Source: No Frakking Consensus

For years, we’ve been told fairy tales about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). There was nothing accidental about this. They were a deliberate part of the IPCC’s marketing message. And 99% of the world’s journalists fell for them.The IPCC embraces geographic quotas – not scientific merit.

The biggest fairy tale of all was that IPCC reports are produced by the world’s finest scientific minds – by the crème de la crème. Here’s Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC’s chairman, explaining in 2007 why we should trust his organization’s findings:

…look at the facts as they are. You have close to 600 people who are actually the authors of these working group reports. These are people who have been chosen on the basis of their track record, on their record of publications, on the research that they have done… There is a very careful process of selection. We had something like 2,000 such nominations and out of that less than 600 were selected. So it is not as though anybody can get in. They are people who are at the top of their profession… [backup link] (more…)

Source:  The Drum

In January 2009, Nature splashed its front cover with the results of a new study titled ‘Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year’.

The article was accompanied by a glowing editorial from Nature and was widely reported on in the media.

A very short time after the paper was published, a number of factual errors were found in the paper, along with significant issues with the methodology used to obtain the surprising results. The errors and the methodological problems were reported and discussed by climate change blogs Watts Up With That, The Air Vent, Climate Audit and Real Climate. (more…)

Source: No Frakking Consensus

photo from Chris D. Thomas' academic bio page

by Donna Laframboise

In early 2004 Nature, a respected science journal, ran a cover story titled Feeling the Heat: biodiversity losses due to global warming.  As one critic would laterobserve:

It is rare for a scientific paper to be the lead item on the evening news, or to fill the front pages of our national newspapers, but [that particular study]received exceptional worldwide media attention.

The lead author was named Chris D. Thomas. Now he’s back in the news – this time for a paper published in Science whose very own press release begins:

Many different species of plants and animals have been moving higher in elevation and farther away from the equator to escape the Earth’s warming climate.

Once more, the media is all over the story – and the headlines are nothing if not dramatic. The BBC declares that species are fleeing a warm climate faster than previously thought. Time magazine tells us that climate change is turning plants and animals into refugees. CNN asserts that animals are being driven to higher ground by warmth. (Lots more news stories may be seen here.) (more…)

Source:  CATO

by Dr. Pat Michaels

Boston University’s Robert Kaufmann and colleagues recently published a paper in theProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences examining the causes of the recent dearth of “global warming.” They concluded that it’s simply natural variability, augmented by increasing sulfate emissions from dramatically growing coal consumption by China.

Of course, it is the latter conclusion that has drawn all the attention, for it allows the possibility that greenhouse gases are continuing to impart an as-expected warming influence on the global climate. And then once China gets its air pollution under control (and we are talking about true air pollution here, i.e., not carbon dioxide), global temperatures will rise rapidly. Thus the dream of alarming climate change lives. (more…)

Source: Forbes

Source: ClimateAudit

Lost in the recent controversy over Said et al 2008 is that the Climategate documents provided conclusive evidence of the hypothesis originally advanced in the Wegman Report about paleoclimate peer review – that members of the Mann “clique” had been “reviewing other members of the same clique”.

In today’s post, I’ll examine the origin of this hypothesis in the Wegman Report, its consideration in Said et al 2008 and how Climategate documents provided the supporting evidence that neither the Wegman Report nor Said et al 2008 had been able to provide.

I won’t attempt to analyze the plagiarism issues today (I will return to this on another occasion), other than to say that some recent literature on the topic attempts to distinguish between degrees of plagiarism e.g. Bouville, Clarke and Loui.

In addition, contrary to recent false claims by USA Today, Said et al 2008 was not “a federally funded study that condemned scientific support for global warming”. It does not mention global warming nor even climate. Nor is Said et al 2008 a “cornerstone” of criticisms of either Mann or IPCC as Joe Romm falsely claimed. For example, it has never been referred to or discussed at Climate Audit even in comments. Nor at any other climate blog, to my knowledge. (Update May 24 – Nor is the “cornerstone” included on PopTech’s list of 900+ “skeptic” papers.) (more…)

Source:  Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

By Roger Pielke, Sr.

There is an informative article by Ross McKittrick

McKitrick, Ross R. (2011) “Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account” in Climate Coup, Patrick J. Michaels ed., Cato Inst. Washington DC.

This article appears in the book

Michaels, Patrick J., 2011: Climate Coup: Global Warming’s Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives. Cato Institute. ISBN: 978-1-935308447

with the summary of its content

“A first-rate team of experts offers compelling documentation on the pervasive influence global warming alarmism now has on almost every aspect of our society-from national defense, law, trade, and politics to health, education, and international development.” (more…)

Source:  Forbes

by Larry Bell

I’ve encountered some folks who appear offended by the title of my new book Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax. Why do you call it a “hoax”? they ask. Why not refer to the matter as a debate? The reason is quite simple: A debate describes a discussion in which participants competitively argue opposing points of view that are assumed to be based upon honest positions.

A hoax is a deceptive act intended to hoodwink people through deliberate misinformation, including factual omissions. My book is about the latter. (And by the way, it can be ordered through primary vendors, and is currently being featured on “new releases” tables at 200 major Barnes and Noble stores.)

The central lie is that we are experiencing a known human-caused climate crisis, a claim based on speculative theories, contrived data and totally unproven modeling predictions. And the evidence? Much is revealed by politically corrupted processes and agenda-driven report conclusions rendered by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are trumpeted in the media as authoritative gospel. (more…)

Soure:  National Review Online

By Patrick J. Michaels

Climate science has painted itself into a corner, seriously damaging the public’s faith in the field — as precious a commodity as there is in civil society. Like lab rats that will do anything to keep the cocaine flowing, climate scientists, universities, and federal laboratories are addicted to the public’s money.

The latest illustration of this sad new reality is the letter of resignation from the American Physical Society (APS) of one of the lions of science, Harold Lewis, emeritus professor at University of California–Santa Barbara.

In his letter, Lewis rightly states that it is the global-warming-research industry, “with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS with it like a rogue wave.” Specifically, Lewis objects to the heavy-handed way in which APS quashed and impeded any attempt to modify its outrageous 2007 “national policy” statement on climate change. (more…)

Source: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog

By Joseph D’Aleo

The Inspector General wrote on behalf of NOAA a response to Congressman Barton and Rohrabacher and the other committee members about the issues raised about the US climate data base (USHCN) (see attached letter and report here). They spoke with the NWS, NCDC, ATDD, several state climatologists, the AASC, the USGRP and the AMS to form their response. They examined quality control procedures, background documentation, operating procedures, budget requirements and management plans. (more…)

Source:  here

People familiar with what happened in climate science during the last year might find Lawrence K. Altman’s NYT article “THE DOCTOR’S WORLD; When Peer Review Produces Unsound Science” of June 11, 2002 more than prescient (emphasis all mine, of course):

[...] Yet for all its acclaim, the system [of peer-review] has long been controversial. Despite its system of checks and balances, a number of errors, plagiarism and even outright fraud have slipped through it.

[...] A particular concern is that because editors and reviewers examine only what authors summarize, not raw data, the system can provide false reassurances that what is published is scientifically sound.

[...] Researchers reported [in the "The Journal of the American Medical Association" in June 2002] considerable evidence that many statistical and methodological errors were common in published papers and that authors often failed to discuss the limitations of their findings. Even the press releases that journals issue to steer journalists to report peer reviewed papers often exaggerate the perceived importance of findings and fail to highlight important caveats and conflicts of interest. (more…)

Source: Informath

by Douglas Keenan

#1

Following discusses one aspect of how the peer review process affects the study of global warming.

http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3600.htm

The problems with the peer review process have implications for our understanding of global warming (as well as for science generally). Once something has been published in a peer-reviewed journal—particularly a prestigious journal—it tends to be considered as established, possibly even heralded as “truth”. This means that other researchers will often rely on its conclusions, with little, if any, further checking. The extent to which this happens varies among different branches of science. It seems to be especially so in the study of global warming. (more…)

Soure: FOX News. com

By Gene J. Koprowski

It may be time for the United Nations’ climate-studies scientists to go back to school.A group of 40 auditors — including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe — have released a shocking report card on the U.N.’s landmark climate-change research report.

And they gave 21 of the report’s 44 chapters a grade of “F.” (more…)

Source:  Watts Up With That?

I’m honored to offer this guest post by Jerome Ravetz, of Oxford University in the UK. Mr. Ravetz is an environmental consultant and professor of philosophy of science best known for his books challenging the assumptions of scientific objectivity, discussing the science wars and post-normal science. Read more about him at his personal web page here, his Oxford page here, or at his blog the Post-normal Times. Also, my thanks to WUWT regular “tallbloke” for his facilitation. – Anthony

Guest post by Jerome Ravetz

At the end of January 2010 two distinguished scientific institutions shared headlines with Tony Blair over accusations of the dishonest and possibly illegal manipulation of information.  Our ‘Himalayan glaciers melting by 2035?  of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is matched by his ‘dodgy dossier’ of Saddam’s fictitious subversions.  We had the violations of the Freedom of Information Act at the University of East Anglia; he has the extraordinary 70-year gag rule on the David Kelly suicide file. There was ‘the debate is over’ on one side, and ‘WMD beyond doubt’ on the other. The parallels are significant and troubling, for on both sides they involve a betrayal of public trust. (more…)