SurfaceStations.org paper Accepted

[tacoman25]

Good call. When you don't have an adequate response, no response is usually better.

yet you can't show that his research is biased.

And that was never the point, which you seem to be having trouble grasping. Could some of it be biased or wrong? Absolutely.

I did read the article. then I placed it within its context.

Scientific publishing, right. I guess a magazine devoted to scientific publishing wouldn't have a clue about the peer review process, would they?

[tacoman25]

there was a whole thread in STH where I demolished a paper based on the fact that it was published in a journal with crappy standards.

Hansen isn't publishing in little known journals though.

So as long as it's a big enough journal, it's all good?

And why does everything have to be about Hansen?

[tacoman25]

you have no clue about what goes on and yet you keep shouting. it's funny.

Shouting? Sorry if I'm hurting your ears...I'll try to type smaller.

I have provided quotes from people and magazines heavily involved in peer review. They agree with me.

science is often wrong. that's how fields advance.

Indeed. If only more people could reconcile that with the peer review process.

as for the bias, I keep inviting you to show how Hansen's bias plays out in his work and you keep saying that's not important. which is also funny.

Why is it funny that I'm not going to jump to conclusions and make baseless accusations? Why is it so hard for you to understand I'm not saying Hansen is guilty of letting his bias effect his work? I'm simply saying that just because his work is peer-reviewed does not exclude bias or guarantee it's correct.

[tacoman25]

I'm not the one who dragged him into this thread or kept bringing him up

You are the one who can't differentiate between my points about Hansen and my broader points about peer review. Thus, you think everything I say is about Hansen.

[ORH_wxman]

not what I said.

I'm not the one who dragged him into this thread or kept bringing him up

you're the king of knowledge of scientific publishing in CC. congrats and enjoy your reign!

Hansen was brought up after you randomly called Watts a nut job or "wingnut" and then tacoman asked you why but you never gave a real answer.

[tacoman25]

you're the king of knowledge of scientific publishing in CC. congrats and enjoy your reign!

I never claimed to be an expert. But I know enough to dispel the myth that peer-review magically makes everything ok.

[tacoman25]

Hansen was brought up after you randomly called Watts a nut job or "wingnut" and then tacoman asked you why but you never gave a real answer.

Don't confuse the issue with facts!

[ORH_wxman]

I don't even see why Hansen would be brought up.

Watts is a TV met with no degree who has a sensationalist blog devoid of any attempt at science--it's pure politics. Hansen is a PhD from Iowa under James Van Allen who has published widely and has been widely recognized by his peers.

I don't know how to make it any simpler. one is a scientist and one is a propagandist.

Calling someone a wingnut implies a political agenda and obviously that was implied because he was a skeptic. Its totally relevant to point out that a well-respected climate scientist such as Hansen would be engaging in what most normal people would call nutty behavior while asking what you thought Watts was doing that would lead to him being called a nutjob.

Hansen is a propagandist despite having peer reviewed work. Most of his media spouting is not supported by his own peer reviewed work which why its fair to call him out if people are going to bother to call out some skeptic. The additional fact that he has a prestigious position at NASA and is supposed to be giving advice for government policy over global warming makes his behavior all the more bizarre and worthy of questioning.

[tacoman25]

I don't even see why Hansen would be brought up.

Watts is a TV met with no degree who has a sensationalist blog devoid of any attempt at science--it's pure politics. Hansen is a PhD from Iowa under James Van Allen who has published widely and has been widely recognized by his peers.

I don't know how to make it any simpler. one is a scientist and one is a propagandist.

I'm not a big fan of Watts, in fact I don't even read his blog that often anymore, but I'm at least balanced enough to know that saying his blog is "devoid of any attempt at science" is false (this very thread is evidence of that, ironically enough).

What is truly ironic is that you are dismissing Watts because of politics - yet you are perfectly ok with James Hansen being as political as he wants. On the one hand you are calling Watts completely unscientific because his blog is "pure politics", and yet you don't feel Hansen's political activism could possibly have any bearing on his science.

[tacoman25]

Calling someone a wingnut implies a political agenda and obviously that was implied because he was a skeptic. Its totally relevant to point out that a well-respected climate scientist such as Hansen would be engaging in what most normal people would call nutty behavior while asking what you thought Watts was doing that would lead to him being called a nutjob.

Hansen is a propagandist despite having peer reviewed work. Most of his media spouting is not supported by his own peer reviewed work which why its fair to call him out if people are going to bother to call out some skeptic. The additional fact that he has a prestigious position at NASA and is supposed to be giving advice for government policy over global warming makes his behavior all the more bizarre and worthy of questioning.

Bingo.

One can be a scientist AND a propagandist. The world is a complicated place.

[tacoman25]

engaging in civil disobedience is nutty?

I can't agree at all with the rest of your post. there are skeptical scientists--it's not like you have to accept global warming to be part of the academy. there's a 2 dimensional viewpoint in CC which is at odds with the reality of the field.

You accusing others of having a restricted viewpoint...the irony continues. You're the one who can't fathom a peer-reviewed scientist being a propagandist, call a blog completely unscientific just because its author isn't a scientist, and actually have to ask for an example of the peer review process failing - as if you didn't believe that was actually possible.

Think I'm being harsh? Well then maybe when you engage in discussion on here, you should consider adopting a less condescending and more open-minded approach towards those you disagree with. It's obvious you think you know more than all of us just because you are involved in peer review - and so you call those who disagree with you "clueless".

[BethesdaWX]

The science can be right or wrong, with or without peer review, when discussing things that we do not understand well. The climate system is very complicated, so a peer reviewed study showing "evidence" for something is only based off what we understand, and that is very little.... at this point. What makes even less sense is using peer review to claim an accurate study of a Hypothesis, and refute another.

It should be this simple.

-Hansen is heavily biased, and definitely not objective...same goes for Watts!..... there is no denying that, 90% of the posters on this board will agree with this (aka, the smart ones)

-Peer review is Necessary, there is no doubt about that. But it does not mean the science and/or our understanding behind it is correct, especially when its revolving around a hypothesis that is a shot in the dark with the way GTs have done over the past decade.

These points aren't really debatable, and it is obvious because there has been no supporting argument from the few people who disagree.

[ORH_wxman]

engaging in civil disobedience is nutty?

I can't agree at all with the rest of your post. there are skeptical scientists--it's not like you have to accept global warming to be part of the academy. there's a 2 dimensional viewpoint in CC which is at odds with the reality of the field.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here, that climate change is black and white? Either you believe or you don't?. Did you ever say what Watts did that would lead to calling him a nutjob?

Calling Watts a wingnut (without saying why) and then saying Hansen getting arrested due to his activist behavior toward global warming is not "nutty" or isn't propagandist behavior doesn't really add up.

So basically you are saying its ok for Hansen to spout radical claims to the media that is not supported by peer review science but its entirely nutty and propagandist behavior for a skeptic to question the stance of the IPCC?

[skierinvermont]

It is a very long paper, at least in the manuscript form, which might knock it out of some journals.

Looking at the chart, there obviously are differences between the stations, and the CRN5 stations probably should be eliminated.

The Adjusted Average Temperature for all the stations is very flat. Which is GOOD. It means that the adjustments are effective. That alone should be worth publishing. The maximum and minimum temperatures still retain some artifacts, but in opposite directions.

The other thing that is apparent from the chart is that there is a warm bias.

So the unadjusted temperatures average about a 0.02 degree per year increase, and the adjusted temperatures about a 0.03 degree increase.

Perhaps more effort needs to be used at analyzing why there is this apparent warm bias in the adjustments as such a bias could affect how one evaluates today's temperature vs the temperature in the 40's.

Anyway, outwardly, there appear as if there would be benefits of publishing the study.

The answers to both of your points have been answered quite clearly in this thread already. All your post does is spread false information.

1) The CRN 5s run warmer because they have a larger time of observation bias, not station siting issues. The time of observation bias is easily corrected for (according to well tested peer-reviewed methodologies), and when it is, most of the difference between the CRN 5s and the 1-4s is removed. The difference is NOT due to station siting, but to varying TOBS biases.

2) The adjustments do not "bias" the results too warm, they correct it too warm. It is a long-known well-published fact that the adjusted temperature trends are warmer than the unadjusted temperatures. This is done for well established very good reasons. For example, time of observation bias. If you are interested in how or why these adjustments (IE corrections) are made I can direct you to the relevant literature. But to assume that because the adjustmented trends are higher than the raw trends, that the results are "biased" reveals a complete unfamiliarity with the entire purpose of the adjustments and why they are being made.

I've explained both of these points very clearly already. To come back and repeat these false claims without reading/responding/ or understanding my explanations is very frustrating for me.

[Msalgado]

1. No, I am not saying that it necessarily prevents objectivity. However, as a prominent scientist working for a major government program, I think it is important to be as objective as possible. When you are also getting arrested for activist activities that relate directly to your field of research, at the very least you are doing a poor job of presenting yourself as objective.

What someone does outside of their research is irrelevant when it comes to the science. If I write a paper on subject X it doesn't matter if I spent the weekend puking in a back alley of Bourbon Street in New Orleans or if spent it knocking on doors for the communist party. Thats the point. The peer review process looks at the data, methods, and results in order to ascertain if the research is done in a proper manner and if the conclusions reached were acceptable according to the data and methods used. At no point do those reviewing the science consider what that person does outside of their research nor should they.

Science is based off data not weekend activities.

2. There seems to some sort of naive idea that the peer review process is a silver bullet that eliminates bias and ensures accurate research. A study can be completely wrong and still pass the peer review process.

This is a complete strawman. I don't think anyone here has made the claim that peer review is without flaws and perfect. It is however, an excellent system for analyzing scientific research on its merits. Your desire to introduce outside activities in an effort to discredit any scientist is garbage. As long as the scientists has reasonable and sound methods and data to back up their conclusions I couldn't care any less if they spent the weekend on capital hill in a thong protesting boxers.

[Msalgado]

To be quite honest I find the entire discussion of whether someone is biased, a wingnut, or nutty to be completely irrelevant. Its about the science, not the scientists.

[ORH_wxman]

To be quite honest I find the entire discussion of whether someone is biased, a wingnut, or nutty to be completely irrelevant. Its about the science, not the scientists.

I agree with this point in isolation, but you obviously missed the point of the discussion.

Lots of unscientific claims are made everyday by these guys...which was the point. Calling a spade a spade. Ripping someone for making a non-peer reviewed claim and then crying when they rip back at a scientist on the other end of the spectrum who is guilty of the same hubris is hypocrisy at its finest.

A lot of this is about using the media as a means to grossly exaggerate one's views. The IPCC recently got into trouble for using non-peer reviewed ideas in their 2007 report on glaciers.

[tacoman25]

What someone does outside of their research is irrelevant when it comes to the science. If I write a paper on subject X it doesn't matter if I spent the weekend puking in a back alley of Bourbon Street in New Orleans or if spent it knocking on doors for the communist party. Thats the point. The peer review process looks at the data, methods, and results in order to ascertain if the research is done in a proper manner and if the conclusions reached were acceptable according to the data and methods used. At no point do those reviewing the science consider what that person does outside of their research nor should they.

Science is based off data not weekend activities.

I already responded to this earlier in the discussion. The reason I find Hansen's extracurricular activities inappropriate for someone in his position is because they relate directly to his field of research. As head of a government-funded program designated to objectively monitor global temperature and report to the public, I really don't like the fact that he is a global warming/environmental activist who not only gets arrested for activism, but also writes alarmist literature for the public.

This is a complete strawman. I don't think anyone here has made the claim that peer review is without flaws and perfect. It is however, an excellent system for analyzing scientific research on its merits.

Again with the unoriginal and inaccurate "strawman" accusations...seriously getting old. It is not a "strawman" for me to point out that peer review does not guarantee accuracy or validity, and that it can suffer from bias just like anything else. Some people truly do treat peer review like it's some sort of magical process that ensures a scientist and his/her research is flawless and unbiased. That is fairytale land. Publishing peer-reviewed research/papers does not put a scientist above reproach.