Response here. The jist is that Steve McIntyre (the one referred to by Olowski in the OP) is making his allegations regarding flawed data without evidence himsself and that the critique itself has severe statistical problems in terms of data selection.
Ah, well, as the smart money follows alternative energy sources, eventually all the hot air will be contained in the Red Room anyway...
There are always people who never let science get in the way of policy-making, and this is no different. The scarier aspect of it is that the subject has taken on a practically religious zeal with a disturbingly large number of people, and I can't help but be reminded in some ways of the McCarthy era.
Wait, the graphs you posted all show that we have higher temperatures today than before, even when you factor in the variances. Or am I not reading those right...
You're reading it wrong. The new black line is definitely lower than a millennia ago, which fits in with what we historically know about the aptly named Medieval Warm Period.
Anytime someone refuses to release data to support something they are studying they should be ignored until they release the data. There is zero reason to hide data from a "scientific" study.
So, does anyone have objections to the use of "peer review" in other fields of science? Because that's how things are done. Every academic journal works off of peer review. I think that many people would agree that this is like democracy, a very flawed system, but better than every other system.
Bull. You think that drug makers aren't motivated to fuck up reviews? Or medical device makers? Or archaeologists? When there's money and power involved, people will always have an interest in tampering with the data. Always, and even supposedly "benign" fields like archeology can have large impacts, since they can be used to justify territorial claims in wars.
Drug makers are, yes.....but there are lots of different fields that wouldn't be AS motivated to fuck it up. Is there money involved with fucking up a climate change report? Or is it just political crap?
There is much more money available for those willing to deny that burning fossil fuels causes a problem. That lobby is far bigger.
Name one. Remember, the results of a study can help determine future grant awards. There's both, the same with any field. There's also money to be made sensationalizing the results of any study, since seizing on one line and harping on it, even if that particular line is contradicted by everything else in the study, can sell newspapers, magazines, and boost ratings.
Peer review in most technical science subjects is a notoriously questionable process. Eventually the mistakes get weeded out, even if it takes years. This is not news.
Government grants and funding from private organizations, political favors, and the ability to get hired in an environment that stigmatizes going against the political consensus. Plus as much as everyone demonizes the oil industry, companies are still able to cash in on government contracts for building things for the "green" initiative, such as wind generators.
I've always been quite suspicious that "peer review" was the wonderfully noble system that it's often portrayed as in any case. Everyone has an agenda. It's the flaw of human nature. that doesn't mean I'm against peer review - I just don't take it for the argument ender some folks do.
It's a tool, nothing more and, as you say, as flawed as the people wielding it. At best it serves as the narrow end of the funnel - providing feedback to the researcher who may have gotten too close to the work to be objective, and weeding out outliers.
