Comments on: Science – Email #39

By: McIntyre’s role in the latest teapot tempest « My view on climate change

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:36:05 +0000

[...] hold water, as Marco points out in the comments. See these quotes from ClimateAudit (2006, here and here, respectively), h/t Marco, dhogaza and Eli Rabet: “Science (…) suggested that I contact the [...]

By: Gerald Machnee

Gerald Machnee — Tue, 23 May 2006 15:40:13 +0000

Today’s Winnipeg Free Press has two letters with respect to the Global Warming article printed on May 18, one agreeing and one disagreeing. Neither one hit the nail on the head with respect to data access and integrity and the review process.
The “denier” letter restates the nonsense that “deniers” lack a knowledge of meteorology.

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Fri, 19 May 2006 03:32:15 +0000

#9 — That comment got me, too; especially after the IPCC let it be known that reviewing the original work was not in its mandate. The slanderous tone also put me off. Everyone disagreeing with the authors was a “denier.”

By: Gerald Machnee

Gerald Machnee — Fri, 19 May 2006 03:05:19 +0000

Re #8. Thanks, I will be checking.

By: Steve McIntyre

Steve McIntyre — Fri, 19 May 2006 02:46:21 +0000

They really go a bridge too far in making statements like”

Importantly, the studies on which they base their conclusions are rigorously checked and rechecked by the peer-review process before they are published in scientific journals or included in the IPCC reports.

I think of Schneider’s reaction when, as a reviewer, I asked for supporting data and source code. He said that nobody in 28 years had ever asked for such things. Things that are routine in business audits are never done in paleoclimate peer review.

By: Pat Frank

Pat Frank — Fri, 19 May 2006 02:39:52 +0000

#4 “As I am not sure where to post this, I have put it here for now as “Science” has been quoted. In today’s Winnipeg Free Press there is an article on Global Warming, which is partly a reply to Dr. Tim Ball’s article a week ago.”

I sent in a very nice letter to the editor in reply. Let’s see if they print it.

By: John A

John A — Thu, 18 May 2006 21:27:41 +0000

No NO! The studies done by the Hockey Team have been extensively reviewed by their peers. That’s the problem right there.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 18 May 2006 20:29:27 +0000

Maybe the IPCC executive summary belongs alongside such works as The Da Vinci Code, under “fiction’.

By: jae

jae — Thu, 18 May 2006 20:28:20 +0000

Importantly, the studies on which they base their conclusions are rigorously checked and rechecked by the peer-review process before they are published in scientific journals or included in the IPCC reports.

LOL. Woe be the auditor who wants to REALLY check the studies for accuracy. He can’t even get the data!

By: Gerald Machnee

Gerald Machnee — Thu, 18 May 2006 19:25:15 +0000

As I am not sure where to post this, I have put it here for now as “Science” has been quoted.
In today’s Winnipeg Free Press there is an article on Global Warming, which is partly a reply to Dr. Tim Ball’s article a week ago. You may find it at:
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/3501726p-4046097c.html

A couple of passages stand out and I will quote them.
“The deniers often claim that there isn’t a scientific consensus that greenhouse gas emissions originating from human activities are driving the warming. But there most certainly is a consensus. Anybody who has the opportunity to spend even a modest amount of time perusing the scientific journals, such as Nature and Science, will be struck by the enormous and ever growing amount of rigorous scientific evidence that the global warming observed over the last 100 years or so can only be explained by taking into account the enhanced greenhouse effect produced by emissions from human activities.”
The next one is:
“Hundreds upon hundreds of dedicated climate scientists, such as those who have contributed to the oft-mentioned reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have compiled and analyzed massive quantities of data about the climate and have concluded that global warming is real, proceeding at a rapid rate and very much related to greenhouse gas emissions. Importantly, the studies on which they base their conclusions are rigorously checked and rechecked by the peer-review process before they are published in scientific journals or included in the IPCC reports. Any claim that the IPCC reports have not been peer-reviewed, or that they are the product of conspiracy and secrecy, verges on the delusional and belongs alongside such works as The Da Vinci Code, under ‘fiction’.”
The interesting part is the “checked and rechecked by the peer review process”