2011-09-07 08:37:35Nonsense Conspiracy Dog-whistling about the New Dessler Paper
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Conspiracy Dog-whistling about GRL and the New Dessler Paper

Not sure if you want to publish but I had to write it up, it was just wayyyy too easy :)

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Conspiracy-Dog-whistling-Dessler2011-GRL.html

2011-09-07 08:57:27
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Grypo,

I like it!  It is entirely plausable that Dessler was actually originally writing a paper to refute LC11's rehashing of LC09, and then SB11 came along on 14 July 2011 while he was writing his paper so decided to address that at the same time--i.e., kill two birds with one stone.  The fact that the paper was accepted so quickly could be attributable to several factors, in no particular order:

1) High priests of the IPCC are fast tracking their acolytes' papers.

2) Dessler (2011) was incredibly solid and well written with only minor changes required.

3) Dessler (2011) is wrong, the reviewers' missed it and it will will soon be refuted by his peers and/or new data.

others???

Anyways, conspiracy theories aside, I think providing context will quickly lay to rest (well probably not, but at least you tried). 

Funny too that McIntyre et al. do not have a problem for how quickly Soon and Baliunas was published under deFreitas.  For fun, you could look at the turn around time for some publications by Mcintyre, Loehle, Mckitrick, and other skeptics in E&E.

But at the end of the day what is important is the content of Dessler's paper? That ought to be the focus of people's attention, not how long it took to go through review.  It seems that they can't refute it, so they have to enage in nonsensical dog-whistle politics and floating conspiracy theories.  Ridiculous.  Perhaps you could include that point too.

2011-09-07 09:04:03
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

Grypo,

Another point.  Trenberth and Fasullo had their analysis of SB11 posted on 29 July-- Andy submitted his paper on 11 August.  So nothing unusual in terms of the time required to analysze and interepret the data.  These particular scientists all have the data (observations and archived model data) at hand, and for these data at least, it is easy to process the data very quickly.  Something that is lost on the 'skeptics'.

But again, the main point is can they refute his paper.  Conspiracy's about fast-tracking look like a smoke screen to me.  Is that all they have??!

2011-09-07 09:11:05
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

I like this. It's a needed rebuttal. Perhaps we need a new myth: "The peer-review fix is in" (or something like that). It's good that you used actual data to counter the attempted smear.

You might want to explain what a dog whistle is and why these allegations of quick peer review for Dessler imply (to some) favouritism for "warmists" and prejudice against" skeptics".

Maybe take the word "nonsense" out of the title. It's not wrong, but looks like a Joe Romm headline.

Of course, the reason that "skeptic" papers have a long, tough time getting through peer review is that they are generally overblown bullshit, but you can't say that on a family channel.

2011-09-07 10:06:00Nice and simple
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.220.125.9

This is a nice short but sweet post grypo. I like it. Agree with Alby's comments and I would even consider adding his first highlighted comment.

Also perhaps highlight the 'usual suspects' behaviour of shooting from the hip without checking the facts. Not that would ever be something they might do consistently!

And explaining the 'dog-whistle' could be really important. Those who can hear the whistle won't get it but others will.

2011-09-07 10:16:23
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.33.51

"Of course, the reason that "skeptic" papers have a long, tough time getting through peer review is that they are generally overblown bullshit, but you can't say that on a family channel."

You can't say that exactly, but you can say:

"One reason that skeptical papers may take longer getting through peer review is that they often challenge work that has been established and validated through measurements and analysis for many decades."

2011-09-07 11:07:16
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Great comments everyone.  I incorperated them in the rewrite.

 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Conspiracy-Dog-whistling-Dessler2011-GRL.html

2011-09-07 11:17:57
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.38.249

Nice post Grypo. Maybe 'dog-whistle' needs a hyper-link, although I expect regular climate bloggers will be aware of the term.  

2011-09-07 11:24:11
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

Yes

2011-09-07 13:53:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

Nicely done, grypo.  Let's plan on publishing this the day after tomorrow, so we can have three consecutive days highlighting Dessler's paper.

2011-09-07 14:30:51Typo
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.168.71

Just found this:

"....Not really.  It's a bit early for any sustaintive criticism, so for now, assumptions, speculation, and conspiracy fill that void."

==> substantive


Really puts the "skeptics'" tactics into perspective!

2011-09-07 21:46:42
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

Good post grypo, well worth publishing as soon as possible. Maybe the only thing missing is a last paragraph with the take home message.

2011-09-08 00:57:33
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.179.249

There is a good Stoat post on the subject that you may consider linking to. 

{Link fixed}

2011-09-08 04:10:20
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Grypo, a comment from Spencer himself which is relevant to your post:

"At this point, it looks quite likely we will be responding to it with our own journal submission… although I doubt we will get the fast-track, red carpet treatment he got."

2011-09-08 04:25:50
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Yup, I was just adding it!  Oh thanks Roy, you are the gift that keeps on giving.  I also got rid of JeffID's quote.  Why elevate his nonsense? 

 

Riccardo, I gave the end a little more punch, shortened Gammon's quote and reiterated my argument.

2011-09-08 04:28:46
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

I'd add a bit more to the end, something like:

Perhaps the "skeptics" should follow Dessler's example and examine the scientific content of the paper, rather than weaving conspiracy theories around the fact that it got published in a timely manner.

2011-09-08 11:21:40
grypo

gryposaurus@gmail...
173.69.6.13

Ok, I've made some minor changes because this debate is moving at light speed and I'm trying to keep up (linked to new spencer and bickmore battles).  So whoever posts this, please do a quick check.  Thanks!  This one should be fun.

 

Definate "Team" effort  lol

2011-09-08 12:58:52
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.184.102

>>>First, from the unusual places, Anthony Watts says:

Unusual or usual?