what if they have him executed by firing squad?
The facts haven’t changed, no matter how much you want them to. Here’s a couple of them. The Climatic Research Unit is not the only group to collect climate data. The Climatic Research Unit is not the only group to have done climate research. The Climatic Research Unit is not the only group to have gotten the results they did. Even if every single letter of their research is thrown out, there is still other research from other groups that says the exact same thing.
Here’s another fact. Despite this “scandal,” the majority of scientists have still not changed their mind about AGW. Trust me when I say this, your naiveness is still amazingly comedic. Who’s laughing now? Still me.
Mahalis, read what Ron Bailey (a confirmed believer in AGW), Reason’s science editor, is reporting on the independence of the other sources of baseline data here. It’s good reporting.
Dave, I actually already read it. It is a very good article. Bailey points out a number of important factors, and the thing I think he focuses on mainly is not that the science is wrong, but that credibility of the scientists in the field has been damaged in the public eye. This is important for things like legislation, but doesn’t change the opinion of the scientific community, or in any way imply that “that the facts have changed,” as Swede seems to think.
As far as data independence is concerned, Bailey notes that even if these maybe not so independent data sets are shown to be “contaminated” by CRU data, there is still “a truly independent set of temperature data has been produced over the past thirty years by NOAA satellites.” This “truly independent set” can be used to corroborate (or less likely, cast doubt on) CRU results, and by extension, other “contaminated” data sets.
Because there is at least one “truly independent set of temperature data,” everything I stated in my reply to Swede is accurate. Do you disagree?
The satellite data, I believe, doesn’t corroborate the ground based data. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/18/giss-divergence-with-satellite-temperatures-since-the-start-of-2003/
BTW, Mihalis’ personal invective hurled at Swede obviously wasn’t beneath that person’s standards of rhetorical discussion.
Craig, from the article: “In general, the global satellite temperature trends tend to be on the low end of the climate computer model projections. “
Model projections… not measured reality.
AS to the model projections, they indicated an uptick in temperature that has not been born out by actual temperatures. The emails reveal fretting over this fact and what to do about it .
What? What it’s saying is that the “truly independent set of temperature data” from the NOAA satellites matches (on the low end) the model projections derived from the CRU data. This fact actually adds credibility to CRU’s projections.
Read the link.
I read the link. And?
Satellite data diverges from ground based GISS. What’s funny from the emails is how CRU’s Phil Jones doesn’t think much about NASA’s data.
See Jones’ email: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/giss_is_inferior.png
Mahalis, I do disagree to a point insofar as the longer term data – going back to the mid-18th century I think – is part of the modeling for both NOAA and NASA climate modeling. In the context of geophysics 30 years is likely too short a time from which to draw long term conclusions. But maybe I have it wrong as to what was in the original raw data. But since it was destroyed in the late 1980’s I think I’m recalling correctly.
What exactly does the peer review process mean when data isn’t publically available and computer code for models also isn’t shared? When I was in school, a common joke when working uncooperative data was to just apply a “fudge factor”. There is no easier way to do this obscurely than in computer code.
Craig:
I have to borrow from Dave here. GISS and Satellite diverge? Over the last 6 years? Not exactly a time frame that is conclusive. Watts and Goddard clearly have an agenda (one I doubt that they would deny). Looking at the data with a larger window of time shows a vastly different story. Personally, I chose 1980 to start at for obvious reasons. What do you think of this?
As to Jones thinking that GISS is inferior, I’m not really trusting these emails all that much. Without context, we don’t know exactly what was going on when the conversation took place. Maybe Jones was looking for Data for a particular region? For a particular year? Also, Jones has positive things to say about GISS (which somehow didn’t make the highlighted text), like GISS has less year to year variablity.
Dave:
You disagree? Oh well. We already agreed on one thing already today, so I guess our quota has been exceeded. Maybe someday we’ll change our plan to include rollover.
Mihalis, I think your graph nicely fits with the following: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/17/divergence-between-giss-and-uah-since-1980/
There is no corroboration. Your argument, like the models, fails.
“I have to borrow from Dave here. GISS and Satellite diverge? Over the last 6 years? Not exactly a time frame that is conclusive.”
Mihalis- WTF? How long do you think it is appropriate to wait for two thermometers to converge? Measuring methodologies should parallel on day one or there is a problem with one or both. Budge was talking about model validation to prove a theories accuracy over time. Larger time periods minimize the possibility of small non-modeled variations obscuring a long term trend.
Craig:
I disagree. Goddard made sure not to include trend data in his graph. It makes things look dramatically different. Just eyeballing the two images (both provided by Goddard, but adding trending data to the second one instead of intentionally choosing the lowest temp possible in the last 10 years), it appears that the Nasa chart shows a change of about .25, and the UAH trend shows a change over that same period of about .35. Considering a variation in gathering methods and locations, not bad in my personal opinion. If you disagree that’s fine. The fact that there’s not a massive difference shows no serious meddling with the data by CRU.
I’m pretty much done with this Craig. Honestly, it’s boring. 20 more links from the same web site (especially if it’s this “Watts Up With That” site) isn’t going to convince me, and I’m sure that no matter what I post here, it’s not going to convince you. I’m moving on.
wolfpack:
The longer the better. The longer the time, the greater the sample size. The two trends will probably never fully converge. They’ll always be different just due to variations in method. This does not indicate that there’s a problem with either data set. Six years? Definitely not long enough.
Mihalis, I agree you are finished here.
From the “Center of the Universe” we now have this shocking revelation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8
Craig:
Cute implications. Don’t think that me not wanting to waste my time shooting down every crackpot link you post is some kind of victory on your part. It is exactly what I said it is. Boredom. I’m bored with this whole thing honestly. I’m mean, come on. You’re response to some of the greatest scientific minds on the planet is the vapid meanderings of a glorified weatherman? I suppose if you want to call that a win, knock yourself out.
This is what I consider a win.
>>Fifty-nine percent (59%) of Americans say it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data to support their own theories and beliefs about global warming. Thirty-five percent (35%) say it’s Very Likely. Just 26% say it’s not very or not at all likely that some scientists falsified data.<<
Keep drinking the Kool-aid, you 26%ers.
It looks like ManBearPig has decided to avoid being seen with the losing side: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http://www.berlingske.dk/klima/al-gore-aflyser-foredrag-under-cop15&sl=da&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
But then again perhaps he couldn’t stand being publicly confronted with another of his pet theories all shot to hell: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/dutch-gore-wrong-on-snows-of-kilimanjaro/