By Dr. S. Fred Singer
An essay in the current issue [Oct 2017] of Eos [house-organ & newsletter of the American Geophysical Union (AGU)] is titled “Red, Blue – and Peer-Review PR].”
The essay asserts that p-r is superior to a debate between a [red] team of climate skeptics and a [blue] team of alarmists. I disagree strongly, and will point to prominent cases where PR is misused to keep contrary opinions and facts from being published, thereby trying to enforce a “consensus.” A classic case is described by Douglass and Christy at
D&C are my coauthors; we published a research paper in the International Journal of Climatology [IJC] in 2007, showing a vast difference between climate models and actual observations. Based on leaked emails, Based on available Climategate emails, D&C recount the conspiracy of nearly 20 members of an alarmist “team,” led by Dr Ben Santer, trying to nullify our paper – with the shameful cooperation of the IJC editor.
I can cite many more examples — assuming that IPCC [UN-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] represents a kind of PR – as constantly claimed by alarmist IPCC proponents.
I have shown, and convinced many others, that the “evidential facts” in support of anthropogenic global warming [AGW], cited by the first three Assessment Reports [AR] of 1990, 1996 and 2001 are based on spurious analyses and data.
Recently, I discovered that the evidence used by AR4  and AR5  does not really exist; it is fake, an artifact of incomplete data analyses. I refer here to the reported surface warming of 1978-1997 [for details, see http://ift.tt/2pBFIi4].
There I show that during the 1980s and 1990s, data-gathering instruments underwent drastic changes: ocean temperatures from floating buoys went from zero to 60%; land temperatures from stations at airports went from 30 to 85%; both of these changes coincided by chance—and both produced a fictitious warming.
But publication of such a result is very difficult. It involves finding a sympathetic and courageous journal editor who will not send the manuscript to unfriendly, biased reviewers.
Obviously, a red-blue debate might rapidly settle any controversies – or at least, bring them to light. Thus one understands why consensus enforcers try to keep out inconvenient facts, avoid debates, and prefer Peer-Review.
The writer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia. He earlier served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service, now in NOAA.
via Watts Up With That?
October 31, 2017 at 11:01PM