Lewandowsky and Cook's papers on Skeptics

[IanC]

Matthew- you read the science.

What is your take on this? The latest meme is to state that the IPCC range is ' consistent with' Lewis's range while ignoring the mean and mode. Do you think that a transcient value of 1.8 give the same forecast as 1.3, 25 or 50 years down the road? Are you concerned that the IPCC seems to agree that sensitivity is lower than they thought yet their predictions remain unchanged?

 

[Abraham3]

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5 C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6C (medium confidence). The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the AR4,but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing (TS TFE 6, Figure 1; Box 12.2)

AR5, Summary for Policymakers

 

[IanC]

The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multi-century time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. Equilibrium climate sensitivity is likely in the range 1.5C to 4.5 C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6C (medium confidence). The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2C in the AR4,but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing (TS TFE 6, Figure 1; Box 12.2)

AR5, Summary for Policymakers

so you are finally changing from 2- 4.5? good to hear.

Table 1: Evolution of equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates in the
last 35 years and the range for transient climate response since 2001
ECS ECS TCR
Range Best estimate Range
(
◦C) (◦C) (◦C)
Charney Report 1979 1.5–4.5 3.0
NAS Report 1983 1.5–4.5 3.0
Villach Conference 1985 1.5–4.5 3.0
IPCC First Assessment 1990 1.5–4.5 2.5
IPCC Second Assessment 1995 1.5–4.5 2.5
IPCC Third Assessment 2001 1.5–4.5 None given 1.1–3.1a
IPCC Fourth Assessment 2007 2.0–4.5 3.0 1.0–3.0
IPCC Fifth Assessment 2013 1.5–4.5 None given 1.0–2.5
a
Range based on models only

sorry that the formatting doesnt carry over from the pdf(http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Oversensitive-How-The-IPCC-hid-the-Good-News-on-Global-Warming.pdf)

35 years down the road and our understanding is less clear than before. maybe we should spend even more on computer models.

 

[flacaltenn]

And the past 100 years of OBSERVATION says it's closer to 1.4 or so...

That is --- if you believe in the fiction of single Global time-invariant climate sensitivity..

 

[Abraham3]

And the past 100 years of OBSERVATION says it's closer to 1.4 or so...

Have the degreed, actively researching authors of the hundreds of peer reviewed papers on which AR5 and its predecessors are based used some DIFFERENT observations than yo have available to you?

That is --- if you believe in the fiction of single Global time-invariant climate sensitivity..

And how would you respond when asked "what is going to happen if don't act?" and "How much will global temperature rise?". I don't even think the politicians are stupid enough to ask "what will the weather in my hometown be like in fifty years?"

I'm curious when the rest of you're classmates are going to accept that it's > 0.

 

[IanC]

It is a real shame that more people dont know the background of so many of these 97% consensus papers, and skeptics are either lying or crazy papers.

Lewandowsky, like Gleick, probably fancies himself a hero of the Cause. But ironically, Lewandowsky’s paper will stand only as a landmark of junk science – fake results from faked responses.

Mann rose to prominence by supposedly being able to detect “faint” signals using “advanced” statistical methods. Lewandowsky has taken this to a new level: using lew-statistics, lew-scientists can deduce properties of population with no members. Josh summarizes the zen of lew-statistics as follows:

Lots of blogs helping John Cook out here, especially Lucia and Brandon over at The Blackboard where Brandon has just discovered that the survey of 12,000 papers, is, in fact, not a survey of 12,000 papers but a selection of papers based on John’s own idea of which should be chosen. Wow.

not about Lew and Cook but it is too funny to pass up

So.....Lewandowsky's second paper, Recursive Fury, gets retracted but with soft wording. The SkS-types spin this into a conspiracy that deniers have forced the journal to fold by threat of litigation and get lots of publicity. The UWA still refuses to release the metadata and thumbs its nose at skeptics and their call to follow both university and scientific rules. SOP so far but the journal gets pissed off that they are being played for a stooge and now denies any outside pressure but has simply retracted the paper for shoddy and unethical work. Hahahahaha

 

[Abraham3]

A long list of scientists and surveyors have measured the level of scientific consensus behind AGW and ALL have found it overwhelming. That you can rummage up some character assassination on a few individuals does not refute the finding of them all. AGW is accepted science. Period.

 

[westwall]

A long list of scientists and surveyors have measured the level of scientific consensus behind AGW and ALL have found it overwhelming. That you can rummage up some character assassination on a few individuals does not refute the finding of them all. AGW is accepted science. Period.

This paper, which I must say I am everything but unsurprised, that you all have COMPLETELY ignored, this "peer reviewed paper" which INSTITUTIONALISES LYING so long as you are doing it to push the AGW agenda.

That is the level to which AGW "theory" has sunk. It is now focused on lying and codifying how to lie.


Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.




Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements

 

[Abraham3]

"News media and some environmental organizations" are not equivalent to the world's climate scientists. We are discussing the informed opinions of active climate scientists, not the public or their governments.

 

[westwall]

"News media and some environmental organizations" are not equivalent to the world's climate scientists. We are discussing the informed opinions of active climate scientists, not the public or their governments.

True, but they are tasked with disseminating the information, or lack thereof in the case of the scientists, so they are reduced to lying about what is being reported. They are the first line of propaganda after all.

You still haven't addressed the study. Funny that....or not...

 

[Abraham3]

The peer reviewed journals aren't lying. You've just relied on that point for your premise.

 

[IanC]

The peer reviewed journals aren't lying. You've just relied on that point for your premise.

it's not that peer reviewed journals are lying, it is that the journals have different standards for papers depending on whether they are deemed to agree or disagree with CAGW. a pro-CAGW paper gets far less scrutiny and passes peer review with more obvious errors than a skeptical paper. editors get forced out for publishing skeptical papers even if they have been thoroughly vetted yet nothing happens when garbage pro-AGW papers slip through only to be immediately demolished. the concerns raised by the Climategate emails were true then and only slightly less true today.

eg. Steig's Antarctica paper was published in Nature, with a front cover showing how Antarctica was burning up. the skeptics showed that his methodology was wrong immediately yet they couldnt even get a letter pointing out the flaws published in the journal. so they wrote a full paper, which went through revision after revision, for changes insisted upon by the reviewers, turning it into an alternate 'improvement' on Steig's paper. once published, Steig attacked it for the very changes that were demanded by the reviewers, one reviewer in particular. would you care to guess the identity of that reviewer? yes, indeed, it was Steig himself. slimy personal politics are front and center in the climate science field whether you are able to admit it or not. and that is one of the main reasons why the public is turning its back to AGW and especially CAGW.

 

[westwall]

The peer reviewed journals aren't lying. You've just relied on that point for your premise.

it's not that peer reviewed journals are lying, it is that the journals have different standards for papers depending on whether they are deemed to agree or disagree with CAGW. a pro-CAGW paper gets far less scrutiny and passes peer review with more obvious errors than a skeptical paper. editors get forced out for publishing skeptical papers even if they have been thoroughly vetted yet nothing happens when garbage pro-AGW papers slip through only to be immediately demolished. the concerns raised by the Climategate emails were true then and only slightly less true today.

eg. Steig's Antarctica paper was published in Nature, with a front cover showing how Antarctica was burning up. the skeptics showed that his methodology was wrong immediately yet they couldnt even get a letter pointing out the flaws published in the journal. so they wrote a full paper, which went through revision after revision, for changes insisted upon by the reviewers, turning it into an alternate 'improvement' on Steig's paper. once published, Steig attacked it for the very changes that were demanded by the reviewers, one reviewer in particular. would you care to guess the identity of that reviewer? yes, indeed, it was Steig himself. slimy personal politics are front and center in the climate science field whether you are able to admit it or not. and that is one of the main reasons why the public is turning its back to AGW and especially CAGW.

Indeed. The Steig escapade exposed the corrupt peer review process in its entirety. No one of integrity takes them seriously anymore.

 

[IanC]

A long list of scientists and surveyors have measured the level of scientific consensus behind AGW and ALL have found it overwhelming. That you can rummage up some character assassination on a few individuals does not refute the finding of them all. AGW is accepted science. Period.

claims of character assassination sounds pretty strange coming from you and your side because that is one of your main weapons!

back to Lewandowsky-

Recursive Fury, the ideated paper that Stephan Lewandowsky, John Cook and Michael Hubble-Marriott tried to publish early last year, was of such poor quality that it was placed in the scientific limbo-land of being not withdrawn, not retracted, and not published for almost 12 months. Lewandowsky previously published an article claiming skeptics believed the Moon Landing was faked, based on only 10 anonymous internet responses gleaned from sites that hate skeptics. Recursive Fury made out that skeptics who objected this previous paper were barking-mad conspiracy theorists with nefarious intent.

Finally, a week ago, the journal issued a strange but brief official retraction notice. Bizarrely, despite the ignominious failure, Lewandowsky and many others played the victim card, fanning the idea that legal threats had stopped them from publishing a paper that was otherwise academically and ethically fine. The howls of faux-outrage grew, as usual, over-played to the point where they became self-defeating.

Now Frontiers, the journal, already suffering from being associated with such dubious work, has finally had to set the record straight and defend their reputation. They had not caved in to bullying, or legal threats from the evil denier machine. Actually there were no threats at all, and the complaints they received from skeptics “were well argued and cogent”. (See below).

Furthermore the journal admitted it had taken a whole year to retract the paper because Frontiers asked Lewandowsky et al to resubmit, and they did, only to fail a second time to produce a paper worth publishing.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/04/journal-admits-lewandowsky-paper-retracted-because-it-failed-twice/#more-34643 for links to many aspects of this travesty (which is still hosted at the Univ of Western Australia)

 

[Abraham3]

Ian, have you got anything better than cartoons?

And, while you're at it, any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results?

I note that neither Lewandowsky's nor Cook's names appear in this list. Do you perhaps have a more cogent response? Any of you?

 

[IanC]

Ian, have you got anything better than cartoons?

And, while you're at it, any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results?

I note that neither Lewandowsky's nor Cook's names appear in this list. Do you perhaps have a more cogent response? Any of you?

Dude!!!!!

I cooperated with you to discuss your list and all I got out of it was to be given a '72' on your scale of denialism, whatever that means!

I am talking about Lewandowsky because that is what is in the climate news recently. Lew and Cook were given a face saving way to quietly deep six their atrocity of a paper but instead they turned it into conspiracy of 'well funded deniers' making threats, so the journal slapped them in the head by pointing out that they had not been threatened and that they retracted the paper because it was trash and ethically unsound.

 

[mamooth]

This is how the grownups now respond to McIntyre's ongoing harassment campaigns. And yes, that response did cause McIntyre and his acolytes to spin up into even crazier conspiracies, thus proving further the point of the paper. Thanks to all the noise McIntyre made, ten times as many people saw the paper, and hence the conspiracy kookiness of the denialists has become even more well-known to the world at large.
---
Dear Mr McIntyre,

I refer to your series of emails to University officers including Professor Maybery and myself (which you have copied to other recipients including the Australian Research Council) in which you request access to Professor Lewandowsky’s data.

I am aware that you have made inflammatory statements on your weblog “Climate Audit” under the heading “Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into “Hoax”” including attacks on the character and professionalism of University staff. It is apparent that your antagonism towards Professor Lewandowsky’s research is so unbalanced that there is no useful purpose to be served in corresponding with you further. I regard your continued correspondence to be vexatious and there will be no further response to your requests for data.

Yours faithfully,
Professor Paul Johnson,
Vice-Chancellor
---

 

[westwall]

This is how the grownups now respond to McIntyre's ongoing harassment campaigns. And yes, that response did cause McIntyre and his acolytes to spin up into even crazier conspiracies, thus proving further the point of the paper. Thanks to all the noise McIntyre made, ten times as many people saw the paper, and hence the conspiracy kookiness of the denialists has become even more well-known to the world at large.
---
Dear Mr McIntyre,

I refer to your series of emails to University officers including Professor Maybery and myself (which you have copied to other recipients including the Australian Research Council) in which you request access to Professor Lewandowsky’s data.

I am aware that you have made inflammatory statements on your weblog “Climate Audit” under the heading “Lewandowsky Ghost-wrote Conclusions of UWA Ethics Investigation into “Hoax”” including attacks on the character and professionalism of University staff. It is apparent that your antagonism towards Professor Lewandowsky’s research is so unbalanced that there is no useful purpose to be served in corresponding with you further. I regard your continued correspondence to be vexatious and there will be no further response to your requests for data.

Yours faithfully,
Professor Paul Johnson,
Vice-Chancellor
---

Notice how the CAGW pushers have abandoned the scientific method? Nothing more need be said.

 

[mamooth]

I noticed the deniers used legal threats to attempt to censor some of the scientific method they didn't like, and you endorse the tactic.

And again, only WUWT and ClimateAudit groupies use the term "CAGW". It instantly marks the speaker as a cultist, so people should avoid using it if they want to be taken seriously. Remember, you're not on those boards now, so you don't need to prove your loyalty to the cult by using the term.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ian, have you got anything better than cartoons?

And, while you're at it, any comments on the work of:

Dennis Bray
Hans von Storch
T. R. Stewart
J. L. Mumpower,
P. Reagan-Cirincione
Naomi Oreskes
Harris Interactive
Peter Doran
Maggie Kendall Zimmerman
Bill Anderegg
James Prall
Jacob Harold
Harold Schneider
Stephen Farnsworth
Robert Lichter
Lianne Lefsrud
Renate Meyer
Dana Nuccitelli
Sarah A Green
Mark Richardson
Bärbel Winkler
Rob Painting
Robert Way
Peter Jacobs
Andrew Skuce or
Gallup Polling

all of whom came up with the same results?

"Aren't we forgetting someone?"