The Climate Skeptic Wars!!!! Part 1000!!!!!

 

The goobers!!!  Such drama!!! 

For those who haven’t been keeping up, there’s a roil in skeptic land.  It’s fascinating, but, only in how things seem to keep playing out in the world of skeptics.

Apparently, some of our skeptical friends decided to start their own science journal.  But, it wasn’t a general climate journal, but, rather very specific, Pattern Recognition in Physics.  I didn’t know.  At any rate, they released a special edition which called into question the current climate science, presenting their own unique view.  Many of the names involved, veteran skeptics will know …..

Sid Ali Ouadfeul: chief editor (but not listed on the cover?)
Nils-Axel Mörner: editor, author of 2, and reviewer of (x) papers.
Roger Tattersall: editor, author of 3
J. E. Solheim: editor, author of 3, and ?
H. Jelbring: author of 2, reviewer.
N. Scarfetta: author of 2 and ?
I. Charvátová: author and ?
P. Hejda: author and ?
I. R. G. Wilson: author
R. C. Wilson: author
R. J. Salvador, suthor

Author list of the conclusion, not counted in the above list.
N.-A. Mörner, R. Tattersall, J.-E. Solheim, I. Charvatova, N. Scafetta, H. Jelbring, I. R. Wilson, R. Salvador, R. C. Willson, P. Hejda, W. Soon, V. M. Velasco Herrera, O. Humlum, D. Archibald, H. Yndestad, D. Easterbrook, J. Casey, G. Gregori, and G. Henriksson

From what I can see, this is an impressive group of people.  Apparently, someone read their work product and had fits.  Copernicus Publications, the publisher simply ended publishing the journal.  Originally, they stated that it was because of the skeptical view of climate science, but, then later that added another rationalization, afterwards.  First reason …..

Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).

Second reason ……

“In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our  publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.”

Now, it should be known that Copernicus Publications publishes other journals, as well. 

This has turned awful nasty.  Names are being called, people’s personal conduct called into question, and all sorts of nastiness. 

The fact is that, yes, these guys did much of what many skeptics are critical about what the alarmists do.  They edited, reviewed, and published each others work …. to an extent.  I don’t think all of it was, but, enough of it to call it “pal-review”. 

Wailing, crying, and gnashing of the teeth have ensued.  Skeptics vs skeptics.  You can read Anthony’s highly critical post here.  Jo Nova has a couple of posts up, the most recent here.  Roger, the fellow most of us know as Tallbloke, is in the center of the tempest, post here.  He encourages all to come and read the science, which can be found here.

From what I can gather, some skeptics see this as an act of betrayal, or something.  They’re mad because TB and others engaged in pal-review.  And, now there’s some alarmists crowing about that and painting us all with the same brush.  (This being way different than what they did prior to this roil …. amirite?)  As I explained at WUWT, skeptics aren’t the same.  Many are skeptical for many different reasons.  TB doesn’t reflect on me anymore than I reflect upon him.  I can understand, and have a bit of disappoint.  I wish things were done a bit differently.  But, to the extreme Anthony has gone to, is beyond appropriate.  In a reply to Dr. Scafetta, he had this to say, my bold ….

REPLY: Unfortunately, like Roger Tattersall, I see you have no shame, and won’t apologize for having a hand in creating this mess.

What?  Who, exactly, should Scafetta and Roger apologize to?  Certainly not me.  They’re their own men and do as the wish.  Does Anthony believe these people have aggrieved him in some way?  What have they done to any of us in which some one thinks their owed an apology?  Did they somehow tarnish the institution of peer/pal review?  In climate science the addition of the words “peer-reviewed” holds absolutely no meaning.  We’ve seen countless papers which couldn’t stand up to even the slightest of scrutiny which were “peer-reviewed”.  It’s a useless moniker.  Now, the Pattern Recognition fellows probably didn’t help it any, but, what was lost, exactly? 

Did any of this change the fact that there’s been an extended pause in the temp record?  Did this change the above the anomaly ice extent?  The lack of correlation with hurricanes, droughts, floods, tornadoes, snow extent, and sea level rise?  Nope.  In fact, I’m overdue in demonstrating the lack of correlation (with atmospheric CO2) and wildfires. 

Again, this doesn’t and would not have changed anything.  Do we think for one second that if the reviewers had been to all’s satisfaction that anyone would change their mind about climate science?  There’s absolutely zero chance of that happening.  I can just see it now …. Mikey Mann reverses course!!!!!  He says he’s now seen the light!!!  After reading a peer-reviewed article in pattern recognition, he’s changed his mind!!!!  Or Hansen, or Schmidt, or Turney, or ….. it’s a ridiculous notion. 

Again, I wish they’d gone about things a bit differently.  But, then, I wish the response was different by some people.  Neither reflect on me.  And, yes, the lunatics will still call us deniers, just like they did before. 

For those newer to the climate wars, don’t worry, this has happened before.  Yes, it’s ugly when skeptics turn on each other, but, it seems to have a good long term effect.  When Steve started Real Science, it wasn’t exactly happyland in the skeptic community.  But, now look.  Steve runs a very popular and successful blog, more skeptics more better! 

This happens from time to time because of the diverse and independent nature of skeptics.  We’re not all the same, and divisions will crop up from time to time.  There’s more to say, but, I’ve droned on too long already.