The Sun-Climate Effect

And I know an evasion when I see one.

As if the claim of unusual warming is not based on cherry-picked data! That's why you won't admit that your "correct" baseline is actually the coldest 500-year period in the last 10,000 years -- which you disingenuously describe as "pre-industrial" -- and that you only claim it's "correct" because it supports your anti-fossil-fuel narrative.

 

You are talking about the requirements of academic publishing, not science. Two different things.

Only to the extent that scientific publishing has standards of scholarship, like any other discipline.

There are lots of them, and they aren't.

No, the greatest rewards come from having your name on lots of important patents.

Only when large financial interests are not in play. In economics, large financial interests have always been in play, which explains why "the common understanding" did not foresee the GFC, and modern mainsream neoclassical economics is incapable of making reliably accurate predictions more complex than, "the recent trend will continue." In climatology, large financial interests in both the fossil and non-fossil energy industries are now in play, with the result that climate science no longer welcomes valid scientific reasoning.

 

I disagree, as the review required by publishing is one of the key steps in ensuring that studies have been well carried out. Plus, published material gets the response of the field of science in general.

It's that review that is key. You can't read an unreviewed study and know whether it is well executed science. You don't know if there are stats being improperly applied, such as p-hacking. You don't know if the methodology is flawed. You don't know if there are directly conflicting replications by other groups of scientists. Etc., etc., etc.

AND, you are confused about science in that scientists (such as those working in climatology) do not patent stuff. Patents are about solution mechanisms that engineers create.

In fact, patenting is contrary to science, as science is interested in the broadest collaboration and cooperation, not in preventing the dissemination of knowledge.

 

Michael Mann's hockey stick papers were peer reviewed. And they were completely bogus. Peer review means nothing.

 

You entirely missed the point.

His paper got serious attention due to that review and publication.

That was instrumental in putting the issue to bed and moving forward.

 

The issue has been put to bed? Since when?

You're still here trying to convince us of your distortions of reality and none of us are buying it for a second.

That's "put to bed"?

 

Peer review is claimed as a validation of the work. Mann’s et. al. work was completely bogus. Possibly intentionally bogus. It was adopted without question by the alarmists in the IPCC because it got rid of the pesky Medieval Warm Period which was extremely beneficial and warmer than our current warming period. The only way that the “errors” were found was through analyses of the methodology by independent researchers who were excoriated for questioning the global warming narrative.

 

Bingo!

 

The independent researchers were McIntyre and McKitrick. Read "The Hockey Stick Illusion", Montford, Revised Edition, 2015.

 

Yup. I own that book.

 

Me too....

 

Likewise. “Hiding the Decline” is another on a similar topic. When the tree rings showed declining recent temperature that was deleted and “real” temperatures were spliced in. This was not disclosed until someone noticed.

 

Of course, it is a form of quality control. But you can't inspect quality into a product, and you can't peer-review quality into a scientific paper. More importantly, you don't seem to understand that if a paper is scientifically valid, it is already valid before it is peer-reviewed, so peer review is not necessary for a paper to be valid.

Yes, publication is necessary for the public to evaluate the research. But you don't seem to understand that the research is either valid or not before anyone else evaluates it.

No it is not, as explained above.

Sure you can, if you know some science (you don't).

You do if you are scientifically informed and competent. How do you think peer reviewers evaluate papers?

No, YOU are OBJECTIVELY INCORRECT. Scientists often patent things. Climatology does not lend itself to patents, which is why status, position, contracts, etc. are more important.

I agree patents are a barrier to innovation and progress, as explained in "Against Intellectual Monopoly," by Boldrin and Levine.

 

Right. Lyin' Michael Mann chose a "proxy" that was extremely insensitive to temperature in order to erase the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. Of course, the proxy did not show any modern warming, either, so he removed the most recent proxy data from his hockey stick graph and replaced it with instrument readings. The pal reviewers who did not object to this outright fraudulent procedure disgraced both themselves and the name of science.

 

It means the paper did not stray far from the reviewers' own ideas.

 

What do YOU think are the open issues of science wrt the hockey stick paper?

 

Read the book.

 

That it's bullshit?!?

 

This question is proof you are completely clueless on how the Hockey Stick stupidity was smashed so effectively.

 

What is a valid temperature proxy for the late Holocene, and how can this be determined unambiguously?

 

The REASON it got responded to was that it was reviewed and published.

Had one of your nonscientists complained on WUWT or whatever, it probably would never have been even noticed.

 

EVERYTHING you know about ancient climate came from CLIMATOLOGISTS.

Do you really think climatologists FORGOT???

 

Haw haw haw you still have no idea what happened back in 2003 and 2005, I will repeat the statement I made:

The paper long exposed as junk.

 

Oh, brother.

You are so desperate you have to dredge THAT up!!!

And, yet your stuff comes from people who AREN'T EVEN SCIENTISTS!!!

 

YOU still have nothing while the 2005 paper was published in Nature that paper YOU never knew existed and the North and Wegman reports also says the HS paper is statically flawed which you never read.

Scientists are human beings like the rest of us who can lie or make whopping errors while you seem to see them as gods or something........