Global warming doubters deserve to be scorned

Al Gore did a lot for me last night when "An Inconvenient Truth" won an Oscar for best documentary. We'd just finished watching the movie on DVD. He'd already inspired me to do more to fight global warming.

But my passion was still on simmer. Hearing Gore repeat nine words from the movie raised the heat of my activism:

"It's not a political issue. It's a moral issue."

Driving home from the Academy Awards party where I won the trophy for picking the most winners (including documentary feature and original song, thanks to "An Inconvenient Truth"), I turned on the radio and heard Matt Drudge opining on the Oscars and global warming.

A caller suggested that he should pay more attention to the science of global climate change, rather than base his skeptical view solely on his conservative political beliefs. Drudge replied:

I trust my common sense and conscience rather than the science.

Gore has changed my attitude to ridiculous statements like that. I used to think, "that's so wrong." Now my reaction is, "that's absolute bullshit."

In short, I've become scornful of anyone who refuses to look at the scientific facts. Today's Prickly City comic tells it like I am.

Like I said in my letter to the editor about George Taylor, O.S.U.'s global warming head-in-the-sand climatologist, there's a big difference between skepticism and ignorance.

Skepticism is an integral aspect of the scientific method. Ignorance isn't. If Taylor, or anyone else, doubts the consensus of the world's leading climate researchers that (1) global warming is occurring and (2) humans are largely responsible for it, they need to show why the science is wrong.

If they can't, then they should shut up. What we need is more light on the subject of global climate change, not more people saying, "Put on blinders! Don't look at the facts!"

The science of global warming is akin to the science of evolution. There isn't any significant scientific debate about the basic facts in either area. Yet uninformed doubters love to scream, "Teach the controversy!"

Problem is, there's no controversy. So, nothing to teach.

Greg Hoke has put up a transcript of "An Inconvenient Truth." (a terrific resource; thanks, Greg) For me, one of the most memorable segments in the movie was Gore's bursting of three misconception bubbles. The first is that there's disagreement among scientists about whether the problem of global warming is real or not.

There isn't. Not a bit. Gore says:

Isn't there a disagreement among scientists about whether the problem is real or not? Actually, not really. There was a massive study of every scientific article in a peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last ten years.

They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus that we're causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of the 928: Zero.

The misconception that there is disagreement about the science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of people. One of their internal memos leaked and here is what it said according to the press. Their objective is to reposition global warming as a theory rather than fact. This has happened before. after the Surgeon General's report [on smoking and lung cancer].

One of their memos leaked 4 years ago. They said, "Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of creating a controversy in the public's mind."

But have they succeeded? You'll remember that there were 928 peer reviewed articles. Zero percent disagreed with the consensus. There was another study of all the articles in the popular press. Over the last fourteen years they listed a sample of 636. More than half of them said, "Well, we are not sure. It could be a problem, may not be a problem." So no wonder people are confused.

Well, I'm determined not to let this blog contribute to the confusion. Regularly I get comments on my George Taylor and global warming posts from people who mouth the right-wing party line: "The science isn't certain."

Open-minded blogger that I am, I typically respond to their uninformed views with a fact-based comment of my own. And I'll probably continue to do that.

But from now on I'm going to do something else. If the global warming skeptic hasn't referenced a peer-reviewed scientific article that supports his or her position, that comment is going to be branded with a reader warning:

Caution: no peer-reviewed scientific evidence is cited here. So be highly doubtful that what is said is anything more than a personal opinion.

There's a lot of room for subjective opinion in the blogosphere. However, when it comes to global climate change, the world can't afford to be distracted by political posturing that masquerades as serious skepticism.

If you believe there's another side to the consensus scientific view of global warming, show it to me. Cite the peer-reviewed journal in which the alternative conclusion appears. Then we can have an informed discussion.

If you can't do that, then you have a choice: either keep your personal opinion to yourself, or accept that your comment on my blog is going to be accompanied with a Caution statement.

You've got a right to express your unscientific beliefs. And I've got a right to be scornful of them.

(Global warming skeptics: a good place to start your re-education is this Scientific American piece, "Are You a Global Warming Skeptic? Part IV." It'll probably tax your brain to read facts rather than politically-inspired blather, but consider this an exercise for your grey matter).

Comments

[JustaDog]

There was absolutely no doubt in my mind Gore would be "honored" by his own liberal crowd.

What the liberal media failed to show was Al "Global Warming" Gore getting into his 4 mile-per-gallon limo with various stops at some parties - then onto his private chartered gas guzzling jet.

[Mike]

That's right, JustaDog, when you have no other ammo, attack the messenger (while giving no evidence that what you're saying is true.)

When there are droughts and terrible weather events in a couple of decades, you can sit back and say, "Well, at least those 'liberals' didn't get their way."

Sorry to burst your bubble, but we're all in this together.

[Rain]

your first commenter here reminds me of the ones who are attacking Gore now because his energy bill is so high. Turns out it's higher than average (for mansions) because he pays a green fee... pays extra for using renewable resources. The swift boat types never have looked for facts. They attack and they don't do it based on the issue but on peripherals or even wrong facts which they hope will distract others from the real issue.

[Ken Shull]

For all of Gore's later fascination with science and technology, he often struggled academically in those subjects. The political champion of the natural world received that sophomore D in Natural Sciences 6 (Man's Place in Nature) and then got a C-plus in Natural Sciences 118 his senior year. The self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet avoided all courses in mathematics and logic throughout college, despite his outstanding score on the math portion of the SAT. As was the case with many of his classmates, his high school math grades had dropped from A's to C's as he advanced from trigonometry to calculus in his senior year.

When John C. Davis, a retired teacher and assistant headmaster at St. Albans, was recently shown his illustrious former pupil's college board achievement test scores, he inspected them closely with a magnifier and shook his head, chuckling quietly at the science results.

"Four eighty-eight! Terrible" Davis declared upon inspecting the future vice president's 488 score (out of a possible 800) in physics.

"Hmmmm. Chemistry. Five-nineteen. He didn't do too well in chemistry."

As Davis moved down the page, his magnifier settled on Gore's more promising achievement scores in other scholastic realms.

"English. Seven oh-five. Right at the top!"

"U.S. History. Seven oh-one. Not so bad."

Then he came to Gore's results in IQ tests taken in 1961 and 1964, at the beginning of his freshman and senior years. "One thirty-three and 134. Absolutely superb. That means tremendous ability."

These high IQ and achievement scores did not necessarily translate into equivalent high grades for Gore in high school English and history. From ninth grade (called Form III in the Anglophilic St. Albans culture) to his senior year (Form VI), he earned an equal number of C's and B's in English, but no A's. In history during those four years, he also moved between C's and B's until his senior year, when he broke through with an A-plus in Sacred Studies, a religious history course. He pulled steady C's for all three years of high school French. The one course in which he received straight A's was art, which he took all four years of high school.

"You have here a boy who shows a lot of potential," Davis said after inspecting Gore's tests and grades. "He was as a rule a hard worker, but he wasn't really interested in certain things, and when he wasn't so interested he tried faithfully to do what he was supposed to, though not necessarily very well."

Gore's reputation for being earnest and hardworking, if sometimes pedantic, is often contrasted with the personality of his political patron and White House boss, Bill Clinton, who is considered more extemporaneous. But they shared one surprising trait from their school years, a tendency to procrastinate on subjects that did not enthrall them and then cram at the last minute. Clinton once skipped his Yale law school classes for three months before borrowing a friend's notes, then ended up scoring better on the tests than his classmate did. Gore was less daring, but many of his St. Albans classmates remembered how during his senior year he often put off studying for exams until the night before, when he would sneak down to the 24-hour Little Tavern on Connecticut Avenue and cram all night in a back booth.

Clinton ended his secondary school career ranked fifth in his class of several hundred at the public Hot Springs High in Arkansas, while Gore left St. Albans ranked 25th in a senior class of 51. But reputation was everything in high school. The prestige of the private school in Washington, its history as a feeding ground for the Ivy League, and the confidence college admissions officers had when examining a St. Albans transcript--where there was no grade inflation and a C meant a C--all served Gore well when it came to getting into Harvard, the only school to which he had applied.

The late Canon Charles Martin, headmaster at St. Albans during Gore's era, used to say that he was "preparing his boys for the kingdom of heaven, not the kingdom of Harvard," but in fact he was doing both. Earlier in the century, St. Albans had been known as a pipeline for Princeton and Haverford, but that changed in the mid-1950s when Harvard decided it wanted more Washington and Virginia boys and accepted all 16 St. Albans boys who applied. By the time Gore's class came around in 1965, a recommendation from the St. Albans administration was about all it took for one of its students to get in.

Davis wrote Gore's recommendation, and said he was never concerned about the young man's transcript full of C's and B's and his middle rank in the class. "In Al's case he was what Harvard most wanted at that time," Davis said. "What they wanted was competent academic performance plus future potential. Plus they were very impressed by the fact that he was a political son. Colleges like Harvard, Princeton and Yale are just as excited to get important sons as top academic scholars. They want our boys as much as our boys want them. And Al was captain of the football team. Any nice big boy was welcome if he played football."

Gore flirted with English at Harvard, dreaming of a life as a novelist, but decided to make government his concentration. He got off to an uncertain start in that subject, with a C and C-minus in his first two courses, before righting himself. In his junior year, he earned a B, a B-plus and an A-minus in three government courses, and he aced his senior government thesis on the impact of television on the presidency, a strong finish that made him a cum laude graduate. His devotion to the subject by then was so intense that he gave much of his time to a not-for-credit seminar with his favorite professor, Richard Neustadt, an expert on the presidency. Bush, a history major, scored mostly B's in that subject, as was first reported in the New Yorker, though the five history courses he took his senior year were all pass-fail.

After serving in the military for two years, Gore returned to graduate school late in the summer of 1971, first taking religious studies courses at Vanderbilt and then entering the university's law school. His efforts in both instances were incomplete, reflecting the uncertainty he felt during that period about what he should do with his life. He had considered everything from writing to police work.

He took the religious studies courses while also working full time as a journalist at the Nashville Tennessean, and after getting off to a strong start with an A-minus in Ethics, he failed to complete any of the three courses he took in the fall of 1971, and those incompletes eventually lapsed into F's. He returned for another semester in the spring of 1972, when two more incompletes turned into F's. Two years later, he enrolled in law school and spent three semesters there taking heavy course loads while still working at the newspaper. He performed satisfactorily, with a high grade of 81 in Legal Writing and a low grade of 69 in Civil Procedures II. Partway through the spring semester in 1976, he decided to run for an open seat in Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District. His mother, Pauline Gore, herself a lawyer, tried to persuade him to remain in school while running, but he withdrew, turning away for good from the academic life, while beginning a political career in which he increasingly took on the characteristics of a scholar.

Gore has never released his transcripts, which were obtained independently by The Washington Post. Parts of them have been cited as well by Bill Turque, a Newsweek writer who has written a biography of Gore titled "Inventing Al Gore."

[Ken Shull]

[Caution: no peer-reviewed scientific evidence is cited here. So be highly doubtful that what is said is anything more than a personal opinion. My new blog policy is to add this cautionary statement when someone posts a comment that confuses the facts about global warming. See:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2007/02/global_warming_.html
--Brian]

p 607: We live in an unusual epoch: today the polar regions have large ice caps, whereas during most of the earth's history the poles have been ice-free. NAS, 1975.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
National Geographic, November 1976
The National Geographic doesn't count as science, but is reasonably sober. I don't know quite how you would count its biases, now or then: probably somewhat environmental now I suppose.

Note: possibly obvious, but you never know: I'm not posting this because I think you can learn any useful science from it. Its totally out of date. Read the IPCC TAR if you want the up-to-2001 best take on the science of climate change. So why am I posting it? Because you can learn about the history of science.

The November 1976 edition has a story about climate. Its the lead story but didn't make the cover - Robert Redford on the outlaw trail was more sexy in his cowboy hat. Plus ca change...

I would summarise the Nat Geog article as supporting my POV: its non-commital. You could easily find out-of-context quotes to support your own POV, and so could I. So I'll do my best to quote honestly. The Nat Geog stuff is pretty similar to the Newsweek article from about the same time but much longer, and probbaly better.

To begin I'll show you the last two pages of the article and the graph thereon. Click on the thumbnail for a larger version (1200x900). Despite my poor photo (sorry about the flash; apologies about the appalling state of our carpet) I'm sure you can see the graph at the top with two dotted continuations at the end, one marked "warmer", the other "cooler". This is a pretty fair summary: no prediction (other than change, I suppose) and a clear indication of uncertainty.

Comments on this page: see at the bottom.

So now, some example of people dishonestly quoting the article:

1. The New American says (V20 #21, Oct 2004) National Geographic now claims that the Earth is heating up at an alarming rate. But in 1976 the magazine worried that falling temperatures could lead to another ice age.
2. Mike Oliver, at "energytruth.com" says In November, 1976 the National Geographic carried a warning that "the oceans would eventually freeze" and "snow would advance to the equator".
3. Bob Foster, on the Lavoisier group website: Back in the 70s, the greater concern was the possibility of global cooling. Whats amusing about this, is that he describes the article as "a measured account of thinking at the time", which it is (as well as you can expect from the non-science press): its just that the measure is not what he says it is.

Will that do? They aren't particularly notable but they indicate the kind of stuff you see. None of these quotes is actually untrue: the dishonesty lies in their implying that cooling was either the only prediction, or considered much more likely.

Lets take that second pair of quotes and put them into context. Which is page 582: left column: 2 pix, one of J Murray Mitchell, captioned: "Cooling trend of world climate was documented in the 1960's by J Murray Mitchell... Now, he notes, [CO2] pollution may be contributing to an opposite, or warming, tendency". The second is of Reid Bryson (looking particularly wacky) captioned: "'Human Volcano': Read A Bryson of the University of Wisconsin coined that phrase to describe how an exploding population has flung particulate matter, such as dust from cultivation, into the atmosphere. There it blocks solar rays, and surface temperatures drop. In the complex climate equation, this may be the critical factor, he believes." Right column is text "It is possible we are on the brink of a several-decade-long period of rapid warming...", with a text box in bold: "Were the cooling trend to reverse... the earth could warm relatively rapidly, with potentially catastrophic effect. National Science Foundation, 1975", then "The CO2 level is already up by 10% since 1850; by the year 2000, experts say, it may have risen another 20%, enough to cause a 0.6oC rise in average world temperature.". Then we get a new section, about whether particulates warm or cool. Then we get the quote: "But the sensitivity of climate was pointed up independently by a Soviet and an American scientist, who conclused that a permanent drop of only 1.6 to 2 percent in energy reaching the earth 'would lead to an unstable condition in which continental snow cover would advance to the Equator... [and] the oceans would eventually freeze,' according to a recent U.S. scientific advisory report. [WMC: nb: ellipsis original].

So... its pretty clear from that the they are neither predicting warming nor cooling, and that is what they should have said, given the science of the time.

Before we leave that, lets note that the +20% and +0.6oC by 2000 is about right. And we might also note that the 1.6-2% drop claim is now probably uninteresting, but might still be true.
Quoting the report
OK, so the stuff above gives a fairish flavour. I'll add a bit more. The index entry is:

What's happening to our climate? 576 Cooling in the Northern Hemisphere, thawing in the Antarctic... shifting rain, snow and storm patterns... ice caps, volcanic dust, air pollution, sunspots - the myriad forces that change earth's basic environment are still far from understood. Samuel W. Matthews reviews the weather forecast for tomorrow.

There are various text boxes scattered through the article. Here they are:

p 581: During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. U.S. National Science Board, 1974.

p 582: Were the cooling trend to reverse... the earth could warm relatively rapidly, with potentially catastrophic effect. National Science Foundation, 1975.

p 590: The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future chnages will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know. National Academy of Sciences, 1975.

p 595: Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end... leading into the next glacial age.... National Science Board, 1972.

p 600; Will we be able to recognize the first phases of a truely significant climatic change when it does occur? NAS, 1975.

p 607: We live in an unusual epoch: today the polar regions have large ice caps, whereas during most of the earth's history the poles have been ice-free. NAS, 1975.

p 610: Man may even be able to change the climate of the earth. This is one of the most important questions of our time. NBS, 1972.

Whew. Is that enough?
Comments
Comments, as ever, to [email protected].

I posted a link to this page onto sci.env and received a few comments. The thread was Cooling: national geographic, 1976 (googles archive, of course).

The main comment was, the graphs show a LIA. The answer is, they are artist-drawn and should not be taken too seriously. The last-1000-years graph is sourced to "air temperatures, eastern Europe". Quite what that means is unclear. It certainly doesn't mean thermomters for the 1000 years - the record doesn't go anywhere near that far back.

[marc in pdx]

it's comments from people like JustaDog that simply reinforce the the original point of this post; people like him should be scorned for their ignorance and lack of knowledge.

point in fact:

from - http://www.nrdc.org/media/2007/070225.asp

"HOLLYWOOD (February 25, 2007) - The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) made history tonight by partnering with the producers of the 79th Annual Academy Awards to significantly reduce the impact the telecast and related events had on the environment, setting a high profile example for an estimated 40 million viewers at a time when global warming, soaring energy demand and threats to forests and other landscapes are the focus of rising national attention.

The Academy Award's first-ever greening initiative -- which included a variety of energy-saving solutions -- was led by NRDC in collaboration with Oscar producer Laura Ziskin. The effort included offsetting carbon emissions of the pre-show, the red carpet event, the telecast, and the Governor's Ball; incorporating environmental features into the greenroom design; promoting recycling and reducing waste generated by the annual event; and using recycled materials in paper products, including the Oscar ballots themselves."

...

"Results included:

* Energy audit of Kodak Theatre; efficiency plan and recommendations.
* Renewable energy credits were purchased from Bonneville Environmental Foundation to offset carbon emissions from pre-show, red-carpet event, Oscar telecast, and Governor's Ball.
* Use of ecologically superior paper for telecast and non-telecast event materials such as nomination ballots, envelopes, press materials, programs, invitations, and certificates.
* Hybrid vehicle transportation provided for presenters and staff.
* Comprehensive recycling system instituted for event waste.
* Crew meals and craft services included reusable service materials and accessories, post-consumer tissue products, and biodegradable dishware.
* Governors' Ball menu featured organic and environmentally-friendly food, including seafood, dairy, produce, and even the large chocolate Oscar.
* Left-over Governor's Ball food donated to Angel Harvest."

...

[DJ]

Brian Hines: Gore's AIT movie is not peer-reviewed. The analysis/study you cite above that concluded 'consensus' among the 928 papers is itself not peer-reviewed. PLEASE DEMONSTRATE YOUR GENUINENESS BY ADDING YOUR "NOT PEER REVIEWED" DISCLAIMER TO YOUR VERY OWN EDITORIAL.

As for your adulation of Al Gore, there's a sucker born every minute:

Gore's 'carbon offsets' Paid to Firm He Owns
Critics say justification for energy-rich lifestyle serves as way for former VP to profit

Al Gore defends his extraordinary personal energy usage by telling critics he maintains a "carbon neutral" lifestyle by buying "carbon offsets," but the company that receives his payments turns out to be partly owned and chaired by the former vice president himself.

Gore has built a "green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms," writes blogger Dan Riehl.

Gore has described the lifestyle he and his wife Tipper live as "carbon neutral," meaning he tries to offset any energy usage, including plane flights and car trips, by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere."

But it turns out he pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management, a London-based company with offices in Washington, D.C., for which he serves as chairman. The company was established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating "global warming," reports blogger Bill Hobbs.

Generation Investment Management's U.S. branch is headed by a former Gore staffer and fund-raiser, Peter S. Knight, who once was the target of probes by the Federal Election Commission and the Department of Justice.

Hobbs points out Gore stand to make a lot of money from his promotion of the alleged "global warming" threat, which is disputed by many mainstream scientists.

"In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management – he buys stocks."

As WND reported, Gore, whose film warning of a coming cataclysm due to man-made "global warming" won two Oscars, has a mansion in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville that consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, citing data from the Nashville Electric Service.

The think tanks says since the release of Gore's film, the former presidential candidate's energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kilowatt-hours per month in 2005, to 18,400 per month in 2006.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54528

[Brian]

DJ, you're wrong again. "Science" is indeed peer-reviewed. See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/about/authors/

So the study I cited indeed comes from a peer-reviewed journal. See:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Thanks for sharing the WorldNetDaily link. It warms my global climate change-accepting soul to see right-wingers shifting from attacking the science of global warming to attacking one of the messengers.

This indicates how fully in retreat the science-deniers are. The only thing that Sean Hannity and company have left in their arsenal is "But Gore uses a lot more energy than the average person!"

Gore isn't an average person. He's an ex-vice president of the United States living in a much larger than average house who still practices a green lifestyle commensurate with the reality of his life.

[DJ]

Brian, based on the “Science” link you provide, you are correct that their piece finding 'consensus' among 928 papers is indeed peer reviewed. The great irony in establishing that fact is…while I previously assumed that the infamously debunked study you refer to had not been peer reviewed by “Science”…with your help I now see in retrospect that when “Science” published the study they unwittingly handed their readers a PERFECT EXAMPLE of PEER REVIEW FAILURE. Read further below to understand why.

But before I go there…a little unfinished business. In your rebuttal above, you correctly DO NOT claim that Gore’s AIT movie is peer reviewed. In fact, AIT is riddled with content that is one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative, and in many cases simply wrong: http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=411 As such, please proceed to label your editorial with your “NOT PEER REVIEWED” disclaimer. You can either man up, admit your error, and eliminate the double standard by posting the disclaimer…or you can present yourself to readers of this blog (of which I am apparently one of few) as intellectually dishonest.

Brian, you call Gore, “an ex-president of the United States (wrong, VP) living in a much larger than average house who still practices a green lifestyle commensurate with the reality of his life.” Do you really stand behind that defense? Why is it OK for a man who expects the rest of us to ‘save the planet’ by reducing our energy footprint to increase his? Why is the reality of the EVERY OTHER man’s life not commensurate with a yearly increase in standard of living and corresponding energy usage? To listen to you, Brian, Gore is the Royal Monarch and EVERY OTHER man is merely part of his serfdom.

But, enough about your worship of King Al...let’s get back to your Holy Grail called PEER REVIEW. To hear you describe it, anything labeled PEER REVIEW is the untouchable unquestionable undeniable truth. Unfortunately for your argument, the “Science 928 papers” example you provide proves how fallible PEER REVIEW in fact is.

Here is what Wikipedia says about peer review…note that while they single out “Science” for its stringent standards, they also list it as having committed sixteen of the most famous PEER REVIEW FAILURES in scientific publication history!

- While passing the peer-review process is often considered in the scientific community to be a certification of validity, it is not without its problems.
- Peer reviewed (“refereed”) journals can contain errors.
- In the case of proposed publications, usually, there are only two or three referees.
- In scientific publication, referees do not act as a group, do not communicate, and are not aware of each other's identities.
- Anonymous peer review lacks accountability, can lead to abuse by reviewers, and may be biased and inconsistent.
- The role of the referees is advisory, and the editor is under no formal obligation to accept the opinions of the referees.
- Referees usually do not have full access to the data from which the paper has been written and some elements have to be taken on trust.
- It is not usually practical for the reviewer to reproduce the author's work.
- There is usually no requirement that the referees achieve consensus.
- Peer review continues after being put to press and after the ink is dry.
- Often the decision of what counts as "good enough" falls entirely to the editor or organizer of the review.
- Observations of lack of success (contradictory outcome) despite peer review are readily observable.
- Very general journals such as Science and Nature have extremely stringent standards for publication, and will reject papers that report good quality scientific work, which they feel are not breakthroughs in the field.
- A widely known example of peer review failure is the Jacques Benveniste affair, where peer review was exercised prior to publication in the journal Nature and the published results were unable to be replicated by other researchers.
- A famous peer review failure was the 1977 Science article on the dodo and seed germination that lacked the required control treatment for its main experiment among other major flaws.
- In the case of Jan Hendrik Schön, a total of fifteen papers were accepted for publication in the top ranked journals Nature and Science following the usual peer review process. All fifteen were found to be fraudulent and were subsequently withdrawn.
- Unlike scientific journals such as Science, US Gov’t. peer review policies ensure that the peer review process is transparent by making available to the public the written charge to the peer reviewers, the peer reviewers’ names, the peer reviewers’ report(s), and the agency’s response to the peer reviewers’ report(s).
- According to US Gov’t. peer review policies, peer review and publication is not by itself sufficient grounds for determining that no further review is necessary.
- Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.
- The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theories.
- Reviewers tend to be especially critical of conclusions that contradict their own views, and lenient towards those that accord with them.

Specific to the debunking of “928 Papers Consensus” itself…and why it is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of PEER REVIEW FAILURE see the following links. The first is by the debunker himself, Peisner, who shares with you his back and forth email correspondence with “Science” magazine to get his debunking published. This email trail puts the lie to the peer review and paper submittal process that Science has posted at their own website.

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/scienceletter.htm

http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba/ba561/

http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf

http://www.mises.org/story/2267

[DJ]

25 days and counting...and Brian has still not acknowledged violating his very own "peer-reviwed scientific evidence" standards.

Brian...I still don't see the "NOT PEER REVIEWED" disclaimer tacked to the top of your post. What seems to be the holdup?

[Brian]

DJ, I have no idea what you're talking about. On March 3 I pointed out that Science is a peer-reviewed journal. You agreed that it is.

You then went on a fruitless attempt to debunk "peer review." No scientist, nor me, says that peer reviewed articles can't be questioned. But non-peer reviewed articles certainly are much more questionable.

You seem to be saying that I endorse every bit of "An Inconvenient Truth," which isn't a peer-reviewed movie. Please point out where I do that. Doubt you'll be able to, because I don't.

I said that Gore speaks about how every peer-reviewed study of global climate change supports his basic positions. That's true. It's also true that this study itself was peer-reviewed.

It's (almost) amusing how global warming deniers so easily fail to notice how shaky is the foundation on which their denying rests.

The scientific method isn't perfect. Nothing is. But it's the best way we have of learning about reality. Until someone comes up with a better method, I'm sticking unapologetically with science.

You're welcome to your beliefs. Just recognize them for what they are: beliefs.

[DJ]

Brian: “It’s (almost) amusing how global warming deniers so easily fail to notice how shaky is the foundation on which their denying rests.”

Brian – your myopia on the topic of GW is incredible. It’s no wonder why…given that you can’t even connect the dots I’ve drawn for you above.

a) You cite as a key supporting argument Al Gore’s reference of the “928 peer reviewed papers consensus” study published by Science magazine as the basis for the legitimacy of Al’s movie.
b) You then go on to use that study as the basis for establishing your “NOT PEER REVIEWED” disclaimer blog policy.
c) I then show you how that study has since been debunked and how Science magazine failed to acknowledge the debunking, making it in fact a perfect example of PEER REVIEW FAILURE.
d) To demonstrate that such a failure is not an anomaly, I further show you how Science is infamous for past failures of this kind and provide an extensive list of reasons why the scientific publications peer review process can be flawed.

***Conclusion: Because an example of PEER REVIEW FAILURE is cited by Al Gore in his movie and Brian in his post as the foundation for their arguments, all should be highly doubtful that what both Al and Brian said is anything more than personal opinion.

Are you beginning to see how silly your argument has come to look? You title a post, “Global warming doubters deserve to be scorned,” and then use an example of peer review failure to show why you believe Al Gore and why you belittle George Taylor. In doing so you unwittingly make an excellent case for why Al Gore deserves to be scorned, along with your opinion of George Taylor’s climate science expertise.

It’s (almost) amusing how those who claim consensus so easily fail to notice how shaky is the foundation on which their consensus rests. Not even close Brian…no cigar for you. Show your blog readers some respect and label your post with a PEER REVIEW FAILURE disclaimer.

[Brian]

DJ, DJ...I'm honored that you're giving my humble little blog post so much attention.

I'd like to suggest that you use more of your time to study the science of global warming, and less trying to use smoke and mirrors to confuse the issue.

"New Scientist" would be a good magazine to subscribe to. There you'd read articles such as one by Alan Thorpe, chief executive of the UK's Natural Environment Research Council, called "A fake fight."

It's subtitled: "Climate science needs sceptics, but those who peddle bogus controversies to the public are helping no one."

DJ, he's talking to you. Listen:

"The problem with debating the science of something like climate change is that it is hard for the public to assess the arguments across the whole spectrum of scientific opinion.

"It is partly in recognition of this that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change periodically publishes its scientific assessments that draw together the full body of knowledge on the subject.

"That is not a political process. It is a scientific one. Let scepticism reign, but let's not play games with the evidence."

DJ, he's talking to you, and others like you. No more games. Debate the evidence. Show the IPCC why the world's most respected climatatologists are wrong, and you're right.

I've got the IPCC behind me. You've got nothing but your own beliefs. I'm sticking with science.

[DJ]

Brian said, “I’d like to suggest that you use more of your time to study the science of global warming, and less trying to use smoke and mirrors to confuse the issue. I've got the IPCC behind me. You've got nothing but your own beliefs. I'm sticking with science”

Really Brian? I’m the one using smoke and mirrors? Can you cite an example? Maybe you’re talking about how I pointed out the 91 examples of one-sided, misleading, exaggerated, speculative or just plain wrong content in Gore’s AIT. Or maybe you’re talking about how I revealed to you that the study you and Gore cite on “AGW consensus” was a PEER REVIEW FAILURE and how other data shows only 55% of climate scientists agree. Or maybe you mean the time I shed light on the fact that Gore’s carbon offsets are paid to a firm that HE OWNS. Or, you could be referring to my cautionary outline of weaknesses in the peer review process itself…after all, peer review is the cornerstone of your so called scientific position. Brian…when the white light of truth exposes the shadowy nature of your incomplete and flawed arguments…but all you can perceive is smoke and mirrors…that’s when you know your view is ruled by bias.

I am an engineer who possesses enough scientific background to compare scientific theories and make judgments based upon scientific merit. I’ve examined scientific theory both pro AGW and con…there is garbage out there on both sides. On balance, the current set of scientific arguments lead me to believe it is unlikely that man-made CO2 plays anything more than a negligible role in the warming of the planet. Only upon coming to that conclusion scientifically did I begin to examine governmental motivations and comment at blogs related to the GW topic.

You say these words by Gore “raised the heat” of your activism: “It’s not a political issue. It’s a moral issue.” That is merely a play for emotion by Gore and simply naïve. There is an undeniable interplay between government grant money and politics that has spiraled out of control to create the anthro-GW industry. Your side is quick to cry “Big Oil influence” on any science that supports skepticism, but very slow to question the influence of grants and political pressure on government led initiatives like the IPCC and Alan Thorpe’s NERC. It’s funny how quickly Alan jumped on the flaws in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” but is silent about the much higher flaw count in Gore’s AIT. Funny I say, but typical.

Brian, what is the most advanced science you have formally studied and earned university credit for? If you are like many and not trained to take a skeptical view of the science itself, it is even more important for you to question the motivations of the organization making the claims. The IPCC leverages widespread public ignorance of science to further their bureaucratic cause and claims of consensus. To most logical observers, any claim of “consensus” is a red flag. The anthro-GW industry legitimizes itself with false consensus in the same way that Saddam Hussein legitimized his presidency with a false consensus at the ballot box. (Unlike the 100% consensus result from the study of 928 papers…Saddam claimed only 99% of the vote…how ironic).

If it’s science you want, maybe you can explain to me how adding man-made CO2 to the atmosphere can be responsible for the increase in the earth’s global average temperature when in fact the only location across the IR and LW spectrum where a given frequency is not already saturated by H2O is a narrow band at 15 micron? Please explain that to me, Mr. “I’m sticking with science.”

[Brian]

Ah, DJ, methinketh you protesteth way too much.

Your frantic efforts to discredit the thousands of scientists who do real climate change research, whose peer-reviewed conclusions are debated, discussed, and finally summarized in the IPCC report, reveal the insecurity typical of global warming deniers.

I don't claim to be a climate change expert. I do claim to respect those who are.

My highest science-related degree (actually, a non-degree) is completing the course requirements for a Ph.D. in Systems Science. I never completed the dissertation or comprehensive exams.

But my two years of full-time doctoral work gave me a deep appreciation for the scientific method, computer modeling, and the systems approach. Sorry that you haven't been able to achieve such an understanding yourself.

It's been nice chatting with you. Best of luck trying to convince others that you know more than the world's best scientists. You didn't have any luck with me, but maybe others are more gullible.

[Bud M]

You don't have to be a PhD or engineer to understand the greenhouse effect. If there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, the Earth's surface would be much colder than it is no....the more CO2, the more pronounced the warming. This is really all anyone needs to know. To claim otherwise indicates a lack of the most basic understanding of Grade 5 science....or an otherwise-motivated denial of a very simple physical phenomenon.

[Jim]

Could someone just answer this very simple question for me.

If human beings are to blame for Earth's global warming, why is Neptune, Pluto, Jupiter and Mars all warming at the EXACT SAME TIME?

Thank you

[Brian]

Jim, you need to pay more attention to science, and less to right-wing propaganda. Seriously.

Climate change is too important to the planet, and each of our lives, to put faith in ignorant sound bites.

Do yourself a favor and expose yourself to the complexities of reality. Here's some reading for you:

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

Get out into the real world more. Turn off your usual global warming denying false sources of information. You'll be a better person for it.

Really.

[DJ]

Academy award winner Al Gore appeared Friday on the Oprah Winfrey show, still parading the cartoon science chronicled in his movie, “AIT.” The show included a taped cameo by fellow actor and Boy Wonder, Leonardo DiCaprio – worshipper of Al Gore psuedo-science and graduate of John Marshall High School (…it’s not known whether Leo passed or failed his high school physics class).

Since my last post here 18 months ago, the total number of American scientists who have signed on to the Petition Project , http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html ,has grown to 31,072. That number includes 322 Oregonians and a total of 9,021 PhDs. (Maybe if Brian puruses the list of petitioners he’ll recognize an old classmate who actually completed the dissertation and comprehensive exams).
The reason the list of signatories to the Petition Project continuously grows is because the scientific case against man made global warming continuously grows. Every day more and more scientists conclude that the IPCC’s assumptions and computer models stand in stark contrast to the lack of an observed relationship between CO2 and global atmospheric temperature . Here are just a couple of the more recent examples.

Climate scientist and self described “former alarmist,” David Evans, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html , spent six years from 1999-2005 building computer models and writing Australia’s carbon accounting model. Having seen the totality of evidence – or complete lack thereof as he describes it – linking CO2 and global warming, this past summer of 2008 he concluded, “So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming.”

Geologist, Don Easterbrook, and NASA weather satellite chief, John Christy, http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/10/20/lorne-gunter-thirty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx , collaborated this year to conclude, "variations in global temperatures since 1978 ... cannot be attributed to carbon dioxide." Their temperature data , http://www.nationalpost.com/893554.bin ,demonstrate that all of the rise in global temperatures since 1979 has disappeared in the last four years – corresponding precisely with variation in solar activity (and inversely with the continued rise in atmospheric CO2). Says Easterbrook of his examination of four centuries worth of warming and cooling trends, "It's practically a slam dunk that we are in for about 30 years of global cooling," as the sun enters a particularly inactive phase. His studies have lead him to conclude that there is almost, “no correlation at all with CO2.”

When Oprah asked Al on Friday’s show how he first became interested in global warming, Al responded in one short sentence that his interest originated when he had taken a class at Harvard. Al didn’t mention who he took the class from. Next question, please!

What Al didn’t say is that he took a freshman-level class at Harvard in the 1960’s, taught by one of the global warming pioneers of the day – Roger Revelle. In his 1992 book, “Earth in the Balance,” and later in, “AIT” Al credits Revelle with inspiring him. So why sweep Revelle under the rug now?

Unlike Gore, Revelle was not an alarmist. In 1984 Omni magazine published an interview with Revelle in which he stated, “…whether the increase [in CO2] will lead to a significant rise in global temperature, we can’t absolutely say.” He went on to say, “People are always saying the weather’s getting worse. Actually, the CO2 increase is predicted to temper weather extremes.”

Roger Revelle died in 1991. Three months before he died Revelle co-authored an essay for the journal Cosmos titled, “What to do about greenhouse warming: Look before you leap.” Among their many warnings about about speculative measures to ‘combat’ global warming – he and his co-authors wrote, “Drastic, precipitous and, especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective.”

The contrast between Al Gore’s alarmist view of global warming – and that of the man he once credited for inspiring him – is one basis for the many critiques of, “AIT.” Al knows he cannot defend the critique – so he no longer mentions Revelle by name. Al never appears on stage with someone who can challenge him on his clash with Revelle or on any other aspect of his cartoon science. After all, the debate is over and the consensus is in. (How’s that for appreciating the “scientific method?”)

Maybe I’ll stop back in another 18 months or so with an update on the accelerated unraveling of anthro-global warming theory. Or maybe by then I won’t have to. After all, to the un-indoctrinated, hindsight is 20/20. HinesSight on the other hand?…apparently not so much.