I also think this is the Society that Blieck was the Ethics Committee Chair....
How about that.
****************************EXCERPT***************************************
Myrrh says:
John says:
March 4, 2012 at 1:13 am
Secondly, whatever one’s viewpoint on the importance of CO2, the last sentence of the Abstract of the Nature article in the last link above (“solar active of last 10,000 years”) says this:
“Although the rarity of the current episode of high average sunspot numbers may indicate that the Sun has contributed to the unusual climate change during the twentieth century, we point out that solar variability is unlikely to have been the dominant cause of the strong warming during the past three decades.”
Yes, maybe the authors felt that they had to say this to get published, and they don’t really believe it. But let’s see if there is confirmation of these findings before getting on a bandwagon. Getting on bandwagons too early is part of why we are in such a dismal place in science right now. Let’s take the high road and wait for more conclusive evidence.
I think that’s pretty much standard practice from those still trying to do real science exploration, I see it all the time. What I find gratifying is that such research is still being done, compare with the many deliberately biased studies which produce the logic fail results; the examples too numerous but like http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/29/hansens-sea-shell-game/ and http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/18/the-500-year-fud-about-sea-levels/
This relevant guest post by Alec Rawls a must read:
“Omitted variable fraud: vast evidence for solar climate driver rates one oblique sentence in AR5
“Expert review” of the First Order Draft of AR5 closed on the 10th. Here is the first paragraph of my submitted critique:
“My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call “the omitted variable problem” (or when it is intentional, “omitted variable fraud”). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.”
“Given what I found—systematic fraud—”
“The empirical evidence in favor of the solar explanation is overwhelming. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies have found a very high degree of correlation (.5 to .8) between solar-magnetic activity and global temperature going back many thousands of years (Bond 2001, Neff 2001, Shaviv 2003, Usoskin 2005, and many others listed below). In other words, solar activity “explains,” in the statistical sense, 50 to 80% of past temperature change.”
“A person reading AR5 from cover to cover would come away with not even a hint that for more than ten years a veritable flood of studies have been finding solar activity to explain something on the order of half of all past temperature variation. The omission is virtually complete.
“As a result, AR5 misattributes virtually all of the explanatory power of solar-magnetic activity to the correlated CO2 variable. This misattribution can be found both in AR5′s analytical discussions and in its statistical estimations and projections, and the error could not be more consequential.”
“Nothing could be more perverse in such a circumstance than to unplug the modern world in a misbegotten jihad against CO2. The IPCC’s omitted variable fraud must stop. AR5′s misattribution of 20th century warming to CO2 must stop. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the solar-magnetic warming theory. ”
I was hard pressed to keep the extract this short.. :)
Perhaps this subject deserves its own link on WUWT?
*****************************************************
I also think this is the Society that Glieck was the Ethics Committee Chair....