I received the following note from Warwick Hughes:
The 20th anniversary of Jones et al 1986 seems a good time to assemble all available reviews of these IPCC cornerstones that slipped under the radar of science. I have just posted:
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/ . …
The Hughes et al review begins:
Next year will mark 20 years since the publication of the two landmark Jones et al papers that launched the dataset that underpins IPCC Global Warming as we now know it. For over 200 years Earth has been recovering from the Little Ice Age (LIA) and the associated solar minimums so of course warming has taken place. Our position in continuing to draw attention to the appalling deficiencies in the Jones et al methodologies can be expressed simply by in effect saying the following to the IPCC and their cohorts. You are proposing huge changes to the World economic system, surely the onus is on you to measure global temperature trends using data that does not include many hundreds of temperature records contaminated by local urban heat islands.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
What is forgotten is that the Hadley Centre was set up by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to specifically find scientific data to justify closing the English coal mines in order to thwart and defeat the coal miner’s union.
Having being set up and funded, the Hadley centre then, like any government institution, completed its assigned task then had to find another issue to deal with. The rest is history.
The problem with science nowadays is the existence of too many scientists, all competing for scarce research funds, with the net result that bad science is being done. While labelled as scientists, most are technicians, highly skilled, but not scientists per se.
And Warwick still has been unable to get the Hadley Centre temperature data – which raises the awkward situation that perhaps the temperature data do not support the global anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. There is no other reason for its retention by the Hadley centre.
Well if we assume the Hadley Centre work is invalidated (that’s “if”) we still have worldwide glacial retreat, a melting Artic, a warming troposphere now from satellites and this URL from NOAA
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/trends.html
And before you all jump – I’m saying “these issues indicate a warming in the last 100 years” .. that’s all (for now)
My colleagues inform me that David Parker’s paper in Nature (p 290 Vol 432 2004) dispatchs Hughes. I agree. Hughes of course could attempt to publish his findings instead of posting on the Web and see how he goes.
Phil, I almost get the impression you feel threatened by the web. It can be quite subversive. I mean Nature probably wouldn’t publish Warwick Hughes, but his site does make for some good reading … if you enjoy an alternative perspective. Nature, in contrast, endorses people like Jared Diamond who publish some absolute trash see, http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=443 and http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000813.html .
Read Parker- Hughes is gone !
We’re not talking about Diamond – we’re talking climate.
And if Nature wouldn’t publish him – maybe he could try Science or J Climate or Geophysical Letters or ….
I’m all for choice. Some people love the web and the ability to comment and see comments from others.
Why don’t you post some of Parker’s comment here so we can see what he doesn’t like about Hughes – and comment.
And I guess if Nature got it wrong about Diamond they would have got it right about Hughes.
Phil,
obviously you are not a scientist and have no experience with peer review or the hurdles placed in front of potential authors.
As for the grid-cell method of computing station temperature measurement means, it is simply wrong. Physically and theoretically.
Well Jen – Parker says “Controversy has persisted (1,2) over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. Urban heat islands occur mainly at night and are reduced in windy conditions(3). Here we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development”
Plus the area of near equatorial regions in which sea surface tmperatures have exceeded 30C, 30.5 C and 31C has increased similarly to temperature. Well 15x the levels between 1950 and 1980 (approx). (Smith & Reynolds 2004)
Louis – well as a erudite fellow scientist you could help him publish …
So perhaps Warwick Hughes can list his peer reviewed publications.
Jen – I’d suggest that “old evidence based approach to environmentalism” has taken a bit of a beating on the climate posts of this blog.
Evidence from pers comm Web mates is cool. Journal publications rate zero.
Anyway – on what basis (evidence) do you believe in climate change. You have stated you believe in climate change but not anthropogenic induced global warming from CO2, CH4, NOx etc (if I read you correctly).
1. So Parker went to the trouble of commenting in Nature about Hughes? Hughes who only publishes on the web.
2. The bottom line Phil is we are talking about different mediums – websites and peer reviewed journals are not equivalent.
And if you hold blogs and websites in such contempt why do you bother with them? Why not just read the peer reviewed stuff?
I would like this blog to be a place where alternative perspectives are given an opportunity to be read and discussed – on their own merit – without authors having to justify why it wasn’t submitted for publication in Nature. There is lots of opportunity for the more mainstream at other sites – and in journals.
I am interested in evidence and different ideas -as well as what is peer reviewed.
PS My understanding of climate change comes from a variety of sources.
1. I did postgraduate course work some years ago with a focus on evolutionary theory.
2. I have done a bit of insect and plant taxonomy – including describing about 26 new species of gall midge in about 5 new genera. If you dabble in taxonomy you tend to dabble in ‘evolution’ of which climate change is an acknowledged driver, so you get interested in what has driven speciation events etcetera.
3. I like reading papers in Science and other journals on sediment and ice core work -that gives a different perspective on theories of climate change.
Jen on (1) – no – Hughes is not the only one who has raised the objection – he’s not that famous (yet).
So you are interested in evidence and new ideas simultaneously (even if the new ideas are not evidence and are totally wrong). Or is it a just an astroturf political position ?
So on your climate change background – very good. Now re your source of information – your point (3) – tell me why you would choose to select some of that information and not others… on what basis do you discriminate the science ?
Phil,
1. Why don’t you just explain what exactly you think is wrong with the stuff Warwick has published at his website. By posting a link to it here doesn’t necessarily mean I endorse it. You have said that others don’t like Hughes – well explain why. I am interested in why –
2. And yes, I am intersted in both ideas and evidence. An hypothesis begins as an idea – then you test it.
Jen – his proposition that the CRU data are contaiminated with heat island effects doens’t stand up to scrutiny. Boom boom. See my precis of Parker above.
Now don’t come all innocent on us – the title is totally provocative. The political position is clear. You could have titles it “Hughes refutes CRU data integrity” but you chose a big swipe. That’s political. That’s IPA astroturfing ….
And that’s cool – I can dig it – but you might anticipate some scuds in return if you wing it like that ! (with respect of course – after all this is a scholarly debate)
Phil,
I don’t treat this blog as a place for the best science – I wouldn’t pretend to be able to complete with Nature.
I treat this blog as a place to ‘dump’ bits of information and links that are of interest to me – and maybe to others.
It is potentially a place for discussion – not a place to pull rank on the basis of the marks you got at school or the number of peer reviewed publications you have to your name. There are other places where people can do that.
So you are arguing that there is no heat effect – or just in that bit of data?
I haven’t followed the ‘heat island effect’ debate.
That the urban warming has not introduced signficant biases into estimates of recent global warming. The reality and magnitude of global-scale warming is supported by the near-equality of temperature trends on windy nights with trends based on all data. David Parker Nov. 2004. (Hadley Centre!)
Also the oceans have warmed at the same time as per my previous quote above. No urban heat islands in the oceans.
Some discussion on the issue of heat islands here:
Call me gullible, but I find it hard to believe that this effect has not been accounted for long ago.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43#more-43
Gidday Jennifer,
Recently I asked David Parker for his Australasian station list thinking I would take a look at some station data, as I do. When the list arrived it looked very rural compared to the data set of Jones which generates the “global warming” (GW) we are talking about. The largest Australian towns were Darwin, Gladstone, Kalgoorlie, Mildura, all I think at airports.
DE Parker commented, “The stations are mostly from the GCOS Surface network which favours
rural stations (without totally excluding urban ones).”
I think this weakens DEP’s conclusions, where he says in his last para, “This analysis demonstrates that urban warming has not introduced significant biases into estimates of recent global warming.”
Do you get the point Phil ?
The Jones et al data set that gives birth to GW is vastly more urban than this.
See a page I have just posted with 1986 Jones et al Australian stations compared to Parker’s much more rural list.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/wind.htm
I do not think David Parker dispatchs Hughes. Or anything else. Hughes is not gone ! Hughes is here.
Parker’s paper seems to me like a very clever attempt to influence people around the GW debate who do not know very much about the data.
And Phil. If your colleagues have anything to say about my work they can always put up a post themselves.
And unrelated to this reply, I am that busy on this 20 year review I will only be replying to people using their real names.
We also have Peterson, T.C., Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found, Journal of Climate, 16, 2941-2959, 2003.
Quality Australian work by Nicholls has shown that Australian temperatures have increased from 1910 slightly more than the global mean.
And we have a variety of other indicators – satellites, ocean temperatures, glaciers etc.
And if there are a percentage of stations in error – how many? what effect will it have on the mean outcome. I suggest you have not shown whether your alleged anomalies are numerous enough to make a difference. I see a number perhaps but not 1,000s…
Warwick – if you think you have a solid case I urge you to publish it ina reputable journal – you obviously have writing and analytical skills – so I encourage you to test them against peer review. Leaving them on lonely web pages won’t change the world or change policy. If you are correct the findings are very significant.
I will comment on one point only and that is the “[2] Tasman Institute 1991 review of the Australian component of temperature records used in the 1986 Jones et al Southern Hemisphere paper, (ref at top of page.)”. The conclusion that Australian temperature trends have no upwards trend is very wrong. For those interested in the facts have a look at http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi
The “impressive” “GRAPH 1” is a predictable outcome of using data which is flawed (being contaminated by station changes, and more importantly instrumentation changes particularly around 1900).
Gidday Jennifer,
Glad that my 20 year anniversary project to review Jones et al 1986 is attracting some interest.
A few replies to questions raised.
A list of my published papers has been on my site for years, go to my “Global Warming” page.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/
Scroll down left to Green Page Links, (some of your readers could learn much there), down bottom of list to References.
The 1996 Hughes & Balling South African paper by discovering rural and minor town trends kills the notion that the UHI “..effect has.. been accounted for long ago.” in Jones / IPCC compilations of global trends which use all the big cities.
Like Joshua worked out, getting a paper out will not bring down the walls of Jericho.
Nobody is calling anyone gullible but persistent and pervasive lies have been progagated about this issue for 19 years now.
As an example of statements that seem to embody wishful thinking while straining to convey the impression that “All the (UHI) contamination has been removed.”, read;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/pressclub.htm
an analysis of Dr John Zillman’s replies at a Press Club lunch. (JZ former BoM Chief)
One day it would be great to have people in a Royal Commission type environment, answering under oath, questioned by experts. I dream on.
Peterson’s GHCN is NOT quoted by the IPCC as the GW Bible as Jones trends are, so it is not main target. But the GHCN is riddled with errors too, I specify some of them at.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/quality.htm
scroll down to “Errant Warming Trends in Rural USSR Stations”
I could do more of these but only have so many hours in the day.
Phil, you mention “Quality Australian work by Nicholls” I thought it was Torok and Nicholls but whoever.
At; http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/bomadj.htm
I give two examples, one from Newcastle region and one from Mt Gambier – W coastal Vic, demonstrating how T & N’s “stroked & tweaked” adjustments lead to ridiculous non-climatic results when compared to neighbours.
I could do more of these but only have so many hours in the day.
With respect to my central criticism of Jones et al Phil, I am correct, the findings are very significant.
Lastly for now, my venerable long lost Tasman Institute graphics. Many rural and small town stations are in broad agreement that the late 19C was ~ as warm as the late 20C. I know you all HATE it but that is what the data show. When I encountered the BoM in 1991 there was this myth hovering around, a bit ill defined, as myths often are, that pre 1907 data could not be trusted because the Stevenson screen was not used.
Looking at the temp data I could not find evidence of this. I examined some 19C station diaries but there are v few refs to screen changes. I researched 19C conference proceedings where the colonial observatory chiefs were discussing standardising thermometer exposures and it seemed crystal clear that the only common sense interpretation was that the Stevenson screen was in use at important (reference) stations from the 1880’s.
One big myth shot down but the BoM did not agree. I filed the research, did other things.
Then Parker’s paper on screen changes globally came out in 1994 and what he said re Australia left an opening for a “Comment”. Hence my 1995 “Comment” which only saw light of day because luckily my draft was not sent to Lonsdale St for review. Certain death there.
So, I think my research gives me insights into the reliability of those 19C records. The BoM has had 15 years at least to publish a “corrected” version of an Australian trend back to say 1880 but has never done so. Just sits there, dog in the manger ignoring the data.
Last Autumn the BoM made big publicity about the warmth yet many of the old records back into the 19C show those months were often warmer than in 2005.
You can see why the BoM do not want these data promulgated.
The link you give to BoM trendmaps only gives temperature trends from 1910 and that would be the “stroked & tweaked” data.(so what’s your point re my trend back to 1880’s ?) It is the BoM’s choice to put its prestige on the line with this stuff. Some day a properly funded effort might dig into all these issues.
’nuff for now.
Warwick Hughes is a bit like a student doing an exam and refusing to get it marked and declaring that he/she got 100% because he/she knows that they answered all the questions correctly.
Even worse when the paper is actually marked and the result is a big F then he/she then declares that the marker got it wrong and proceeds to denounce the marker as being against him/her.
By not accepting peer-review Mr Hughes is by-passing the marking and checking that occurs with the scientific community. He is also by-passing the disipline and professionalism of the professional scientist. In getting a degree and a post-grad I am sure that most scientists get a passing reference to the scientific method and the ethics and standards required of a scientist. This also Mr Hughes has not bothered to aquire.
Perhaps Mr Hughes you should get the qualifications before you say the things that you do.
Here is another one.All this bleating on about peer reviewed science when there is clear evidence that the process is flawed to hell. It doesnt have the standards of truthfulness that attaches to solicitation for funds for eg, the reviewers are not required to check the validity of any calculations, the authors are not required to make their data available for others, and the authors are not legally liable in any way for what they propogate.In addition the final decision to publish, or not, is in the hands of magazine editors who no doubt have commercial targets to achieve.
Me thinks the whole process is not as pure as we are lead to believe. It is time the scientific community comes up to what is best pratcice in other domains.Then they might be more credible and believable.
Warwick
(1) write a formal and polite letter to the Bureau – if they don’t answer you have a point!
(2) publish for heavens sake and get your colleagues to help if needed – otherwise your findings won’t get a hearing ! I suggest you have many supporters at this blog.
(3) you need to say what % of stations are contaminated and what effect this has on the mean – this is a maths job. Without that analysis it’s just a collection of whinges on a few faulty stations with an unknown impact. And your personal affront at the fact these stations have been “mis-reported – mis-analysed” doesn’t get the analyses done and the paper written.
(4) As it appears some new work – Nicholls and Collins paper in process of publication – referred to in the recent issue of Engineers Australia from the rebuttal of Kininmonth, Fox and Evans July 2005 article.
Phill,
I wasn’t going to bother to respond to your tedious nonsense because I have seen your reluctance to look at actual data.
In the interests of other readers however I submit “Melbourne as an Urban Heat Island” at http://mclean.ch/climate/Melbourne_UHI.htm.
Melbourne is not part of the “reference network” of Australian stations which the Bureau of Meteorology uses to determine Australian averages.
Unfortunately Laverton, to Melbourne’s south-west, is and it is now starting to be surrounded by housing and its environment bears little relationship to what was there from 1900-2002 (roughly speaking).
Will the BoM recalculate Australia’s average for the last 95 years omitting Laverton, will they simply drop it from the list in future without revising the past data, or will they continue to use it? I do wonder what ipact this change will make!
In the bigger picture, let’s not be too precise about what a UHI is. To my mind it should encompass any change to the local environment which impacts the recordings. A tree grows and the wind recordings will change, a farmer ploughs a nearby field and the change in surface winds may alter temperature. Paint a nearby wall and the recordings will probably change. Build a wall or a fence and redirect the wind and the recordings will be different.
There’s more …
-Dutch researchers have found a UHI effect about 35km from the nearest city so let’s not be hasty about assuming that it is only a metropolitan characteristics.
-Researchers at Barrow, Alaska have found a strong UHI effect.
– less than 50 years ago even metropolitan dwellers didn’t have central heating and the heat outputs that this produces.
You dismiss UHI at your own peril.
cheers
John
The principal method of computing the global mean temperature is to average the various stations within a grid cell.
Apart from the crass error of using an intensive variable as the basis of a quantitative calculation, this method also commits the error of mixing pears and apples statistically.
This method of computing the global mean temperature is categorically incompetent – it is impossible to determine anything from the method – so we really have no idea whether the earth’s atmosphere is cooling or warming. And of course no one factors in the enormous source of energy that is the solid earth itself.
The very existence of volcanic eruptions proves that the earth is receiving enormous amounts of energy to cause mantle partial melting – but from where?
John – tell us how you get on with your stats with your old high school teacher when you submit your work.
And this the epitomy of your illogicality – on the one hand you are saying the world’s climate network is useless. Then the next minute you are arguing trends on 3 numbers…. you should be saying we know nothing about anything then …
How many cherries does a cherry picker pluck.
So OK – we’ve now logically dismissed the world’s climate network – everyone – that’s it – you can all go home. So do you guys actually believe in anything then ? Why the heck would you believe in Little Ice Ages and Medieval Warmings etc then – on what basis … a report of Viking in Greenland or someone skating on the Thames. Sounds flakey to me…. given your stringent logic.
Ok – what’s wrong with the MSU, ocean temps and glaciers then ? and no cherry picking now !
Malcolm Hill – “Here is another one.All this bleating on about peer reviewed science when there is clear evidence that the process is flawed to hell.”
Yes we should be able to publish anything we want – who needs checking anyway? What evidence exists that the process is flawed – can’t get your crackpot theory published because of a minor detail like the science is flawed????
The urban heat island effect has been allowed for in the analysis of the temperature data.
Have a look at this link.
http://www.lehigh.edu/~wes1/co2/co2.html
These are just the papers published in Science. Do you think that one of these teams of scientists would have tumbled the UHI effect if it was significant or are they just a bunch of losers that don’t know science the way you do?
Loius – where is your paper that describes the flaws in the computing of the global mean temperatures – how did it go at Science or Nature????
BTW I am still waiting for the thermocouple data that you promised quantifying the heat flow from the Earth – whats that! – you are not a functioning scientist that can set thermocouples – no I must be hearing wrong!!!!
Ender – our contrarians are hopeless. I haven’t seen anything remotely scary yet. It’s getting quite boring really. And they’re yelling at us too. I can sense it …
For some strange reason I’m humming the chicken dance song. Must be the thought of plucking cherries.
And notice we still have not one alternative hypothesis to explain what we’re observing in the last 100 years (well those of us with any data left – as we now have tossed out the global temperature record).
Bored bored bored….
It really is worth a listen
http://www.realbeer.com/edu/chickendance.php
hehehehe …
Phill – I might respond if I knew what on earth you are prattling on about.
The only thing I can comment on is the Greenland temperatures that you try to imply a figment of a Viking’s imagination. Not so at all. I look at the data from the GISP2 ice cores in Greenland for my comments on temperatures there.
Of course if you want to ignore or refute that data it’s up to you but don’t come wailing to us that other data shows something that you want us to accept unless you can provide first hand proof that the GISP2 data is seriously flawed.
Ender – I can post a couple of articles here that Science refused to publish on the grounds that the information was on the Internet and common knowledge when in fact neither paper had been published on the Internet or anywhere else. What were they about? Refuting historian Oreskes’s claim decmber 2004 article that she couldn’t find any published papers that disagreed with the consensus view on global warming.
Sources that I trust tell me that “Science” is being very selective about what it publishes and rejects anything that disputes that line that “Science” pushes. This not only rejects valid criticisms and alternative hypotheses but it also encourages writers to include comments supportive of AGW theory.
Your link to Lehigh University of Pennsylvania was fascinating. It is always wonderful to see how much people can show pretension of knowledge by referring to the work of others without actually looking at the data for themselves. (I can’t speak for Louis – much as I might like to – but I know that Warwick and myself use fundamental data whenever possible.)
John
Oh you can’t trust those GISP2 ice cores. They’re notoriously inaccurate. Little bubbles in ice – I mean really – what rubbish … and if you realised that the montonic ratios of the dominant isotopes were in reverse equilibrium you won’t quote them
And some of that ice core stuff is published in Science too so it must be wrong. I’ve going to cancel my subscription tomorrow.
Whoa – almost missed it – no John you don’t use fundamental data – you use CRU data which your mate Hughes says is wrong. Are you trying to have us on ?
John – Of course I use other people’s work because I am not a scientist. I would not insult the professionals who have paid their dues, done the hard yards and achieved qualifications and claim be anything other than an interested pundit. What is your excuse???
Warwick and yourself are nothing more than people who could not be bothered to study yet claim vast scientific knowledge with absolutely no basis for that claim.
I am sick to death of people like you refuting peer reviewed work with absolute crap like you do. I am so sick of it that I am abandoning the polite banter that I normally use and going on the attack as you have seen in the last few posts of mine.
If you can’t get stuff published then how about you and Warwick go to Uni for 3 or 6 years, get a degree in science, then do a couple of years postgrad work then have another go. In the process you might find out how vaccuous your ‘ideas’ are. Instead, of course, it is the evil AGW machine supressing the ideas of brave amatuers trying to set the record straight – what a crok.
In short PUT UP OR SHUT UP!!!!!!!
Hey Ender
are you now running this blog? – news to me (OK OK, I know I’m no intellectual), maybe you are just releasing your frustration at the low participation on your own blog.
Is that why you are adverse to the “free market”?
Ender
Your comments are increasingly abusive, defamatory and off-topic. The idea is to discuss the evidence and ideas, not shoot the messengers.
rog – no I write my own blog for my own amusement and to learn – if someone reads it then that is a bonus.
Jennifer – I apologise as yes my comments are getting worse – I will go and have a cup of tea and a lie down and see if I can regain my normal composure.
Ender,
Although it has drifted way off topic I will respond to your comment about peer-review studies and the obviously high regard that you have for them.
Unlike you, I provide some links to explore (although they may be to the same article)
From last weeks summary of what was in “Science” journal.
—————————
PEER REVIEW: Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published (p. 1974)
—-David Grimm
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS–According to three studies presented here last week at the Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication,
either suggesting or excluding reviewers can significantly increase a manuscript’s chances of being accepted.
Full story at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5743/1974?etoc
—————-
or what appears to be a summary
PEER REVIEW: Suggesting or Excluding Reviewers Can Help Get Your Paper Published
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/309/5743/1974?etoc
p. 1974
—————–
This dovetails pretty well with a report from 9 September….
PHYSICS: Journal Plans Faster Thumbs-Down for Rejected Papers (p. 1660)
—Adrian Cho
Last month, the editors of the leading physics journal, Physical Review Letters, announced that they will increase the fraction of submitted papers they reject without peer review from between 10% and 15% to between 20% and 25%.
Full story at
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5741/1660b?etoc
—————–
I wonder how many other people realise that telling the editors what reviewers you want (or don’t want) for your peer-review can influence publication of your paper.
Also, as far as at least one journal is concerned rejection is nothing to do with peer review but on the whim of the editors.
Peer-review and fair play? Gimme a break !
John
John – so what would you subsititute instead of peer-review??
Also why is it really only anti AGW people that are whingeing about it. I don’t hear many string theorists complaining or comsmologists etc
Ender,
1. For my part I am suggesting that it is high time the prescious peer review process was reviewed, and brought up to date with more modern practices.
2. Perhaps some peers from other disciplines would be able to suggest some fairly obvious improvements, given the magnitude of the public funds that are consumed.A reference to the Auditer General would be one suggestion.
3. Does the domain of string theorists and cosmologists have an aggregate budget of some $4bn, as is the case in the USA.?
4. The sites referenced by John above are but a sample of concerns being expressed around the place. The Barton House Committee review in the USA would be another example.
Malcom,
I’m not really sure what you mean be being brought up to date with more modern practices? The best journals in the world have the best experts in their respective fields as reviewers of the papers that they publish. With any journal worth referencing you do not get to select your reviewers and you do not get notified of who they are.
Journals are international and are not controlled by any government regulation. A journal’s continued existance is entirely based on the quality of the paper’s it publishes – if it starts printing low quality, ‘untruthful’ papers than the experts in the field reference it less and less, it’s impact factor diminishes and libraries and experts will be less likely to purchase it and it will die. Journals only exist for as long as they are relevant to the science that is being conducted today – the most successful journals are those that publish the highest quality, most relevant papers.
Governments have increasing tied funding levels to the amount of work published (number of papers) and the quality of those papers (by, say, looking at the ‘impact factor’ of the journal in which the papers were published, and how often a paper is cited by other experts in the field).
Your alternative sounds like all researchers should submit their papers to some government body who then must review the papers then judge how revelant the papers are. But how would the government review and judge these papers? Would they have their own experts in each relevant field of research? How would these reviewers be selected? How many government officals would be able to review a paper titled ‘Potentiodynamic evaluation of sol-gel coatings with inorganic inhibitors’ and know if it’s relevant or not? Do you think your average senator would?
Peer reviewed journals has evolved into the best way that the world’s scientists can communicate what is at the fore front of science with each other and the outside world. If you start to restrict or divert this process because you don’t politically like the what the scientists are publishing and saying then you will restrict the development of science and we all be the worse off for it.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2116244/#ContinueArticle
SimonC. For the last four years or so I have been following the debate about AGW because it interested me. I have done a lot of reading to try & keep track of both the alarmist& sceptic positions. (and yes I do have adequate quals even if they are dated,plus I have a life time of doing “things”).Also it is serious issue involving very large sums of public money in many countries, and as everyone knows where there is big bikkies, then other agendas appear.
What raised my eye brows was the number of times complaints about the peer review process kept appearing.I have recently started to keep a diary of these and so far the most common complaints are:
1. Decision to publish is ultimately in the hands of the journal owner and his commercial imperatives.This will vary between journals and within a journal over time.ie the journal publisher biases what is published, not public good
2.Standards of truthfulness vary.ie the auther can bias the result by deceptive means.
3.Authors are not liable in any way for any deliberate mischief created, as in 2 above.
4. The nature and mix of the reviewers selected may precondition the outcome.
5. Reviewers are not required to do any detailed checking of any enumeration
6. Authers can make up their own minds as to whether they make their data available for others,particularly for publically funded research.ie lets keep it hidden.
I appears that the process can be manipulated at each stage, whether in the hands of the originating auther, or the reviewers being carefully selected to achieve an outcome,or the publisher making a business decision irrespective of the value of the science. etc
There are recent examples of each of these in the press and blogs etc. Plus I have two life experiences of researchers providing wrong advice,where the advice given had more to do with advancing the researchers interests, not the objective matter in hand.
Most of all I recently came across the above referenced article with its own links.
SimonC. I am not making any suggestions for any particular approach,just trying to define the problem.
Read the article which is dated April 05.It supports my contention,that all is not well with the prescious peer review, that various posters bang on about as though it was absolutely the perfect system, because it aint, and by a long shot.
Malcolm Hill – Its a wonder if any science gets done at all with these problems. Hope the vaccines are OK. Climate science is but a very small part of the overall science effort and while 4 billion sounds like a lot many more trillions are spent worldwide on business, government and military research.
Is it only Climate Science that has these problems or is it that people with money have problems with the conclusions reached by climate scientists?
Ender,
You said “I am sick to death of people like you refuting peer reviewed work with absolute crap like you do. … PUT UP or SHUT UP.”
Okay, I’ve put up. And your response is to ask what would I put in its place.
Are you now accepting that the peer-reviewed process is flawed?
Or do you believe that it isn’t flawed, in which case you would be refuting these articles, at least one of which appears in a peer-reviewed publication?
If this second option is the case then I want to see some evidence to support the reasons for your refutation lest your claims be regarded as “absolute crap” (to use your own words).
When you’ve provided a satisfactory response to this posting I will consider your question about an alternative.
Malcolm – regards your very valid comments, there’s something else you should be aware of.
The peer-review process is essentially not for the author of the paper but for the journal. Journal editors are rarely skilled enough to determine quality from rubbish. (It’s difficult enough in a journal dealing with a single field so imagine the problems of the general publications such as “Science” and “Nature”.)
The solution to the problem was to send the manuscript to learned people in the field and have them determine the quality of the paper. It almost goes without saying that egos have got in the way and quality papers been discarded because the “experts” reviewing them found that the work challenged their own standing and credibility.
I suspect this has filtered back to the journals themselves now and editors are making decisions based on a combination of threat to credibility, threat to readership, threat to advertising revenues and in some cases the threat to the stockprice of their company.
In the various circumstances that I’ve mentioned in this post and my previous post it is not surprising to find “peer review” being disparagingly labels as “mates review” !
kind regards
John
Dear Jennifer,
I have just put up a new web page adding to my 20th Anniversary review of Jones et al 1986a&b.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/shinv.htm
This lists the ~300 Southern Hemisphere stations used by Jones et al 1986b each with a population from the GHCN. Now people can see for themselves the proportion of urban warming affected stations in IPCC GW trends. Never before been seen on the www.
This page relates to point 1 of Wigley & Jones 9 points where they claim Wood 1988 was in “Error” in his critique. On the page,
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/wood.htm
I have started commenting on these 9 points of W & J. People can also read my scanned pages of both Wood 1998 and the W & J reply.
Riveting. It is not hard to understand how all this was finessed past Science and poilicymakers 15 years ago.
All for now.
Warwick Hughes
Warwick Hughes – Except of of course these studies that have investigated the UHI and found it not to be what you say – do these appear on your website?
http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v432/n7015/abs/432290a_fs.html
“Controversy has persisted over the influence of urban warming on reported large-scale surface-air temperature trends. Urban heat islands occur mainly at night and are reduced in windy conditions. Here we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development.”
and
Peterson, T.C., Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found, Journal of Climate, 16, 2941-2959, 2003.
“Assessment of urban versus rural in situ surface temperatures in the contiguous United States: No difference found” published in the Journal of Climate finds that the effects of the urban heat island may have been overstated and that “Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures.”
Perhaps you should put these 2 studies up as well.
This is where you can find a better explanation of the UHI and where I got the data from:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=43#more-43
John – your experiences do not constitute proof that the peer review process is flawed at all. Really it is doing what it is supposed to do – weed out unfit work. The vast majority of science, of which climate science is only a small part, gets done using this process yet on the whole it is only Climate Change Skeptics that think that it does not work.
Scientists are human and are subject to human foibles of petty rivalry and stupidity like any other humans. The process of science as it has grown up over the years is not human. Scientists like all professionals have professional integrity. Without this the whole process would fail as would the medical profession and law enforcment. All of these professions depend on 99% of the people in them having integrity. I am an IT professional and could steal a large amount of information as I am in a postion of trust. I never have and never will because I am basically honest. The insinuation that scientists deliberatly alter results to suit themselves is a gross insult to the vast majority of honest hard working scientists that would sooner cut of their arms than falsify results. It is like saying that all cops are on the take. There are bad apples like any profession however to think that all scientists just make up results in really wide of the mark.
BTW I cannot see anything that would indicate that the whole process is flawed. Journals are only a small part of the whole science publishing.
Ender,
My experiences have nothing to do with it!
Are you trying to say that the peer review process isn’t flawed when a peer-reviewed article says that it is?
WILL YOU PLEASE ANSWER MY ORIGINAL QUESTIONS!
You comment “The vast majority of science, of which climate science is only a small part, gets done using this process yet on the whole it is only Climate Change Skeptics that think that it does not work” is just risible.
I refer you to the August 2005 edition of “PLoS Medicine”, a PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL, in which we find “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” by John P. A. Ioannidis.
You can read the whole article at http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 so I’ll just include the opening summary here…
“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.”
In the body of the above article we find two statements that very clearly apply to papers about Global Warming.
“Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true.”
“Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.”
You believe in the peer-review process for its integrity and you also say “The insinuation that scientists deliberatly alter results to suit themselves is a gross insult to the vast majority of honest hard working scientists that would sooner cut of[f] their arms than falsify results.”
The above article appears in a peer-reviewed journal and it says that MOST PUBLISHED RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE, so don’t blame me or try to put words into my mouth!
When you’ve finished explaining how you deal with the first contradiction (ie. that peer-reviewed journals say that the peer-review process is flawed and yet you, a believer in peer-review says it isn’t), can you please explain how you deal with the second contradiction (ie. that a peer-reviewed journal says that most published research findings are false and yet you claim them to be accurate).
I look forward to your clarifications.
John
Dear Jennifer,
Peer Review
I see various posts exploring viewpoints on peer review.
Let me just draw your attention to some data that passed peer review, in a paper by a list of authors that is a veritable “who’s who’s” of the prestigious climate orgs in orbit with the IPCC.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/easterling.htm
Easterling et al 1997 present a global diagram of colour coded grid cell anomalies with 3 panels. One each for max temp, min temp and temperature range (DTR) or max minus min.
Just work your way through my examples demonstrating the lack of logic in many of their grid cells. Remember as you check that the labels for the 3 global map panels are in the BOTTOM LEFT of each panel.
What scrutiny by authors is taking place here ?
What peer review ?
Best wishes,
Warwick Hughes
Gidday Ender,
If you read the posts above you will see I have already shown (27 Sep) how the conclusion by Parker on the absence of the UHI after comparing windy vs calm data is seriously flawed by using a station list that is much more rural than data sets used to generate GW.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/wind.htm
lists the station list of Jones 1986 for Australia alongside the station list Parker sent me.
I have read Peterson’s paper and I will email him to see if I can get his station names and data.
Have a look at my post on Peer Review where I show a shambles of mistakes in a 1997 paper in Science.
However I would like to remind readers of the subject matter of this thread.
An IPCC Cornerstone, 20 Years Old
The 20th anniversary of Jones et al 1986 seems a good time to assemble all available reviews of these IPCC cornerstones that slipped under the radar of science.
I have just posted: http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/
Can somone defend Jones use of ~120 (40%) SH city stations ? See the list with populations (albeit out of date) at;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/cru86/shinv.htm
Now do we see the extent of lies told on this subject for over 15 years.
All for now.
WSH
Warwick – pls progress us – don’t bombard us – enlighten us – do one analysis and report back – how many stations total are flawed and what difference does it make to the warming graph if you do the analysis without them. Is it important to the conclusion or not ?
You see we have other evidence such as MSU satellite data, most glaciers and warmed oceans which says something is happening with warming – so now you are saying that the fundamental data that ironically started it all does match these and is corrupt/mis-selected.
I implore you not to leave us all in suspense- what difference does it make if x% are wrong ? Please do the analysis.
One swallow does not make a summer – do you have enough swallows !! You could also replicate Parker with your data set.
And if Warwick does not get published with his findings he has totally wasted his time. It will not influence policy by being buried in some web site. It will be seen as a lone wolf howling at the moon.
And on John on peer review – yes on reflection you are right – so lets leave scientific decisions to the mob as peer review is totally flawed. So out with all the paleo science too – that’s all wrong as well. Ice cores, sediments, fossils – all wrong too. If it’s been in a journal you cannot trust it. John has exposed a massive hoax. Somebody should tell a House Committe or something.
So it’s all been fun knowing you – I’m off to a and exorcism this morning and a witch burning with friends after dinner.
Warwick Hughes – I requested wind data from the BOM earlier this year. It cost about $60. Why don’t you do the same for the temperature data and do an analysis using statitics to show the heat island effect for Australia at least. If it is marked as you say then it should stand out by comparing daily temperatures with nightly temperatures from rural and urban stations.
But of course this is not going to happen is it?
Phill,
Can’t you post something better?
According to my information the corrected MSU satellite data reveals higher than previously but still below what the physics predicts. Various glaciers have been reported to be in retreat as eary as 1850 and others since the 1950s (and that’s only two reports I’ve seen in passing). Both those periods were pretty cold and carbon dioxide levels were about 280ppm. Warm oceans? yes, funny about that, it happens after a period of heating in the tropics and then slowly moves towards the poles.
Warwicks notion is very sound. Jones and Wigley claim RECENT significant warming (ie 1975-200) but what about the UHI effects thez were including in their data?
Sure, they claim to have allowed for it and the investigation of the effects of wind on UHI showed no material difference. Tell me, from which direction were the winds blowing for the period which was investigated and were those winds cold, cool, warm or hot, and did they bring rain which might cause cooling?
Or did the AVERAGE of the winds from all those directions produce an AVERAGE that was no different? (ie. did the wind affect some locations positively and others negatively?)
Your dummy-spit on the issue of peer-review I think says a lot. It seems that if you can’t advance an argument with data you resort to ridicule. Did you also “accidentally” bump board games that you were losing when you were a child?
Hi Ender – I’m still waiting (and maybe others are too). Where’s the answers to my questions??
John – The reference you supplied is certainly very interesting. It falls short of the mark becuase the author primarily intended it to apply to the biomedical field as his qualifications show:
“John P. A. Ioannidis is in the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, and Institute for Clinical Research and Health Policy Studies, Department of Medicine, Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America”
Now despite his obvious qualifications I do not think that he speaks and writes for physics, geology, astronomy, biology, ….. zoology that science composes. For that the study would have to be multi-disciplinary. I think to claim from one biomedical researcher writing that peer review is flawed in one discipline that all peer review in all scientific disciplines is flawed is a gigantic leap and not justified. I am sure if you emailed the author, as I am going to do, that he would be horrified that you would take this leap.
Now the biomedical field is one that there has been considerable scientific fraud as there is enormous pressure on scientists to produce results of tests that agree with major drug corporations profits. In that the quote that you mention is very accurate as good science usually goes out the window when large amounts of money are involved.
In fact this is almost exactly what is happening in the climate field. Large fossil fuel corporations are pressuring scientists, and any scientist will do, to produce conclusions that fit with continued use of fossil fuels. You are probably an unpaid part of this major effort and really you should be getting part of the gravy rather than doing it for free.
The quotes you supplied are interesting however I cannot answer your questions because the information you supplied is really more damning of your side of the equation.
Ender
1.RE your quote…”.good science goes out the window when large amounts of money are involved”. Exactly, and peer reveiw doesnt stop bad science happening, being published & adopted as gospel.
2. AGW is also awash with relatively large amounts of research money, ergo, bad science is happening in AGW.
3. Peer review as a principal is being used across many scientific disciplines.Medicine seems to have developed and surrounded it with better protocols. It is valid to learn from what others are doing. Only a fool would not do so.
4 I know this is slightly tangential but I keep recalling the way Ignaz Semmelweiss was treated by the scientific establishment in the 1850-60’s.This man proved statistically that going from a cadaver room, to room full of patients without washing ones hands was not a good idea, yet the establishment, ie his peers, gave him a rubbishing when all he was asking (via his scientifc paper presented to the Imperial and Royal Academy of Sciences in 1860), was that the poor darlings should wash their hands. They refused, and as a result thousands of women continued to die. Thankfully we have improved a little since those days.
Gidday Phil and Ender,
Perhaps you are clairvoyant because I have had ready for a few months now and have just posted at;
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/index.htm
EXACTLY the study you have asked for. Showing the rural temperature trend for Eastern Australia compared to other series promoted by the BoM and of course the Jones et al trend.
The 64 station series is an example of the sort of station data that must be used to compile global trends if they are to have any credibility.
Ender says. But of course this is not going to happen is it?
Let me assure you Ender, a lot of stuff will happen.
All for now.
WSH
Warwick – very good work – I stand corrected however I just would like to note a couple of things.
1. 64 stations? This seems like a very small number when there are in NSW alone at least 300 climate measuring sites. I see why you picked the sites that you did however there are many more small towns that this. Also hand picking sites might be construed as selecting sites that show your results. You should be able to use all the data from all of the sites with appropriate filtering.
2. You then apply this 21 site data to the whole eastern seaboard which also seems a bit of a stretch when there are rural stations such as Ballina which despite large urbanization still remains a small center or Alsonville or Batemans Bay, or Bombala. From personal experience all these places are very unlikely to have an UHI.
3. The Spencer and Christy MSU dataset you used has been updated. As you know Spencer and Christie combined 2 MSU instruments to form a 3rd virtual instrument. They have recently changed their data so you will need to redo the calculations to take account of this.
http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0426(2000)017%3C1153:MTTDCA%3E2.0.CO%3B2
How did it go when submitted for publication?
John – no dummy spit – I’m laughing – your position is illogical on peer review.
I notice no reponse on the cherry picking yet. And the 2005 temperature seems pretty warm. We’ll see eh ? Anyway don’t forget to hand in your stats assignment to see if you pass 101.
On glaciers – do some reading for heavens sake !!!! Then we’ll talk.
You may have to contradict the world body on the topic…
Warwick – what I find very strange is the temperature trend maps on the BoM’s website, alone attest to the fact that UHI have nothing to do with the warming as greatest warming has occurred in areas with the lowest population densities (the subtropical arid zones – which just so happen to be those which are predicted to warm most rapidly under global warming).
Why is that ?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/trendmaps.cgi .
See max, min and diurnal. Are the BoM’s maps wrong ?? Are you aware of the Bureau’s pain-staking efforts with checking reference stations and churning through miles of records and meta-data? So something here doesn’t add up ? Poor dear readers out there – all so confused.
Also the PLoS article is an opinion piece, an essay published without peer review. Also have you actually read the article? And understood it? If anything the article supports peer review and the act of publishing – in essence the more people working in a field, the more peer reviewed papers published then the more likey that a published finding is ‘true’.
In the area that the author is writing about, biomedical research in general and genomics in particular, he’s saying that, statistically, a single study with few replicates in the early stages of a research area where low levels of differences are measured has a lower chance of being ‘true’ than does a number of studies with many replicates in a more mature area of research. Also this article is a statistical exploration of the issue isn’t a real world analysis of published papers. He does not analyse any other field of research (outside of biomedical research)and with good reason – a number of the problems and the designs of the experiments discussed do not exist outside of biomedical research – they can not be applied to other areas such as liquid crystals and climate studies or the thousand other areas of scientific endevour.
Malcom – on point 3 – the PLoS article is specifically related to medical research so are you going to review your ‘Medicine seems to have developed and surrounded it with better protocols’ statement? Or do you believe that the current system that modern medicine is on the right track?
There have been over 100000 papers published on climate change over the last 20 years – the body of scientific evidence supports that human induced climate change is real and is happening now – this isn’t just Mann et al’s paper but thousands of others as well – do you really think that they are all wrong? Global conspiracy?
And your example in 4 is very well chosen because he wasn’t rejected at the ‘peer review’ stage ie he was published wasn’t he? It was the people who ignored his published findings that caused the deaths of thousands – your example shows what happens when people ignore peer-reviewed published work.
SimonC. Semmelweiss wasnt “published” in the modern sense.I believe that it was public pressure that saw him being invited to give a paper to the Imperial Academy of Sciences. He refused, and a friend presented the lecture for him, but got it wrong. Semmelweiss was persuaded to redo the lecture a year or so later. At every stage he was resisted by his peers, so some 10 eyars later he wrote a book and from then on it was slow going to persuade people he was correct.
So I think it is drawing along bow to say it was an example of what happens when “peer reviewed” material is not listened to.
My point regarding the poor dears couldnt even be bothered to wash their hands to test his theory for themselves goes to show how hide bound we can be in protecting an established view,particularly amongst so called peers.
Sorry, I’ve been busy elsewhere for a few days.
Phil,
Please explain why my position is illogical on peer-review and why you continue to believe its integrity-
I’m aspecially interested when we’ve been told in a peer-reviewed journal that publication is influenced by those who do or don’t review an article and in another that the editors, not the peer reviewers, will reject more articles in future.
As David Henderson put it in Evidence Submitted to the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic
Affairs, “Building in peer-review is no safeguard against dubious assumptions, arguments and conclusions if the peers are all drawn from the same restricted professional milieu.” Sounds entirely reasonable to me.
Phill, would you like to explain – and show evidence to support your explanation – that this is not the case?
Ender, regards the article from John P. A. Ioannidis you say “… I do not think that he speaks s and writes for physics, geology, astronomy, biology, ….. zoology that science composes”, pray, give us the benefit of your wisdom and explain why YOU THINK this doesn’t apply to science fields.
To me the point Ioannidis is indirectly making is that peer-review does not work and that distortions and outrights lies do get published as peer reviewed papers.
Back to my original question which you are finding it so difficult to answer – Are you trying to say that the peer review process isn’t flawed when a peer-reviewed article says that it is?
(Or perhaps I should change that and say that THREE peer-reviewed artcles indicate that the process is flawed!)
John
John – can’t you see it – you are quoting a peer reviewed journal as an argument. But you’re arguing aginst peer review. Except the peer reviewed papers you like. You just cherry pick evidence as you see it. Don’t bother quoting Ioannidis if you don’t believe in peer review.
And why quote the House of Lords Committee – unelected politicians – come on ? What rot would you expect … I reject your bunch of politicians (by your own rules not mine).
As I said – you have adopted anarchy as an argument given you have dispensed with peer review. So we now have you and your mates to believe with cherry picked arguments and nonsense.
Now – how’s the maths assignment ? Get your 1988 to 2004 “trend” marked as a statistically signficant trend by any maths teacher lately !
Anyway refer you to the more recent Crichton II thread – David says it all …
Phill,
It’s you who has to explain you position, not me.
You claim that peer-reviews are reliable and I am presenting peer-reviewed articles that question that position. Now either you accept them because they are peer-reviewed or you don’t accept then, and if it is the latter then you are showing that you reject peer-reviewed articles.
What of the earlier two articles? You’ve been very silent on them.
Are you willfully misinterpreting what I’ve said or is this your normal tactic when under pressure?
1. I did NOT quote the House of Lords Committee; I quoted a relevant part of David Henderson’s submission to it.
2. I have NOT “adopted anarchy as an argument given that [I] have dispensed with peer review”. I’ve said nothing at all about anarchy. This seems more of your attitude that I must propose an alternative for everything on which we disagree. There is no “must” about it!
3. What are you talking about with your “1988-2004” comment? I can see nothing in this thread that mentions it apart from your posting. Are you waffling again or just trying to deflect from the issue of peer-review?
4. David says stuff-all in that thread on Crichton. He’s got a bunch of waffle that reminds me of you and Ender in his first post and in his second he’s piously hopeful in one statement and I think deliberately distorting the issue in the other. Knowing that David I am not surprised.
Now about these peer-reviewed papers that contradict the perception of the peer-review process. Do you accept them or are they wrong?
And stop dodging the issue or I will repeat the question whenever I see a postng from you.
John
Phill,
I had a thought … just maybe your 1988 to 2004 was supposed to be 1980 to 2004, the period that I mentioned in a letter to The Age.
Yep, 25 years with no discernible warming in Victoria and Australia’s temperatures pretty much unchanged except for some very clear natural events (eg. El Nino).
Was I declaring this a trend? No! (Do you misinterpret statements all the time or only when you disagree with the comments?)
I was making the point that the often-heard claim that warming is increasing – or sometimes “dramaticly increasing” is simply not true according to meteorological observations.
If there’s no warming then you can’t argue that humans are causing warming, can you?
John – I’m sorry Ender and I have gotten it so wrong. We obviously have no clue and misunderstood your position.
Pleae give is a very succinct summary of the what you see in the last century or so with temperature – land/ocean, rainfall trends, El Nino/La Nina, glaciers, MSU data, hurricane/typhoon/cyclone intensities , arctic & Antartic melt (or otherwise). Drivers of current climate.
Just a brief summary for the readers. We have obviously misunderstood your position and need to be educated. Ender and I obviously have failed to grasp the broad scope of what you’re saying. Obviously we have totally misinterpreted the data and information.
At this point we’re lost. Pls educate us.
1988 was typo should have been 1998.
1998-2004 … referred previous discussion another thread