The Stern Review: A Dual Critique was published in an economics journal and critiques climate science. Not surprisingly, as Nexus 6 reports, peer review was grossly inadequate. The critique slams Stern for, get this, ignoring Khilyuk and Chilingar. That's the paper that compared human CO2 emissions with natural C02 emissions over the entire history of the planet and concluded that human emissions didn't matter.
Here's why Khilyuk and Chilingar is the gift that that keeps giving: their mistake is so large and so obvious that anyone who cites them either has no clue about climate science or doesn't care whether what they write is true or not. But because there are so few peer-reviewed papers that support the global warming skeptic's position, it is almost irresistible for them to cite them.
Discrediting themselves in this way we have: Robert M. Carter, C. R. de Freitas, Indur M. Goklany, David Holland and (someone who should know better), Richard S. Lindzen.
I should really stop here, but I can't resist pointing out they claim that the NRC review invalidated the hockey stick when that wasn't their conclusion at all.
Appart from the mentioned Khilyuk & Chilingar paper, just what are the other 'few peer-reviewed papers that support the global warming skeptic's position'?
Shorter Tim post:
Same ol' same ol' from some of the usual suspects.
This public service has been brought to you by Tempus Fugit, who notice time is not on the side of the denialist-industrial complex.
I do see our friend Mr Castles has got his name on the economic critique along with Mr Henderson. That is a real surprise.
As Bush regime apparatchik and RP Jr. fan club charter member Indur Goklany is the only author in common, I wonder if he was the organizer of this little side show?
BTW, anyone who doesn't know of the aforementioned Khilyuk and Chilingar will nonetheless perhaps be unsurprised to find out that they are petroleum geologists with no climate science credentials whatsoever.
Man, what is up with Lindzen? I hope he is pulling in a shitload of money from the Exxon or the coal conglomerates to make up for completely sacrificing his scientific credentials. I mean, is anybody going to take anything he publishes in a real scientific journal seriously anymore after seeing how blatantly he is willing to say things he knows are untrue outside of the refereed literature?
The general impression I have about Lindzen is that he's built up a vast load of resentment about the ignominious fate suffered by his pet "iris" hypothesis. Had he been right about it (and apparently he still thinks he is), the implications would have been huge. Folks who are into the details of this stuff may want to have a look at the abstracts of this session from the recent AGU meeting.
Speaking of Roger Pielke Jr., I just looked at the guy's list of published article. Not a single peer-reviewed piece of literature last year.
But he's being quoted every damn week in the press.
Checked out the review....and not surprised to find this little snippet on page 204.
"[T]he Review's treatment of extreme weather is questioned in Part I; some experts in the field are more severe in their criticism.(4)
The footnote is for a link to Pielke's blog, Prometheus. Why is it that all the cheerleading for Pielke comes from people who play for the Pinata Team?
Benny, Benny, that's the game Roger is playing.
Thanks for the link to Nexus's surgery on Khilyuk & Chilingar. After that I don't know how even God can beat them for the S. Fred.
Again an economics journal. If it isn't an economist spouting ignorant opinions about climatology, it's an economic journal giving the climatologically ignorant and mendacious a forum. Doesn't speak well for the field.
mndean said: "it's an economic journal giving the climatologically ignorant and mendacious a forum".
Like the Royal Society?
Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf P. Pedersen, Nigel D. Marsh,
Martin B. Enghoff, and Ulrik I. UggerhÃ¸j (2006),'Experimental evidence for the role of ions in particle nucleation under atmospheric conditions', Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. DOI: 10.1098/rspa.2006.1773.
Unlike most if not all "climate science", this paper reports experimental results (not computer models) that if they prove to be replicable have serious implications for The Science of AGW. I look forward to the laboratory results of the denizens of this Blog that refute Svensmark & Co (cited by Carter et al in their World Economics piece) and reestablish CO2.
I have seen time and time again economists opposition to environmental regulation. I beginning to think that opposition to environmental regulations and the science that supports them is a requirement to get a grad degree in economics.
I beginning to think that opposition to environmental regulations and the science that supports them is a requirement to get a grad degree in economics.
The anti-environmental alliance, consisting of people in Adam Smith neckties who hate taxes and regulations, people in boardrooms who just want to be left alone to profitably wreck the planet, and their tame scientists, think-tank intellectuals, journalists, and politicians, blew the global warming issue. They blew it badly, and their credibility deserves to suffer for it. When they've taken the beam out of their own eyes, they'll be able to better see the mote in Al Gore's.
Re the Cosmic Tim Curtin--the climate is changing for the warmer, and cosmic ray intensity is observed to be going up? down? staying the same? The Svensmark et al. paper is a slender straw indeed. "Serious implications"?!?! Read the RealClimate post on the paper and tell me you want to cite it as having serious implications for anything but proving the authors' talents for writing press releases.
Hehehe Nice Tim
I find your reply rather beside the point. I was noting the repeated role of economists and economics journals in the climate-denial industry. That this paper is cited in an economics journal does not suddenly confer legitimacy to said journal, inasmuch as the research has little to do with real-world conditions, and the rather bombastic claims being made for the research is likely what drew the interest of the journal to this paper. One might say it actually confirms my suspicion that economists (of a certain stripe) will reach for any piece of science that might support their view of the world, no matter how weak or irrelevant the science may be. BTW, I do not single out economics - numerous practitioners in other fields have been guilty of this same behavior.
There is a part of me that has suspected that Khilyuk and Chilingar is actually a hoax, along the lines of what Alan Sokal (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair) to discredit postmodern cultural studies.
I wonder if once many contrarians have cited it approvingly, Khilyuk and Chilingar will come forward and admit that they purposely wrote a bunch of B.S. However, it seems to me it is getting to be that point in time when it would be useful for them to reveal this.
Mndean - there is a vocal minority of economists who support AGW-denialism, mainly out of some bizarre far-right ideological commitment to "free markets" which suggests they dozed through the under-grad lecture where the difference between idealised "efficient markets" and real-world markets was explained.
They do not represent the majority opinion within their field any more than the other denialists represent majority opinion in their respective fields.
I think we agree, at least I did not mean to say all economists are involved. When I say "of a certain stripe", I was referring to just that sort, who places ideology over science, and who feels comfortable challenging scientific opinion without the requisite knowledge. There seem to be other areas of science where a practitioner feels entitled to interpret climatological data without training, most notably geology. It just seems that economics has a wide enough area of interpretation (which allows ideology to slip in) that this sort of abuse is more prevalent. It at least is more apparent. In the past two years, I've read enough economists negatively commenting on AGW to make my eyes roll and think "ANOTHER economist". It's similar to many other fields, where the field may be dignified, even venerable, but some of the most notable people are also the most egregious. I also would never dismiss the field of geology because some geologists (who merely know which side their bread is buttered on) are involved in the denial industry.
I don't think the implication that the World Economics Journal is peer-reviewed is correct. It seems to be published by a consulting firm, and their web site says they aim to publish non-technical articles aimed at the business and policy community, not at academics. It also says that publishing decisions are made by the editorial board, with no mention of peer review.
"Man, what is up with Lindzen? I hope he is pulling in a shitload of money from the Exxon or the coal conglomerates to make up for completely sacrificing his scientific credentials."
'On Ross Gelbspan's claim, in a 1995 Harper's article, that Lindzen
charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting
"Actually, he misspoke on that. I charged them that for lecture fees
the two times I've given lectures. And it wasn't oil. But who lectures
for free? And what [else] would they ask me to consult on?. . . To make
it sound as if somebody is consulting and a tool of the oil industry
when they've given a couple lectures? And charged a fee? And a small
fee at that, compared to most of the environmentalists who speak for
them? What's that about?" '
I haven't seen Svensmark's latest opus, but Svensmark, H.,and E. Friis-Christensen (1997), Variation
of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage-A missing link in solar-climate relationships, J.Atmos. Solar-Terr.Phys., 59,
used cloud data from the US Defense Meteorological
Satellite Program that was NOT global cloud coverage data; actual global cloud coverage data from the International
Satellite Cloud Climatology Program was shown to be **inversely** correlated with the USDMSP data.(Laut, P.
(2003), Solar activity and terrestrial climate: An analysis of some
purported correlations, J.Atmos. Solar-Terr.Phys., 65, 801-812.) Plus, he found a periodicity of
"a period of 143 plus or minus 10 Myr". How much effect would you see
in a couple of decades with an oscillation of 143 million years?
Conversely, if the current rate of change is about 2 degrees C per
century, what would be the minimum amplitude of temperature change over
a 143 million year period?
A note about the K & C paper. Outgassing of CO2 over 4.5 billion years used as the method to analyze a 200 year human CO2 emission event? That does take the cake.
The acid test is to what extent, if any, it is cited in any paper in a reputable climate science journal. If it was the "bombshell" it sells itself to be, there should be lots and lots of cites just on the basis of its controversiality.
Gawd, the echoes of creation "science" here are giving me a migraine.
In the past two years, I've read enough economists negatively commenting on AGW to make my eyes roll and think "ANOTHER economist".
The AGW equivalent of The Salem Hypothesis. What shall we name it?
Were the economic SRES scenarios properly peer reviewed by economists?
Monckton has now caught himself in the net too. He cited Khilyuk and Chilingar in his letter to two American senators. Nexus 6 has got more on the letter he sent:
"The critique slams Stern for, get this, ignoring Khilyuk and Chilingar. That's the paper that compared human CO2 emissions with natural C02 emissions over the entire history of the planet and concluded that human emissions didn't matter."
Something else just struck me: K &C was published online (in a relaitively obscure journal with no track-record in climatology so far as I know) in May 2006; the Stern Report was released on October 30, 2006 in hard copy.
Given the lead time involved in printing, pre-press; editing and getting governmental approval, it's highly unlikely that K&G was even released when the text of the report was finalised.