More PAGES2K

With respect to the topic of the last post, there is another blog post writing about the PAGES2K paper. It deals with the possibly too lite peer-review for the paper, at Nature ThisOrSomething or Science generally and at the IPCC. However, it’s more a lenghty reply to the comments by Richard A. Betts and me on another blog post. So let’s say, I’m now far deeper into the so called Climate debate than I would like to be. Although that’s already true since the Kalte Sonne dealt with a discussion paper of co-workers and me.

To be honest, I have rather few intentions to comment at the blog-post linked above. Therefore, I’ll do it here. Probably I shouldn’t react at all to the but once more just for completeness.

Anyway, I don’t have to say much. The linked blog post is primarily interested in highlighting the too lite review for climate papers. I don’t agree but I don’t know whether it is worth discussing it since this

still is true.

So, if you want to know what this is about: please read this.

First some preliminaries: if anybody reads this and thinks about quoting me, writing about me and referring to my person as Dr B, please just skip the Dr. I don’t care about these two letters and will usually assume that you are ironic. Then, have I been at Ostrov’s blog since my comment? Yes, but not since last Friday? I’m sorry for that.

As I noted in my previous post, I don’t see that Steve McIntyre’s reply to me needs a reaction.I could agree with some points, state that I disagree with others, but is that necessary? I don’t think so. I try not to need to have the last word – well I guess I’m just proving me wrong. Anyway, Richard Betts tweeted at some of the authors whether they are going to reply to McIntyre. We will see. I hope they do.

Next, a clarification. What did I mean by “letter journal”: a journal which publishes short “letters” highlighting recent achievements. This is in contrast to a journal that publishes longer manuscripts which detail all necessary facts about a study. Letter-journals are often the high-glamour-factor journals. Are they better or worse? Neither and either. As I understand it, it was traditionally thought that the letter-contributions are followed by longer studies. Does this matter in this context? No.

Let’s approach the important part: For some reason, my comment was read as saying my speculation is better than other’s. No. I thought I formulated careful enough to make it clear, that my speculation is just as valid as Steve McIntyre’s, or as anyone else’s. I just wanted to add another perspective. My bad, that I obviously was not able to transport that.

However, I still stand to the point that I think it is ridiculous and not kosher to a priori assume that something went against the scientific or publishing ethos (see embedded tweet above). Or to put it differently: If climate science wants to be taken seriously by you, we have to be less political in our scientific statements. If the sceptical community wants that climate science deals with it, its members have to be less destructive in their manners. You may argue that (some) scientists were first in being mannerless and (some) still continue to be. This blame-game is not going to convince anybody in either grouping. Which may well be the intention? Anyway, I think it is strange to do one’s best to estrange those who are in principle sympathetic with some of one’s argumentations.

As I also already stated on Twitter. As long as you want to believe that climate-science and the related peer-reviewing is fundamentally corrupted I find it hard to engage with you. As stupid as it is for scientists to presume any sceptical contribution “Must Be Wrong”, it is unhelpful for the sceptical side to assume this from every climate-science that doesn’t fit the own perspective. With respect to the “fundamental corruption” I really would think that something akin to a presumption of innocence applies here as well. And yes, now someone cries foul play and climategate in one sentence. And I say “Grundmann, Climategate and the Scientific Ethos“.

Was the PAGES2K-review lite or lax? I don’t know, but I still don’t see the proof for this although some commenters state it as a fact.

Did I learn something? Yes, I (re-)learned is that it’s really unwise to enter into discussions at blogs. Or: Don’t try to argue on the internet.

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “More PAGES2K

  1. An interesting point in Hilary’s post is that Nature Progress articles are supposed to be up to 2000 words. Hilary says the PAGES2k article is 3617 words, and I checked, this is about right.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s