GC

Phil Clarke, you are very keen to accuse people of fraud.

Please stop making stuff up, there's a good chap.

My, my"polluting the literature" . What a hostage to fortune regarding all the statistical nonsense paraded as consensus climate science.
Just who is justified to prevent a paper from being published? A tiny clique willing to abuse the peer review system? The proper place to attack bad science (if indeed that's what it was) is in the public forum.

The proper place to attack bad science (if indeed that's what it was) is in the public forum.

Which is exactly what happened vis a vis Soon & Baliunas. A response was published in the literature:-

On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth

which pointed out the flaws in S&B, who in turn published a comment. This is how science progresses; however the Editor who published the flawed paper admitted in his resignation letter that

The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked ... the methodological basis for such a conclusion (that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium) was simply not given

Half the editorial board resigned alongside him. The process eventually worked as it is meant to however with hindsight a lot of time could have been saved if the flaws in the paper had been identified and the paper rejected at the review stage.

Details in the link I gave above or here

PC. Simply because the clique didn't get their way that time. So what are you complaining about - according to you and your ilk you had a target to attack. On the sceptical side we have a surfeit of riches - a veritable cornucopia of publications where "a lot of time could have been saved if the flaws in the paper[s] had been identified and the paper[s] rejected at the review stage. The latest abomination by Gergis et al (2016) being but a recent example.

So, write up the reasons why Gergis is an 'abomination' and submit a comment to the journal.

Phil Clarke are you just trying to be the best or worst liar on behalf of the Green Party/Blob? As the public and political classes are now seeing through the lack of science, you are a great asset for impartial readers of this blog.

Phil Clarke 11:23, if Climate Science is unable to correct it's own mistakes, it is not a science, and should be excluded from taxpayer funding. You make the case very well.

The words are damning
Within, without, of context.
Conscience of climate.
===============

It would be cheaper for taxpayers to fund astrologists to pronounce on climate matters, probably more accurate and honest too.

It's amusing to me how much work was put into creating a hockey stick for the Southern Hemisphere and still the effort was a failure. It gets downright hilarious to understand that there's not one for the Northern Hemisphere either, and omigod the effort to create them there. Not so much a conspiracy, Entropic Man, as a Madness of the Climate Crowd.
=========================

The climate ignores damnation
It its own context
and tis with a BIG voice it speaks.

Heh, gc, astrologists would have a more objective outlook than the carnival barkers now touting climate science.
==================

The poor are savaged,
Lashed with fear, dogs set upon.
Barkers flog alarm.
============

PC is sharing a very nice demonstration of motivated reasoning.

Heh, the S&B fiasco was a wonderful example. Look at the radical, vicious, response to the suggestion that Nature might be involved in the recent warming. Truly illustrative. Thanks, Phil, for the reminder, of the 'Cause' perverting cause.
============

Animadversions
Touch-ed a nerve?Sure seems so.
All Sound and Fury.

Haiku - the sound of
One hand clapping in the -
No-echo chamber.

The climate-rich are advantaged
Scourging the many who express doubt.
Bankers flog anything not tied down.

Look at the radical, vicious, response to the suggestion that Nature might be involved in the recent warming

There was nothing radical or vicious; it was a sober scientific paper that methodically and accurately exposed S&B as using a flawed methodology, misusing data from previous studies. Garbage that should never have made it into the corpus.

Sound and fury matter,
Nerves a jangling also
When idiots stutter

Are you going to argue that the 20th Century was a 'uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium'. You've been hypnotized by the Piltdown Mann's Crook't Stick. And it's the shaft that gives the shaft to honest inquiry and better understanding.

We're in a declining Holocene, with the peaks of the recent optima gradually declining. If we do manage to push the temperature above the recent peaks, which is not shown yet, then we will have done a good thing.

You're never going to get it, Phil Barke, but future generations will understand the benefit of our mild warming; present generations enjoy, but do not yet understand, the miracle of anthropogenic greening.
=====================

Are you going to deny that half an editorial board falling on their swords for allowing a flawed paper into their journal is just a tad unusual?

Heh, yes it's unusual, and bad method, right answer is bad science. They weren't sacrificed for failing to find the bad method, but for publishing the right answer.
==================

Are you going to deny that half an editorial board falling on their swords for allowing a flawed paper into their journal is just a tad unusual?

Sep 6, 2016 at 1:14 PM | Phil Clarke

I hadn't heard that about Gergis, when is the formal retraction? Or should I check her horoscope for a more accurate timescale?

If Climate Science can't self correct, it isn't a Science.

They weren't sacrificed for failing to find the bad method, but for publishing the right answer.

Remarkable. You seem to know better than Otto Kline, the publisher, who states that the conclusions of the study cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.

And yet I get accused of 'revisionism'

Heh.

http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf

This is the nemesis that will trip the alarmists. There is greater natural variability in the past than can be admitted by the alarmists, and there has been a deliberate campaign to suppress this variability in the public consciousness.

It's terribly hybritic to think that natural variability has now ceased.

But carry on, Phil, gaily tripping along.
==================