SurfaceStations.org paper Accepted

[tacoman25]

Denying that rising CO2 concentrations will significantly warm the planet and lead to serious consequences.

Where has Watts ever ruled out this possibility? Perhaps, like many, he is simply skeptical that this will occur. Any honest scientist will tell you there is a lot of uncertainty about how much warming there will be and what the consequences will be.

I love how all skeptics are lumped together into one, vague position.

[LakeEffectKing]

Totally missed the point.

As he frequently does....

[tacoman25]

how is it a conflict of interest?

As a scientist, his duty to the public is to attempt to be as objective and unbiased as possible. As an activist for a cause that is basically based on his research, that becomes next to impossible.

[Ed Lizard]

Watts studied electrical engineering and as far as anyone can tell, doesn't have a BA.

Might be 'cause engineers are awarded BS degrees.

Not that I cared enough to check the curriculum vitae of Watts...

[skierinvermont]

Civil disobedience does have a long history in the U.S...the civil rights movement, protesting wars, etc. But when a prominent scientist becomes an activist for his cause, which relates exactly to his field of research, that is a serious conflict of interest and is simply not the position he should be in - for the sake of scientific objectivity, if nothing else.

His activism is a direct consequence of the conclusion of the science. There isn't a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest occurs when one benefits from one's activities in a related area. For example, helping approve a new drug while simultaneously investing in the companies stock. Hansen doesn't benefit from his research or from his protesting. He does it because it is the logical consequence of the science.

Now even if it's not a conflict of interest, in some cases getting arrested could be an indication of too much emotional involvement. I could see that potentially being true in the case of Hansen, but we don't know. Which is why it is important to evaluate the argument on the merits.

[skierinvermont]

As he frequently does....

As I explained several times, I did not miss the point. Do you have evidence that I miss the point more frequently than anybody else? If not, I don't think this sort of comment is not especially relevant.

For some reason people seemed to assume that I thought the point was a comparison between the intellect of Einstein and Watts. Obviously that was not your point. Suggesting that I thought this was the point is a strawman.

[tacoman25]

His activism is a direct consequence of the conclusion of the science. There isn't a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest occurs when one benefits from one's activities in a related area. For example, helping approve a new drug while simultaneously investing in the companies stock. Hansen doesn't benefit from his research or from his protesting. He does it because it is the logical consequence of the science.

Now even if it's not a conflict of interest, in some cases getting arrested could be an indication of too much emotional involvement. I could see that potentially being true in the case of Hansen, but we don't know. Which is why it is important to evaluate the argument on the merits.

See my follow up posts. No matter how strongly he believes in his research/conclusions, there is no place for a prominent scientist in the world of activism - especially when he basically founded the movement. The guy is in charge of a government program responsible for monitoring global temperatures. As an activist for the climate change movement, that is a serious conflict of interest.

There is simply no way to logically deny this.

[tacoman25]

I'm not aware that I've declared myself in either global warming camp. interesting though that you would make an immediate jump.

Maybe it was obvious because you dismissed/ridiculed someone simply because their view doesn't match mainstream science - which at this time is clearly in the AGW catastrophe camp?

[skierinvermont]

See my follow up posts. No matter how strongly he believes in his research/conclusions, there is no place for a prominent scientist in the world of activism - especially when he basically founded the movement. The guy is in charge of a government program responsible for monitoring global temperatures. As an activist for the climate change movement, that is a serious conflict of interest.

There is simply no way to logically deny this.

I would consider it a serious conflict of interest only if he was an activist before he came to the scientific conclusions. As it is, the activism is just a logical consequence of mainstream science's conclusions (not just his). The science says we should ALL be activists to reduce CO2 emissions.

One could construct a more subtle psychological argument that the activism is indicative of too much emotional commitment. But that may or may not be true since the activism could just be a straightforward logical consequence of the science. The best thing to do is evaluate his work on the merits. Most of his work has been widely accepted by his peers and stands well on the merits alone, although some of it tends to be on the more extreme side.

[WeatherRusty]

As a scientist, his duty to the public is to attempt to be as objective and unbiased as possible. As an activist for a cause that is basically based on his research, that becomes next to impossible.

If you are objective and unbiased you go where the scientific research leads you without regard to preexisting biases. That is what Hansen has done, as have the majority of those studying climate change.

[tacoman25]

it is?

Yes. Isn't the aim of science to be as objective and analytical as possible? As a scientists who reports results to the public, isn't there a responsibility to offer as unbiased information as possible?

[tacoman25]

nope. I dismissed a non-scientist with a political bent. in my work I regularly champion science that pushes the boundaries. Watts simply isn't a legit source.

Nobody claimed Watts was a scientist creating ground-breaking research.

[LakeEffectKing]

nope. Hansen is accepted by the scientific community at large, and Watts resides at the margins. that's not all due to politics.

there are cases where the work of an individual is so far ahead of the field that his/her contributions are rejected by his/her peers and later, once the science and math have caught up (I deal with physics generally), those ideas become useful and incorporated into the accepted knowledge of the field; indeed, I'm working on a project right now with peers of someone whose equations were so far advanced they are only now accessible to the field as a whole. he had given up trying to publish. however, that's not the case with Watts.

one of the biggest problems in this subforum is that the discussion is set by a teenager with zero idea of how the scientific process works and no advanced training in physics, statistics, etc. that leads to conversations like this where Watts is deemed on par with Hansen in terms of knowledge. that's simply not how it works in the larger scientific world.

My point was that characterizing a person's abilities (in this case climate knowledge/research) based soely on "acceptance" is done at one's own peril, expecially under the politicalization umbrella that CC/AGW discussion has digressed into.

Certainly Watt's has "some" decent, unquantifiable knowledge beyond that of the lay person, and the points he makes are not completely unsubstantiated within the scientific field....he is just as much of a mouthpiece of skeptical ideas and alternative climate data interpretations as he is an intellect on the subject, which certainly has a place in an ongoing debate of the intricacies of AGW. Thus, your equivalence comparisons of Hansen vs. Watts is a strawman, as Watt's blog sets forth discussions based on submissions from multiple sources (McIntyre, Spencer, etc..., etc...).....and to your teenager comment......,again, is an attempt to devalue/ignore an already established debate amongst those who DO hold an understanding of how the scientific process works. In the larger scientific world, skeptisim (no matter of the source) shall ALWAYS and ONLY strengthen a hypothesis that is to be tested and is most often welcomed by the author of such hypotheses....not feared, ridiculed, or subverted as has been seemingly the case for the "Team" et 'Al'...pun intended.....

[tacoman25]

how does his activism affect his research?

His activism is directly related to his field of research. It represents too much emotional involvement and commitment to a cause that depends on the research finding certain results. That's a dangerous position to be in as a scientist, and it's simply not appropriate for someone in his position.

Would you be ok with a nuclear scientist being an activist for nuclear energy development? Or how about a certain political party conducting public polls and reporting the results?

By the way, anyone who thinks Hansen doesn't benefit from his research is very naive. His career is built upon global warming. He is part of a huge government-funded program that exists mainly because of his research. To continue to be in that position, he needs the chips to fall a certain way.

[LakeEffectKing]

His activism is a direct consequence of the his conclusion of the science. There isn't a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest occurs when one benefits from one's activities in a related area. For example, helping approve a new drug while simultaneously investing in the companies stock. Hansen doesn't benefit from his research or from his protesting. He does it because it is the logical consequence of the science.

Now even if it's not a conflict of interest, in some cases getting arrested could be an indication of too much emotional involvement. I could see that potentially being true in the case of Hansen, but we don't know. Which is why it is important to evaluate the argument on the merits.

.....conclusions come AFTER a hypothesis has been readily tested....many times, with repeatable results.....not on the fly (ie in the middle of the Sci. method)

[tacoman25]

you have proof his scientific research is biased?

Of course not. That isn't the point. The point is that as a scientist who is responsible for reporting unbiased data to the public, being an activist for a cause that is based off your research results is a dangerous and unscientific position to be in.

[LakeEffectKing]

how does his activism affect his research?

Potentially: objectivity, grant money, grandiousity....to name a few

[tacoman25]

his research is subject to peer-review. how can you ignore that?

I am not debating the merits of his research (though I can certainly point to times that it has proven to be too extreme, always in the same direction). I am saying it is inappropriate for someone in his position to get arrested for activist causes that relate directly to his research.

[ORH_wxman]

yet at the same time you aren't saying that his research is biased.

His GISS temperature monitoring system has become quite controversial in the last decade. Much warmer than any other source.

[tacoman25]

yet at the same time you aren't saying that his research is biased.

I don't know if it is or not. But he only opens himself up to those types of questions by being an activist.

[ORH_wxman]

does wrong ipso facto mean biased though? certainly being wrong is part of science.

Well considering all the alarmist predictions he has made to the media that have been too extreme in the same direction, then yes, he could definitely be accused of having a warm bias.

[LakeEffectKing]

so the peer review system is worthless?

Of course not. It does have flaws, however, as demonstrated by some of the CRU emails. And there certainly can be the potential for corruption (when politics become involved to a high degree) as is the case for any groups or societies. (Police, Unions, Religious groups, lobbiests, large companies, etc....) And the peer review process is not immune to such malicious potentials.

[ORH_wxman]

I don't think anyone would say he doesn't have a warm bias. but unless you (the generic you) are going to allege deliberate falsification of data, it's hard to just dismiss a well-regarded researcher simply because you take the opposite viewpoint.

His data is at odds with the 3 other main sources at this point. Its not that difficult to question his results. Then coupled with the method in which they calculate their temperatures, you can certainly wonder whether his bias is infiltrating the results. There's a difference between being biased in your work and deliberately changing data. Due to the fact that GISS does a lot of estimating of temperatures in lower data density regions, there is a lot of gray area where you could move temperatures in either direction without falsifying data. Its just that these areas in question are at odds with other alternate sources and its has always been on the warm side during this recent time period in question. To me, it sounds entirely normal to wonder if his results are biased.

[LakeEffectKing]

what do police, unions, religious groups, etc. have to do with the scientific peer review process?

Note my edit....as I knew you might not understand.....peer review process involves "groups" of people....and getting a few people (a group) in the right places making the "calls" can make certain papers more likely to get through than others, independent of scientific quality. Do I have proof??? No. As it is often the case with behind the scene activities.

Just read the emails.....objectively, and remember that those are just potentially the tip of the proverbial iceberg.....Certainly anti-scientific correspondence by anyone's standard.....

[LakeEffectKing]

your take on the peer review process is fascinating. can you share some specific details about how police men or women make phone calls to force papers through review?

I will humbly end this (as I choose not to tangle with an "electric eel" ) by saying that we obviously have differing opionions on how confident we should be with the peer review system, and potential weaknesses that may or may not be exploitable.

I must say, however, that the quality of your posts here (vs. PR) are dramatically higher, and well accepted and appreciated....

[ORH_wxman]

are you referring to his popular writings or his scientific work? the former certainly are biased, but the latter have really moved away from polemics, IMO.

GISS...scientific work. Well I would hope he considers it scientific as its one of the 4 premier agencies for monitoring global temperatures.

[BethesdaWX]

I don't have time to debate right now, but,

You do a terrible Job at Backing yourself up. How about Posting Evidence/Examples of Watts being a nutcase insead of yapping sh*tloads of nonsense about his Degree? Or, start debating the Science so I can Pwn you and get it over with.

Where someone went to school, where he/she worked, etc, Does not Prove or Disprove a Hypothesis, or their work, shared by hundreds of thousands of Scientists globally.....Many with PHD's who are climatologists, building off eachother's work. Your argument is Spineless and irrelevant, if you want to debate the science, fine, but making Blatant assuptions regarding the peer review of this article, and Watt's "Nutiness" without basis is just banter with plentiful lolz.

You're obviouslly politically motivated behind your argument, its that simple, either that or you're in bed with Al Gore.

You don't need to work in the peer review system to understand how it works, either. You seem to think so.

So, to get back to the Issue at Hand:

You're clearly suggesting the peer review will be low quality because.... why?.......he's a TV met with a Blog? Ok so what?........ Excuse me, Alarmist, Nutcase Hansen doesn't even apply here.

You can't give any examples of your position in any regard, as in, How is he a Nutcase? What did he deviate from? Deviating from the IPCC makes you a Nutcase? In that case, you're the Whackjob.

Is it the IPCC opposition that bothers you Ms. Liberal Azz? Its as simple as me saying "Hansen is a whackjob" and cutting it there, instead of re-hashing his numerous failures and his low resolution piece-of-Crap GISS that have deviated from every other reputable source. An Atmospheric Science Degree is an Atmospheric Science Degree, whether u work for NOAA, or a Private Firm.

[k***]

BB doesn't understand that not all journals are created equal.

[LakeEffectKing]

how much interaction do you have with the peer review process? are you an active reviewer for a journal, or are you just going on what you read about the CRU stuff?

Somewhere in between.

I work at a major University, and have dealings with the process, in a tangential way....so by no means an expert....moreso as a casual observer.

Outside that, while earning my degree a few moons ago, I was privy to some of the politics that hid under some of the processes that go into the acceptance of papers/research, in which the process differs (to an extent) as to what is ultimately portrayed as....... that being, an immunity from bias....but again, we differ on that....

[LakeEffectKing]

I deal with it directly and see on a regular basis science evaluated on its merits.

Congrats.