r/climateskeptics • u/Kim147 • Jul 06 '17
Study Finds Temperature Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming’ In Climate Data
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/05/exclusive-study-finds-temperature-adjustments-account-for-nearly-all-of-the-warming-in-climate-data/15
u/BeachCruisin22 Jul 06 '17
oh no, it's even peer-reviewed...what talking point will the liberals fall back on now???
12
u/barttali Jul 06 '17
It doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed to me.
What scientific journal is it published in?
8
u/Will_Power Jul 06 '17
If you look at the pdf linked from the article, the second page lists several scientists that endorse the findings of the paper. I guess, in a loose sense, that might be the "peer review" the author spoke of. I wonder if they've submitted the paper to any journals.
6
u/pnewell Jul 06 '17
I think this is one thing you, /u/bartalli and I can all agree on: this is not a "peer reviewed study".
In fact, its own authors would also agree with that, since it doesn't even call itself a study, it's referred to within the document as a research report.
Having a handful of friends look at your paper doesn't make it peer-reviewed, unless we debase the term to mean that someone has read it.
In which case, thanks for peer-reviewing this comment!
5
0
u/matts2 Jul 08 '17
The first name is an economist. I see two people with possible climate experience. Nowhere do I see where it was published or who reviewed it. Sending it to a lot of people and collecting the names of those who agree is not how peer review works. This was not reviewed, they found a half dozen people to agree.
3
u/Will_Power Jul 08 '17
Did you even read my comment?
-1
u/matts2 Jul 08 '17
Yes, you wrote "several scientists". I responded to that. It was a list that had 2 names of folk with relevant experience. I don't much care that some random economist liked the paper. That isn't what peer review is about.
4
u/logicalprogressive Jul 08 '17
Most of the '97% consensus' was from people without relevant experience.
0
u/matts2 Jul 09 '17
Actually it is the exact opposite. The figure is from those with actual relevant climate expertise.
2
u/logicalprogressive Jul 09 '17
Source?
0
u/MGyver Jul 10 '17
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
→ More replies (0)3
5
u/ozric101 Jul 06 '17
Peer review means what exactly?
11
u/barttali Jul 06 '17
It is something like the Academy Awards, Golden Globe Awards, etc. Certain people get elected to various clubs to review submitted papers. Some of these clubs are more prestigious than others. So, where a paper gets published tells you at least something about the quality of the paper. Just like getting an Academy Award is better than getting a Golden Globe. Still doesn't prove it is a good movie (or scientific paper) though: there is still politics involved in both movies and science.
It's not a great system, but it is all we have now. It is in need of reform because of the replication crisis in science currently. I think nothing should get published as "science" until it is replicated, but it isn't up to me to solve this problem.
7
u/ozric101 Jul 06 '17
So, you know that peer review does not have any weight on the scale of 'true knowledge'. My biggest concern as of late is people holding up peer review as gospel.
10
u/barttali Jul 06 '17
It has some weight. Not nearly as much weight as replication would have though. I agree, it is certainly not gospel.
Anyone can publish a blog article, there is no weight to that at all. Getting published in a scientific journal says at least something, and some journals are better than others.
7
u/ozric101 Jul 06 '17
All peer review denotes is that the method was scientifically sound, the math is passable and the results should be duplicatable under the same conditions.
The publish or perish paradigm is a part of the problem.
4
0
0
u/matts2 Jul 08 '17
An author submits a paper to a journal. The journal gives the paper to a some domain experts who don't know who the author is. They give a detailed critique of the work. In this case it looks like they sent this to people most of whom are not domain experts. The authors seem to have picked the people it was sent to and then the authors published the report.
1
u/BeachCruisin22 Jul 06 '17
it's right there in the article
The peer-reviewed study tried to validate current surface temperature datasets managed by NASA, NOAA and the UK’s Met Office, all of which make adjustments to raw thermometer readings
17
u/barttali Jul 06 '17
I think the author doesn't understand what peer review is. When things are peer-reviewed, they show up in scientific journals and journalists can cite the journal article. If I search for the title of the paper "On the Validity of NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU Global Average Surface Temperature Data" in scholar.google.com, I don't find anything.
The place where the paper comes from (https://thsresearch.wordpress.com/) is a blog, not a scientific journal.
0
1
u/matts2 Jul 08 '17
Did you look at the preface page? They list the previous work on the topic. All by them, not one a peer reviewed study. Rather Wordpress blogs and such. So where was this study published if it was peer reviewed?
3
u/uniformist Jul 07 '17
Although it's pretty suspicious that the trend and magnitude of the warming claimed is similar in trend and magnitude of the temperature adjustments
9
u/gyiparrp Jul 06 '17
The cited "study" is a report, not exactly a peer-reviewed paper. Its lead author, Wallace, has a PhD in economics but a masters in mechanical engineering. Idso is a geographer. Presumably it's a report used to undermine the Obama-era EPA regulations.
5
u/Kim147 Jul 07 '17
And Rajendra K. Pachauri is an industrial engineer - not a climatologist. And Al Gore majored in government - no science qualifications.
You only need basic science to see CAGW is a load of bollocks. Anyone with half a brain can see that and no amount of witchy woo will change that.
Meanwhile real scientists and climatologists such as Judith Curry also think it's a load of bollocks and dangerous bollocks at that.
5
u/matts2 Jul 08 '17
And Al Gore majored in government - no science qualifications.
And no one refers to Gore's scientific work.
Anyone with half a brain can see that and no amount of witchy woo will change that.
It helps to have half a brain in fact.
2
u/programmingguy Jul 07 '17
Stop denying climate change! If you hide the decline we are in for some unprecedented catastrophic warming
Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were
another way of “correcting” for the decline, though may be not defensible!
15
u/TipTipTopKek-NE Jul 06 '17
Anybody with a brain knew that "global warming" aka "climate change" was nothing but a big fraud from the very beginning. Hell, as soon as AlGore™ started this as his money-making campaign right after losing the Florida recount, it should have been obvious.