It's all over but for the sweating?

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

"Climate" scientific research is done in exactly the same way as "other" scientific research. Indeed, research that is relevant to "climate" science is not only relevant to research aimed at determining how the Earth's climate works. There's not any demarcation between "climate" science and "other" science.

To a large extent I would agree with this - there are some detail issues such as "non standard" use of statistics but overall yes this is science done in the same way as other science - with the same in-fighting, sharp elbows and people pushing their own careers and positions, sometimes at the expense of others.

Into this mix we add "peer review" which turns out to be "pal review" or maybe "enemy review" in some cases and papers which are often cited turn out to be total junk - see it all here. This is not all about climate science it is about all kinds of science. And in any case "peer review" doesn't mean that any paper has been "tested" and reproduced - all it means is that reviewers have no problems with it.

But that isn't the public image shown by the IPCC and others.

In their eyes every climate scientist is a hero of humanity, bravely fighting the forces of evil (mainly "Big oil" but without any proof) through the application of pure science and knowledge - kind of like Technocracy enacted on modern civilisation.

There is no room here for doubt or uncertainy, no room or estimates or confidence levels, no room for perhaps thinking that climate science like other science has flaws or gatekeepers.

The IPCC is given a "free pass" - it can state it is 95% certain and the media repeat it without asking about how they came to that metric, or indeed asking them to justify anything really.

And at the end of the day this ends up being used to justify all kinds of policies implemented without democratic approval or policies which are approved by people who don't understand them, but which are totally impossible to meet such as the UK CCA.

And if anyone suggests maybe any of this is wrong...

[Occasionally6]

Don't confuse the IPCC reports with the research papers. The IPCC reports are intended for a wide audience, most of whom have at best basic scientific understanding. They are based on the primary scientific work but are not in themselves that scientific work.

If you think the IPCC reports don't include uncertainty you haven't read them. They do indeed include uncertainty. They also make clear they use very specific (but plausible) criteria in suggesting possible outcomes (for the scenarios they describe).

They also describe where the areas of uncertainty lie and make suggestions about where future research effort should go i.e. what questions need to be answered.

Because they are committee efforts they are very conservative, with consensus only around things that there is a lot of evidence for. It is more likely that things are worse than described in the IPCC reports than it is they are better.

No, peer review doesn't mean that a paper is necessarily accurate. It does weed out the obviously bad methods.

Peer review is conducted anonymously. Sometimes in an esoteric area it is difficult to find people who are competent to review the paper, or it is possible to guess who has contributed to a paper based on the work. As far as is possible it is done without the reviewers knowing who has contributed to the paper, with the work being assessed on its merits.

[gone-ot]

"...Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get..." [ Mark Twain ]

[freebeard]

"The difference between theory and reality is much smaller in theory than it is in reality."

Katy Levinson, Don't Fix It In Software, Defcon 19

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

No, peer review doesn't mean that a paper is necessarily accurate. It does weed out the obviously bad methods.

Peer review is conducted anonymously...

Agreed on what Peer Review actually does but that is not the public impression. The phrase "peer review" is rolled all the time to try and signify some kind of gold standard. I think we both agree that it is a requirement of science but under the surface it is more imperfect and less certain.

The Anonymous aspect of peer review is sometimes abritarily implemented - quite a bit of the climategate leaks covered this and I'm sure it extends into other science equally too.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

Don't confuse the IPCC reports with the research papers...

I don't. The IPCC doesn't do science itself it is meant to assess it and present some kind of summary.

The process it uses is flawed. Non peer reviewed material is often included even from groups like Greenpeace or WWF, student thesis etc. The scientists in charge of working groups are often reviewing their own work, and the SPM (the bit politicians are supposed to read) is written and revised by the politicians.

And yes it does include certainty levels - it is worth noting that they have changed between AR4 and AR5 resulting in some conclusions now having a level of "Very High" as opposed to just "High" previously even though the actual value being assessed hasn't changed.

The IPCC is a waste of money and time which could be better spent trying to find the missing heat allegedly hidden in the sea and/or why the models are wide of their mark instead of hand waving and showing shiny things to the public in a hope to distract them.

$tns depends on this, it needs to be correct.

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

"Climate" scientific research is done in exactly the same way as "other" scientific research. Indeed, research that is relevant to "climate" science is not only relevant to research aimed at determining how the Earth's climate works. There's not any demarcation between "climate" science and "other" science.

No not really...

For example several years ago a group thought they had created cold fusion.

They showed how they did it to all interested scientists even those who didn't believe them. In the end it was found they made a mistake, and when that mistake was found they retracted their claim.

Note: If I remember correctly there was even a bit of a scandal involved.

Now climate scientists have shown that they are not willing to share their calculations with other scientists for review, especially with those who don't agree that we are the primary cause of global warming.

Occasionally: I have a question for you...

Do you believe the sun has had any effect on the current warming, if so by how much?

[NeilBlanchard]

Hear directly from about a dozen people with PhD's or PhD candidates in climate science:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlcBtPAMOOI

[P-hack]

lol, from the IPCC who only listens to scientists who support their position.

[P-hack]

If we are going to be completely one sided with climate science degree holders, it is going to start looking like a degree in "womens studies".

[NeilBlanchard]

Who's laughing? Certainly not at tasteless jokes...

You seem to think that science is a petty club of sycophants.

It is about all of us gaining a better understanding of reality.