41 Replies to “What Would We Do Without Peer Review?”

  1. I am going to do something unusual by going off-topic and talking about … peer review. It is a form of group-think where like-minded people come together and promote their similar views while rejecting opposing views, some of which could be ground-breaking. Peer reviewers don’t put much effort into reviewing papers they agree with. This is why “errors” such as the dust bowl being seen (incorrectly) as a local anomaly and not significant over the longer term could survive from paper to paper, or how a graph can show one thing (no warming) and the text of the paper another (significant recent warming).

    Peer review is the intellectual equivalent of gate-keeping.

    1. Peer reviewers don’t put much effort into reviewing papers they agree with.

      They put in even less for papers they don’t agree with and hardly anything for papers, however legitimate, they don’t understand

      Peer review is the intellectual equivalent of gate-keeping.

      Not just that. The number of papers, particularly those which are peer-reviewed, determine whether one gets funding and, if so, how much. That same number of papers will determine whether one gets a seat at the golden hog trough, made possible by that notorious job-for-life institution known as tenure. That same number of peer-reviewed papers will also determine whether one is promoted inside the academic pecking order and, along with that, the size of one’s paycheque.

      What it also does is discourage creativity and originality. Publications can be rejected if one is too original and the reviewers don’t understand what’s presented. The result is that many researchers take the easy, and lazy, way out, publish on topics which are considered safe and easily understood and, by doing so, stay on the gravy train.

  2. Somewhat related…

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/shoreline-erosion-laek-erie-1.5384007

    A nice lady is losing her home to the waves of Lake Erie due to climate change. That’s the story. But the following is confusing…

    “O’Brien lives on Erie Shore Drive, a stretch of road near Chatham-Kent in southwestern Ontario that was originally built as a dike.”

    That is the only mention of the fact that she built her home on a piece of sand that was created by people to protect their homes from the water on actual land. But no, this woman’s dream has been crushed by climate change.

    1. In other tongues its called EROSION. Happens to EVERY home – cottage on any of the great or lessor lakes and along the St Lawrence as well. Building on sand is “brilliant”…Kinda like developing flood plain area’s in a town called High River.

      The Ignorant and Stupid is strong amongst far too many in our society and it always and inevitably votes SOCIALIST.

      1. In the Netherlands and the other low countries, they have actually developed floating houses. Most of the time, they sit on the ground/flood plane, but when it floods, they start to float.

        http://www.floatinghomes.ltd.uk/netherlands.html

        Seems to me you would have no problem building anywhere you wanted, if you simply planned for the inevitable.

        1. floods in the prairies tend to be instanteous and fast. not a fill up style like the netherlands . actually holland has abandoned some of their dykes , just to deep and too risky

    2. I’ve spent a fair amount of time on Long Point. It’s basically a sand bar that formed out into Lk Erie. Thousands of cottagers live there full and part time. The ‘road’ that connects the sand bar to the mainland is a couple of miles long and had about a foot of elevation in parts of it last spring.

      last week in Duluth MN (Lk Superior) 20′ waves crashed their harbour doing a lot of damage. One of these days a similar wind will whip up Lk Erie and take out the sand bar of Long Point the same way winds created it. Bet on it.

    1. Bingo OWG! And what this piece showed is that climate “scientists” appear to do a LOT of copying and pasting … from each other’s poorly researched, extremely biased political papers.

      They’re content to have let … someone else … do the science. Or not.

  3. Because climate science generally has the science ass backwards. It’s about forcing data to fit into apocalyptic scenarios. The IPCC RCP 8.5 seems have been designed to facilitate this process.

    Does climate science ever use real, historical, unadjusted data to explain how the extreme 1930s heat waves occurred or how current CO2 levels replicates the 1930s conditions? Can they successfully hindcast this in their models? That would be important before they start making predictions about the future.

    Heat waves
    A heat wave is formed when the upper atmosphere contains high pressure which makes it stationary over a region. This stationary mass of air can remain stagnant for several days and weeks, trapping more heat and reducing convection currents. As a result, there is accumulated heat and high humidity without any precipitation or rainfall. This creates the abnormally high temperatures. The high pressure forces air to sink to the surface of the land and acts as a barrier for heat to rise. This blankets the earth surface and traps all elements of weather without allowing them to escape.

  4. all you need to do to fix global warming….is make it a conservative/republican agenda

    …the left will immediately turn against it

  5. Yep … Paganism revived. Just like in the 1930’s heatwave (that’s no longer taught in our schools). Pagans barking a the moon. Barking at the earth gods. Mother Gaia. Instead of praying to the God who created it all. Yeah, “science” my ass.

  6. This thread and the previous one about power generation got me thinking about a couple previous “green” revolutions and revolutionaries but in the agricultural field. I already mentioned Mao’s disastrous Great Leap Forward in agriculture. Here’s two notable agricultural scientists to compare and contrast:

    Norman Borlaug
    Trofim Lysenko

    All I’ll say is the scientists and theories politicians and journalists are relying on today to revolutionize “sustainable” agriculture and energy are not Norman Borlaugs.

  7. The logic of Climatology;’We have a consensus.Burn the witch”.
    Herd Beasts tend to mass hysteria.

    Though it does take some interesting mental gymnastics to be willfully ignorant of our history and weather.
    Never mind “Victim of the Week”,this is “Most Gullible of the Gullible”.
    Peer,does that mean to squint blindly from concealment?

  8. I remember the general temper of the climate since about 1960. There were some wicked winters in the late 1960s and early 1970s but last winter in northern Alberta had 4 to 6 weeks of, if not below minus 30, very close to minus 30. My fruit trees took a shit kicking. Meanwhile I’m sure the UN anounced a record hot year.

    How do the record hot years reports come about? Because tens of millions of square miles are sparsely reported and do not have an accurate historical record. Most of the world is ocean and fixed point historical records are non-existent and are likely pulled out of someone’s ass. Some single polar readings are likely extrapolated to cover ten million square miles. A one degree jiggery of current temperature makes a hell of a difference and the historical record is a pure invention.

    One time I looked at the data from a small rural northern Alberta weather station (in a farmer’s field) and the 1910s, 1930, and 1990s appeared to have a similar number of records each. Where there is a consistent historical record no warming trend appears.

    1. Changes in the last 50 years are caused by CO2 while changes magnitudes greater in human history were caused by something else? Bullshit!

    2. Unme,
      The spread of the models is all over the place. The average of the models often shown on the model spaghetti graphs has no scientific meaning. Scientific American used to be a respected magazine but lately it has only been useful for a$$wipe.

      1. I would appreciate if someone would read the paper’s M&M and give an objective critique and rebuttal. Otherwise this is just more WUWT-tier nonsense.

        1. It has been thoughrouly rebutted by the link in this post which you pretend not to have observed. Again you bring genuine 5h1t publications to the table. Sci. Amer. no longer enjoys merits status, and in fact simply lifted this article fron a leftist enviro rag.

  9. At previous COPs, the feds were very proud to brag about how many delegates they were sending to the cluster. After his first election Trudeau sent about 130 delegates. Similarly large groups were sent to subsequent meetings. Strangely, I haven’t seen a single word from the feds about how many were sent to the current COP. I am aware that the Anglican Church sent 3 delegates (really, why?). The organizers claim over 25,000 diligent participants. Anyone seen anything?

    1. “I am aware that the Anglican Church sent 3 delegates (really, why?).”

      They must have already saved all the souls. I hadn’t heard that the world is 100% Anglican. If they are spending money on political activity Canada Revenue Agency might come calling.

      1. scar

        Because churches are businesses – they have skin in the climate game.

        If there’s only 10 years left… they might want to know?

        1. Because churches are businesses

          Not really. Many mainline denominations are now far left pseudo-political organizations whose purpose is to indoctrinate the masses in the teachings of St. Marx, St. Mao, and St. Josef the Stalin, using Scripture to conveniently confirm their actions.

          1. Although I had a general knowledge that such and similar organizations exist, I was unaware of these in particular. I am not led to seek their fellowship and do not expect them to be a part of my afterlife.
            May God bless and preserve you.

  10. I wouldn’t bet against further warming or sea level rises over time frames like 20 to 150 years simply because we are still in the inter-glacial, there are no Milankovitch factors pointing to cooling any time soon, and the only card we have promising cold is the solar downturn which might work out as no more than a cancellation of human factors over 10-20 years.

    The entire debate (if we can call it that) between AGW and skeptics seems to be missing the point that natural variability is more likely to run warm than cold most of the time. Since the pause between glacial periods is longer this time than the last time, we need to go back to inter-glacials between the first and second, or second and third, of the four recent major glacial episodes. Data from these periods would not be all that reliable, coming from sediment and ice core analysis. The problem in assessing how much deglaciation to expect in this inter-glacial is that we have only a vague idea how much there was between those earlier glacial periods. But it seems like a safe bet to me that there would be considerable further melting. If the next glacial is as long as 50,000 years away, we are nowhere near the mid-point yet. And it would not take extra external (or internal to the system) heating to melt more ice, the process is already slowly increasing as recent data have shown.

    Therefore I think the debate is pointless and the real strategy should be mitigation of what is very likely coming our way, the only unknown being how many decades we have to prepare for it. A significant part of Greenland and some of Antarctica is bound to melt down at some point in the next two to five centuries. Sea levels would therefore likely rise 5 to 15 metres. It won’t happen overnight and we have a lot of time to prepare. There could be strategies to mitigate this eventuality, including redistribution of ocean water volume (creating inland storage), massive desalination removing some ocean water gradually over time into massive irrigation, and possibly other external changes to our planetary environment. I don’t see the main problem being human-caused or greenhouse gas so much as the inevitability of warm winning out over cold. This was already going on in the 20th century, the cooler trend around the late 1970s and early 1980s disguised it and fooled the scientists into thinking we had caused the sudden warming seen around 1987 to 1991 but I thiink that was probably just nature getting back to old trend lines with the cold blip removed. Since about 2015 the rate of warming has slowed down to a crawl, probably because of the solar downturn.

    My point then is that a third approach is needed, one that accepts the near-inevitability of warming and associated sea level rises, and tries to deal with that in a responsible way. Cutting down the human signal might feel to some like the best approach but it won’t change that inevitable outcome. Believing in crazy stories about impending ice ages just shows a lack of understanding of larger scale factors at play (no Milankovitch, no ice basically). We will probably face another glacial period in about 40 to 50 thousand years. By then, our descendants will very likely have developed techniques for controlling the climate. It may not even take 10 thousand years to get to that. Once we understand what drives natural variability, we’re in some position to control it. But my belief is that we know virtually nothing about it yet, so this is all science yet to be developed.

  11. ” … If they are spending money on political activity Canada Revenue Agency might come calling.”

    1. Not while it’s political activity approved of by the current government of Canada.
    2. In any case, as long as any government for any reason responds to any situation or problem by imposing any form of tax, CRA benefits from getting more work to do, more power to wield.

Navigation