2011-05-27 23:35:44"The Swiss Cheese Chronicles" -- New SkS Series???
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

The genesis for what I am proposing in this post came from an exchange that I had with Daniel Bailey in the General Chat post, "Skeptical Science .com is not a particularly credible source."     http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=1671&r=2

Daniel kindly provided me with links to detailed critiques of the infamous McShane & Wyner paper. "A Statistical Analysis Of Multiple Temperature Proxies:  Are Reconstructions Of Surface Temperatures Over The Last 1000 Years Reliable?" http://www.klimarealistene.com/10-08-16%20Temp.%201000%20yrs%20McShane-and-Wyner-2010.pdf

My immediate reaction aftwer skimming the three critiques that Daniel had linked me to was:

"The MacShane & Wyner paper is nothing more than a block of Swiss cheese."

While walking our dogs this morning the following thought occurred to me:

"It would be extremely helpful if SkS generated critiques of papers/studies most frequently cited by climate deniers." The "Swiss Cheese Chronicles" is the first title for this potential new series that popped into my mind.         

What say you?

  

2011-05-28 02:31:43
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

I like the idea.  There certainly are some papers that can be put to rest, such as the "disproving the greenhouse effect in the frame of physics" paper that I (sadly) see pop up on occasion.  Something that pops into my head too, is to what extent might people see that as overstepping bounds, a blog critiquing reviewed (cough) papers?  I know RealClimate and Joe do it a lot, but I think we'd either have to be careful about how we frame our critiques (not "wrong because of..." responses, e.g.), or try to get some other researchers prominent in the select fields to comment on the papers as well.  Box commenting on the recent paper from Michaels (cannot remember the other authors) would be an example.

2011-05-28 05:04:40Alex C
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

I'm not sure I understand your concerns about critiquing papers that have been peer reviewed and published. If a paper like McShane & Wyner's is a piece of Swiss cheese, it should be (and has been) crtiiqued by others.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that Daniel Bailey's critique of the McShane & Wyner report would cause problems for SkS if it were to be published as a cross-post on SkS?  [It would have to be condensed.]

http://deepclimate.org/2010/08/19/mcshane-and-wyner-2010/

2011-05-28 05:06:56
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.185

I don't think there is any problem in criticizing reviewed papers: A peer-reviewed paper has only passed the lowest level of sanity checking. That doesn't mean it's actually correct, much less destined to be influential. Many papers turn out, in retrospect, to be wrong; and most papers have zero impact on their field anyway.

The main point in criticizing a paper is that you need to make it transparently clear that the argument is wrong.

2011-05-28 05:46:00
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Well, a complaint that I have seen come up with "skeptics" is that SkS is a blog, and not peer reviewed in a sense that we always have experts approving our posts.

Of course, perhaps my concerns are unfounded.  We sometimes do publish critiques of papers ("Not a cite for Soare eyes", the FKM post), and do reposts as well (to answer your question Badgersouth, no).

So again, I like the idea, and think it should be something we pursue.

2011-05-28 06:33:40I like the idea as well
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

Truth be told, all I did was point the way to several blog posts looking into the M&W paper.  Those entities offered up a more robust critique than I could ever have.

My short critique of M&W was that it smelled like Limburger cheese...

2011-05-28 07:12:40
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Would make a great theme for one of Peter Sinclair's videos.  Great imagery.  Wallace and Grommet.  "Crackin' cheese, Grommit."  And of course the always lovable Monte Python cheese shop skit.  "Oh.......  the cat's eaten it."

2011-05-28 07:59:43
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

It WAS a bit runny...

2011-05-28 10:14:15
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.11.155

Love the title Badger!. Good idea of all the crap papers being grouped together under that title. We've already covered a few haven't we? I remember that 'Soare eyes' one by Mark R for instance.

2011-05-28 11:11:01SkS tackling peer review
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.31.47
Of course we can critique peer review. When Bob Carter's El Nino paper came out, SkS's rebuttal was one of the main refutations of the paper until Grant Foster published a peer reviewed response. The general policy should be if there's a peer reviewed rebuttal, our rebuttal only needs to be a summary of the peer reviewed response. If there exists nothing in peer review, we write something.
2011-05-28 11:18:28Swiss cheese chronicles
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.31.47
BTW, the Swiss cheese chronicles ticks lots of boxes. It's a great metaphor. People think in stories so it's not sufficient to merely communicate the science. We need to provide a narrative, a story. In this case, you're not just refuting the dodgy science in skeptic papers, you're providing the narrative that these papers have many holes in them. Skeptic papers are habitually chronically flawed. So that theme should be reinforced throughout the series.

Also, I can create a nice "Swiss cheese chronicles" button to go at the top of each blog post and also in the left margin. Then when skeptics say "there are skeptic papers", people can say "SkS has shown they all are filled with lots of holes, like Swiss cheese" and link to http://sks.to/cheese

2011-05-28 15:15:19
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.21.238

Totally agree with you JC, facts alone will not win the day. Look forward to the logo.

2011-06-08 01:58:53Recommendation for initial "Swiss Cheese" critque...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

"Validation and forecasting accuracy in models of climate change" by Robert Fildes and Nikolaos Kourentzes.

Note: See discussion thread: http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=1781&r=15

Dikran Marsupial has thoroghly critiqued this paper in the comment thread to "Can we trust climate models"   

Dikran could easily weave his comments into a single paper.

2011-06-08 02:04:10
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.102.37

I agree - I think Dikran (possibly with Riccardo as co-author?) could do a good post on the problems with this paper.

2011-06-08 04:30:29Suggested 2nd article
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

I suggest that Rob and Hoskibui co-author a detailed critque of the CO2 Science MWP map.  Becasue they've already generated quite a bit of text on this topic, it would be relatively easy for them to crank out an article. 

For details on this issue, go to: http://www.skepticalscience.com/thread.php?t=1769&r=8

 

2011-06-08 05:25:19
Dikran Marsupial
Gavin Cawley
gcc@cmp.uea.ac...
139.222.14.107

I'd be happy to try and string something together, but I really need to work on my rebuttal of Essenhigh first!

I think the swiss cheese idea is an excellent one, although it is a shame that these things often end up as just blog articles rather than peer reviewed comments in the journal (I've written a couple of those before, neither on climate science though, and it is generally rather hard work!)

2011-06-08 05:40:27Dikran
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

Muchos gracias!

2011-06-08 11:31:41
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.219.147.136

Sounds like a good idea if done carefully with some of the caveats mentioned above.

 

For some of the older papers it might also be worth looking at their citations history - how many other workers have used this paper in a positive way.