Stop! Don’t let that horse through the gate!

Climate Progress had an article still quoting the 97% consensus in spite of repeated refutations and evidence of fraud in the studies.  This is interesting considering the rest of the article seems to try to play away from the consensus idea.  Perhaps they’re just confused?  Cook and Lewandowsky’s studies have been retracted and/or proven to have committed fraud, yet the study now addressed lists these two as authors, along with a few other familiar names (D. Nuccitelli, K. Hayhoe), all part of the Global Warming intimidation and bullying squad.  Later, you’ll see why this is extremely ironic.

For the study, it seems they used outliers from the skeptic side because it was easier.  This according to Climate Progress.  Interesting, using the outliers?  I guess then if skeptics are going to check out global warming scientists and their statements, boiling oceans and complete arctic ice melting would be the ideas to go with.  I’m not sure i can find a peer-reviewed paper to that effect, though it seems after reading this paper, the real scientists here are the authors of the paper and they are way smarter than any peer-review board.  How many years have global warming advocates screamed “peer-review” and now that peer-review has been shown to be problematic, they now create their own review group who is smarter and better than any magazine editor (Reminds me of Sheldon on the “Big Bang”—”My brain is better than everybody’s”).

The stated goal was “replication with a critical eye”.  Replication is NOT done with a critical eye.  It’s taking the exact same data, statistics and repeating what the researcher did to see if you get the same result.  What is describe in the paper is “peer-review by a panel of self-annointed experts”.  Replication apprear to have had a tiny part in the paper, if it was actually addressed at all.

We show how knowledge may progress through replication of 38 papers and how ignorance may be reduced for some controversies. In addition to the replication itself, the assessment of the papers should also involve an analysis of the logical reasoning. Wrong conclusions may result from incorrect logic for several reasons, here categorised from A-D: A. One may start from a correct logical premise and execute an erroneous analysis. B. One may apply a correct analysis but start from the wrong logical premise. C. One may start from the right premise, and correctly apply the analysis, but overstate the significance of the conclusions (the analysis does not actually address the question). D. One may start from wrong logical premise and apply erroneous analysis.

Again, NOT replication, but instead self-annointed peer-review.

Climate Progress says things did not go well for the contrarian papers.  Really???  Outlier theories were chosen and somehow failed the self-annointed peer-review?  If skeptics did this, it would be called CHERRY PICKING.

sign   Here’s your sign.

Funny, the article then actually accuse the skeptics of cherry picking.  I am beginning to wonder if there is any intelligence on the global warming side.  They cherry pick and then accuse skeptics of doing it.  Worse, they say it’s wrong when skeptics do this, but a-okay when global warming cherry picks.  Can’t we just bake pies with the cherries and actually address the data that was omitted and why it should or should not have been.  On ALL sides of the issue.  Because we clearly see from this paper that cherry-picking is a favorite of the global warming crowd.

sign  Here’s your sign.

The article mentions a 4000 year cycle that was the only period that the statistical analysis worked for.  I didn’t find any looks at global warming studies to see if these were also suffering from that same defect.  It was noted that global warming studies “may” be suffering from the same problems.  Seriously, shouldn’t that have been included in the paper?  IF the goal was to make science better, I’d think you’d want to give examples on both sides.  IF.

sign  Here’s your sign.

There were studies that reportedly ignored the laws of physics and some researchers included extra parameters not based on the laws of physics. The actual paper covers some of the reasons why these analyses were incorrect.  None was particularly convincing.  Keep in mind also that the outliers were chosen because these are easier to refute, so I was surprised there wasn’t more convincing refutation.  (I do have questions on some of the papers listed.  I also have questions on a large number of global warming papers.)  Again, if you cherry-pick your authors, I’m certain one can find examples of improper physics and statistics.  We already know that from global warming science.

Statistical abuse/misuse and wrong premises and conclusions seemed to be based on what is “known” in global warming. In other words, the paper failed if it disagreed with any part of the global warming meme.  One wonders how global warming statistics and premises are apparently self-evident (which makes me wonder why they bothered to do the study at all—No, I know exactly why they did the study—propaganda.  The mainstay of global warming so-called science.)

sign  Here’s your sign.

The article concludes that “reproducibility” is essential in science, irregardless of consensus (First, the authors need to learn what “reproducibility” is).  Again, this from two or three authors known to attempt to pummel people into going along with science NO MATTER WHAT.  They have called people “deniers”(but switched to “contrarian” because that so much nicer, right?), and done everything in their power to silence ALL opposition.  Forgive me if remain skeptical about motives and sincerity here.  A self-annointed peer-review panel trying to convince us they are open-minded, sincere and scientific.

Bar the gate.  That gift from the global warming advocates is a Trojan horse.


One comment on “Stop! Don’t let that horse through the gate!

  1. DMA says:

    Thank again for the good analysis.
    I saw somewhere that this paper criticized a model in one of the papers they were denigrating and their comment was something like ” if the model can’t accurately produce the past it is not fit to make projections of the future”. I had to laugh because that is what the skeptics have been saying for years and none of the IPCC’s GCMs pass the test.

Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s