Two weeks from blog post to paper submitted:
[Via Deltoid]
It’s only taken two weeks to go from the blog posts shredding McLean et al to a paper submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research. The authors are G. Foster, J. D. Annan, P. D. Jones, M. E. Mann, B. Mullan, J. Renwick, J. Salinger, G. A. Schmidt, and K. E. Trenberth and the abstract says:
McLean et al. [2009] (henceforth MFC09) claim that the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), as represented by the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI), accounts for as much as 72% of the global tropospheric temperature anomaly (GTTA) and an even higher 81% of this anomaly in the tropics. They conclude that the SOI is a “dominant and consistent influence on mean global temperatures,” “and perhaps recent trends in global temperatures”. However, their analysis is incorrect in a number of ways, and greatly overstates the influence of ENSO on the climate system. This comment first briefly reviews what is understood about the influence of ENSO on global temperatures, then goes on to show that the analysis of MFC09 severely overestimates the correlation between temperature anomalies and the SOI by inflating the power in the 2-6 year time window while filtering out variability on longer and shorter time scales. It is only because of this faulty analysis that they are able to claim such extremely high correlations. The suggestion in their conclusions that ENSO may be a major contributor to recent trends in global temperature is not supported by their analysis or any physical theory presented in that paper, especially as the analysis method itself eliminates the influence of trends on the purported correlations.
Via Joe Romm and Gareth Renowden.
[More]
This is how science works. A published paper is critiqued and its faults revealed by further publications. As time goes on, a better model of the natural world emerges.
That is how it is supposed to be done.Truth is not decided by who shouts the most, who is the most frightening or who has the best PR machine. Openness and transparency help prevent the distortion of facts.
Facts are facts. If someone has to rely on the use of incorrect approaches in order to change the facts, then that should be revealed. And that is what Science always attempts to do.
Just wish some other areas where facts are important could be as easily dealt with. But then, most scientists have to be rational in order to keep their jobs, while in some careers, rationality is a handicap.
Technorati Tags: Environment, Science
A Man With A Ph.D. 
I think this is the most common misconception, especially among Creationists. They say that science “censors” opinions that differ from, say, evolution. What they fail to understand is just exactly how cut-throat and unrelenting the peer-review process really is.
If only they knew…
This is why public debate formats are not ways to examine areas of fact and knowledge when it comes to science. They are way too open to many irrational techniques that are simply designed to win the debate (i.e. logical fallacies, shouting, intimidation) with no regard for providing ongoing examination of the world around us. That is why Texas has such struggles to get rational textbooks adopted.
Denialists, as seen with creationists, want to cut off discussion and prevent further investigation. In fact, that is the easiest way to recognize them. ‘NO!!’ is usually the only word in their vocabulary when dealing with the topic at hand.
You’re exactly right. “Irrational techniques that are simply designed to win the debate.” At least, to look like you’ve won according to a scientifically illiterate public.
So, all Mothers are, by definition, Denialists since their most frequent word while raising children is “NO!’. However, that explains why scientists are all so eager to PROVE things. Thereby, proving their Mothers wrong!