Who Are My Peers?

Climate morons keep telling me to write a “peer-reviewed” paper about my temperature findings.

Who would review it?  I’m not doing climate science, I am doing computer science.  I am examining history and faults in the processing of large data sets. That is my area of expertise.

The Internet allows review by billions of people. Go for it. Stop whining about your inability to control the dialogue. Stop hiding behind your corrupt peer-review process.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

40 Responses to Who Are My Peers?

  1. Lance says:

    Climate Gate showed us “peer reviewed”….

  2. Edmonton Al says:

    ” I am examining history and faults in the processing of large data sets. That is my area of expertise.” …… and an expert you are. Keep up the good work.

  3. Trouble with AGW climate science peer review is that the basic assumption that CO2 is a climate driver is never questioned. I think they just spell and grammar check. Maybe they also run the review by one of the science communication experts as well.

    • Lynn Clark says:

      “I think they just spell and grammar check.”

      Unless it’s a paper they don’t like. Then they “go to town” on them, like the two papers Phil Jones proudly told Michael E. Mann he’d rejected, saying, “Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully.”

      From Climategate email 1080742144.txt

      • nielszoo says:

        I think it’s spell check only. They’ve got to twist grammar in a pretty good sized knot to “explain” their way around what the real world is actually doing.

  4. << presses "like" button.

  5. We know that the processing of large data sets is not the climate scientists’ expertise.

    They’ve developed some data fudging skills, though, and they are expert grant application writers.

    Grant Application Writer: Career and Salary Facts

    • Andy DC says:

      It is easy to have a peer reviewed consensus among people who are receiving grants to parrott or promote a pretermined conclusion, that catastrophic warming is occurring and worse than we thought. That we urgently need much bigger grants for further study and mitigation.

      On the other hand, if catastrophic warming is not taking place, the grant money will shrivel and die. Could one say there is a vested interest in promoting the predetermined conclusion?

  6. Robert B says:

    Willis Eschenbach has just posted a review two papers that made it through the peer-review process. They found that greater output by small volcanoes has caused the pause. They provided no evidence for greater outputs while there is plenty to refute that there is more activity from smaller volcanoes. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/09/volcanoes-once-again-again.

    Like an essay in school, you get an A for utter drivel if it says what the teacher wants to hear. You’ll get a D if you upset the teacher regardless of how good it is.

    • stpaulchuck says:

      that IS odd in that seismologists ought to be able to pinpoint volcanism and local observers provide testimony on visual clouds of particulate matter. I know there are some sorts of air measurement studies regularly checking for aerosols and dust. All that could be put into such a study to verify the activity or not.

      But then what do I know? I don’t have a ‘climate’ degree. /snark

    • Gail Combs says:

      Connections have been found between volanoes & earthquakesand solar minimums (Not that the ClimAstrologist will tell you that.)

      Possible correlation between solar and volcanic activity in a long-term scale (Full paper)

      The Role of Explosive Volcanism During the Cool Maunder Minimum

      Sun / dust correlations and volcanic interference (includes list of other papers)

      Study of Dust in Ice Cores Shows Volcanic Eruptions Interfere with the Effect of Sunspots on Global Climate

      Possible correlation between solar and volcanic activity in a long-term scale
      Authors: Střeštik, J.

      Volcanic eruptions and solar activity


      Richard B. Stothers
      Journal of Geophysical Research (Impact Factor: 3.17). 01/1990; DOI:10.1029/

      The historical record of large volcanic eruptions from 1500 to 1980, as contained in two recent catalogs, is subjected to detailed time series analysis. Two weak, but probably statistically significant, periodicities of ~11 and ~80 years are detected. Both cycles appear to correlate with well-known cycles of solar activity; the phasing is such that the frequency of volcanic eruptions increases (decreases) slightly around the times of solar minimum (maximum). The weak quasi-biennial solar cycle is not obviously seen in the eruption data, nor are the two slow lunar tidal cycles of 8.85 and 18.6 years. Time series analysis of the volcanogenic acidities in a deep ice core from Greenland, covering the years 553-1972, reveals several very long periods ranging from ~80 to ~350 years and are similar to the very slow solar cycles previously detected in auroral and carbon 14 records. Solar flares are believed to cause changes in atmospheric circulation patterns that abruptly alter the earth’s spin. The resulting jolt probably triggers small earthquakes which may temporarily relieve some of the stress in volcanic magma chambers, thereby weakening, postponing, or even aborting imminent large eruptions. In addition, decreased atmospheric precipitation around the years of solar maximum may cause a relative deficit of phreatomagmatic eruptions at those times.

      Another good paper (in full not just abstract):

      Bipolar correlation of volcanism with millennial climate change


      Ryan C. Bay *, Nathan Bramall, and P. Buford Price


      Analyzing data from our optical dust logger, we find that volcanic ash layers from the Siple Dome (Antarctica) borehole are simultaneous (with >99% rejection of the null hypothesis) with the onset of millennium-timescale cooling recorded at Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2; Greenland). These data are the best evidence yet for a causal connection between volcanism and millennial climate change and lead to possibilities of a direct causal relationship. Evidence has been accumulating for decades that volcanic eruptions can perturb climate and possibly affect it on long timescales and that volcanism may respond to climate change. If rapid climate change can induce volcanism, this result could be further evidence of a southern-lead North–South climate asynchrony. Alternatively, a volcanic-forcing viewpoint is of particular interest because of the high correlation and relative timing of the events, and it may involve a scenario in which volcanic ash and sulfate abruptly increase the soluble iron in large surface areas of the nutrient-limited Southern Ocean, stimulate growth of phytoplankton, which enhance volcanic effects on planetary albedo and the global carbon cycle, and trigger northern millennial cooling. Large global temperature swings could be limited by feedback within the volcano–climate system.

      Although the Earth maintains a remarkably constant temperature, climate fluctuations have been identified on many timescales. On the 103-year scale, poorly understood Dansgaard–Oeschger (DO) events (1, 2), extremely rapid coolings/warmings and subsequent cold/warm periods, are best exhibited during the last glacial period [20,000–110,000 years before the present or 20–110 thousand years ago (ka)] but may extend with reduced amplitude into the Holocene (3) (the comparatively stable, warm, last ≈11 ka). Proposed causal mechanisms involve harmonics of Milankovitch (orbital) forcing, thermohaline circulation, internal ocean–atmosphere oscillations, solar forcing, and even long-period tidal resonances in the motions of the Earth and Moon. Recent work suggests that the fluctuations resemble those of a system possessing threshold instability. Rapid transitions between states are exhibited in many climate models, including those of oceanic circulation, atmospheric energy balance, and atmospheric regime change. It is becoming increasingly apparent that global climate models currently either omit some natural forcings from the simulations or underestimate the size and extent of climate response to threshold crossings, e.g., by considering the North Atlantic as the amplifier for DO oscillations and only including North Atlantic triggers in the model (4). The possibilities that rapid climate change can induce volcanic activity and, conversely, that volcanic eruptions can force millennial climate have both been suggested in the past (5). Based on evidence we have found using our optical profiles of deep boreholes in the polar ice caps, we conclude that volcanism may supply a vital missing link in millennial climate change.

      NASA: Sun’s Activity Linked to Largest Earthquakes and Volcanoes

      Sun’s Activity Linked to Largest Earthquakes and Volcanoes
      Press Release – SSRC 1-2010
      8:00 AM March 1, 2010
      Today, the Space and Science Research Center (SSRC) releases its preliminary findings of the incidence of major geophysical events including earthquakes and volcanoes tied to the Sun’s activity and climate change.
      The SSRC, the leading independent research center in the United States on the subject of the next climate change to a period of extended cold weather, has concluded a detailed comparison of solar activity with major earthquakes and volcanic activity. It has found a significant correlation exists between periods of reduced activity by the Sun, previously linked to cold climates are now identified with the most disastrous earthquakes in the United States and major volcanic eruptions around the globe.
      The research for this preliminary study was completed in September 2009. The research report was posted today on the SSRC’s web site. It establishes a strong link between what the Sun is doing and the largest natural disasters and significantly extends the potential impact on the Earth of changes in the Sun which the SSRC and others have established as the most important element of global climate change.
      According to SSRC Director, John Casey, “ The wide range and depth of research done by the SSRC and its associated scientists over the years on the Sun’s activity for determining impacts on the Earth’s climate change has produced what may be another important revelation of how the Sun may affect the Earth. Not only is the Sun the primary driver for climate change, but it may even be a significant influence in tectonic plate movement resulting in cycles of increased intensity of geological events such as earthquakes and volcanoes.
      The recent earthquakes in Haiti and Chile though not part of the original study are nonetheless in line with reduced periods of solar activity and are especially correlated to the advent of the current “solar hibernation.” These “hibernations,’ a term coined by the SSRC in 2008, are the times when the Sun reduces its level of energetic output to historically low levels, roughly every two centuries. As we know from the ample research of other solar physicists world-wide and the SSRC’s own work, solar hibernations always bring long lasting cold climate eras to the Earth.”
      Casey added, “It now appears these reduced activity periods of the Sun that bring us cold climates could bring much more. We may have found another tool for predicting the onset of greatly increased geophysical activity by following the same cycles of the Sun just as we can to predict climate change. The next hibernation has begun as a component of a repeating 206 year cycle of the Sun, the same cycle that brought us the past decades of global warming. This new research by the SSRC strongly suggests we should expect and plan on a new round of historically large US earthquakes and globally impacting volcanic eruptions that can occur at any time for the next 20 years of the current solar hibernation. I expect when the final version of this study is done we will be able to fine tune these conclusions even further.”
      The preliminary research report titled “Correlation of Solar Activity Minimums and Large Magnitude Geophysical Events,” SSRC Research Report 1-2010, is available at http://www.spaceandscience.net/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/ssrcresearchreport1-2010geophysicalevents.pdf

      • Robert B says:

        “They provided no evidence for greater outputs”. Its pretty obvious that large volcanoes will cool the surface but the claim was that the pause was caused by smaller volcanoes emitting more SO2 this century than in the last. They needed to provide evidence of this or at least more eruptions.

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    what you are doing is exactly what was needed – forensic statistical analysis of the data, not arguing about scary (incompetent) models. I too have a CS degree. I’ve often thought that a public denouement of the bent data was overdue. It does NOT take a ‘climate’ degree or any other weather related degree to unravel these charlatans. They use that to ‘Alinsky’ the opposition. David Suzuki uses it all the time.

    I’ve seen a couple good presentations from Thermodynamics mavens that support the put-down of the ‘burning Earth’ scare mongers. Apparently 3 degrees of our present global temperature is derived from CO2 at (then) 380ppm. It would have to double to 760 to add three more degrees. I’m not putting my money on that happening in the next hundred years.

  8. HankH says:

    Those who say, “get your work peer reviewed to be believable” truly don’t have an understanding of what peer review is. Finding errors in a peer reviewed study is called critique. Such critique should be submitted to the authors and / or the journal. Finding errors in datasets falls under O&M type work. Writing about one’s opinions about other people’s work is Op Ed.

    All of the above provide a valuable service to science and society but it doesn’t fall into the domain of work that needs to be peer reviewed to be credible. Anyone who claims it does is simply throwing up a smoke screen for their inability to grasp the subject at hand.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Actually it is throwing up a smoke screen to disguise how crappy their pee-reviewed science is. The biggest smoke screen was The Dog ate the data and The Goat ate the data alternate link

      Of note from Meteorological Motor Mouth

      GISS has released a good portion of their data and algorithms for analysis but their data comes via the Global Historical Climate Network [ GHCN ] and the US Historical Climate Network.[USHCN]
      What processing of the data and the algorithms used for the processing of the data from these networks before GISS gets the data and further processes the data is still a mystery here as another US organisation actually processes the data before GISS even lays eyes on it.

      Also as you can see from the above reference, GISS incorporates some HCRU data.
      The GHCN under the jurisdiction of the World Meteorological Organisation [WMO ] has “lost” a very large number of the GHCN stations even though it seems that a high proportion of these stations are still actually reporting their daily observations.
      Wellington in NZ being one such station that was “lost” for years before Anthony Watts “found” it again.

      Since the release of the GISS algorithms and data, the whole of which has been described as a mess by another researcher, it is known that the adjustments for the Urban Heat Island [ UHI ] effects are almost non existent….
      Meteorological Motor Mouth


      To Warwick Hughes
      “Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” ~ Phil Jones

      A long list of back and forth correspondence between Willis Eschenbach and the ‘Team’ at the University of East Anglia (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU) over where the data is.
      An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU

  9. The earliest and best known use of “peer” was in the Magna Carta usually explained by the establishment as a right to jury trial given to Barons that somehow these murdering thugs who took over England then gave to the peasantry.

    I strongly suspect the reality is that Jury Trial was common in England before William the Bastard (aka Al Capone type gangster) and his henchmen took over.

    And what we actually seeing in Magna Carta is the rare example of William’s henchmen finding that they have a choice as French/Norse henchmen of either going before a very hostile Jury of English commoners … or going to the king (who as the chief gangster makes up his own laws).

    And what can be more democratic than “jury trial/review by the commoners” as here … compared to the undemocratic elitist “trial only by their own kind” that academia insists upon.

  10. gymnosperm says:

    Pretty much. If you are outside of the “team”, you have no peers. Fortunately, the internet is a “jury of your peers”, as you point out, on a truly democratic scale. The team is a jury of piers.

  11. MrX says:

    Peer review is to keep out things that a journal or publication doesn’t want to see published. This is usually stuff that goes against the core interests of the editors. Some people actually think peer review is designed to check the validity of “arguments”/findings. It is not. It’s not even meant to find errors though if they see it, they will point it out, but only so that it doesn’t make their publication look bad, not for the sake of having better papers published. If they could get away with it, they’d never correct anything, and for a great deal of things, they don’t.

  12. gator69 says:

    Your peers are not found in mainstream academia.

    “Academia is a breeding house for parrots.”
    -Christopher Langan

  13. Eliza says:

    You could still be a pain in the @@@ to the AGW crowd and publish some of your work in a CS journal

  14. R. de Haan says:

    Indian Science Conference: Fears Man Made Global Warming Exaggerated: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/environment/global-warming/fears-of-man-made-global-warming-exaggerated/articleshow/45786412.cms

    Cheap oil is bankrupting green energy projects all over the world and slowly but surely people are waking up to the hoax.

  15. R. de Haan says:

    Don’t let yourself be distracted by the opposition.
    IMHO it makes no sense to publish your findings in a corrupted peer review process. It’s just a waste of time.
    This site is an incredible success and it’s only a matter of time before the general message is adopted by the public.
    You’ve become a structural pain in the ass for the establishment and the warmists.

    Keep up the great work.
    Never change a winning concept.

  16. Eric Simpson says:

    In Climate “Science,” Peer Review = Pal Review.
    It’s bullsh|t.

  17. R. de Haan says:

    Besides that you have Mother Nature on your side.
    She managed to expose Al Gore as the lying bastard he really by stalking him with cold blasts, snow and ice events wherever he went.

    The current state of the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland Ice Masses is just the cherry on the cake.

  18. DHF says:

    The data and the correlations you presents trumps tonnes of papers full with explanations. Your results must be known to those who should know. The responsible can’t be blind. If in doubt an email to the responsible in National Climatic Data Center or National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration should be sufficient.

    It might not have been the intention of the majority of climate scientist but the total result is very clear. There is near perfect linear correlation between adjustments from raw to final temperatures for USHCN and the rise of the CO2 content in the atmosphere. As you show in in several post e.g.
    “NCDC Breaks Their Own Record For Data Tampering In 2014”:
    To real scientists, that kind of correlation should be very telling. The duck test is sufficient.
    If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

    Scientific minds with any scientific integrity left should feel urged, by your brilliant little test, to stop telling how fabulous the adjustments are, and start asking critical questions themselves: How can it be, what is the hidden cause, where is the culprit?

  19. The peer review process is one of the most repressive and counterproductive aspects of western science. All it accomplishes is to certify that a paper’s author’s bright ideas haven’t offended any of the movers and shakers in his field. Any idea that isn’t mainstream automatically gets guillotined by the peer review process. The AAAS should really be called the AASS: The American Association for the Suppression of Science.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s