Thongchai Thailand

Peer Review in a 97% Consensus Science

Posted on: May 6, 2018








RELATED POST : TCR: Transient Climate Response    FULL TEXT SSRN.COM


  1. In 2009, Damon Matthews et al submitted a paper to the journal Nature with an amazing discovery that could potentially rescue climate science from the climate sensitivity uncertainty problem. He found a strong correlation between temperature (=cumulative warming) and cumulative emissions. It was quickly named the CCR (Climate Carbon Response) and later the TCR (Transient Climate Response) and soon used to forecast the so called carbon budgets for a 2C and 1.5C warming targets.
  2. The TCR became a sensation. In accepting the (Matthews, 2009) paper for publication the editor of Nature gushed in an editorial comment that: “To date, efforts to describe and predict the climate response to human CO2 emissions have focused on climate sensitivity: the equilibrium temperature change associated with a doubling of CO2. But recent research has suggested that this ‘Charney’ sensitivity, so named after the meteorologist Jule Charney who first adopted this approach in 1979, may be an incomplete representation of the full Earth system response, as it ignores changes in the carbon cycle, aerosols, land use and land cover.”
  3. He continued: “Matthews et al. propose a new measure, the carbon-climate response, or CCR. Using a combination of a simplified climate model, a range of simulations from a recent model inter-comparison, and historical constraints, they find that independent of the timing of emissions or the atmospheric concentration of CO2 emitting a trillion tonnes of carbon will cause 1.0 – 2.1 C of global warming, a CCR value that is consistent with model predictions for the twenty-first century.”
  4. In a 2017 paper Reto Knutti also gushed about Matthews’ proportionality writing that the TCR should replace the ECS as the primary tool for relating warming to emissions. The Knutti paper was not only published but received with great fanfare by the climate science community.
  5. As of this writing in 2018, the TCRE correlation serves as the key relationship that ties warming to emissions and thereby to human cause. The Matthews paper has engendered scores of more papers on TCRE and Carbon Budgets all of them enthusiastically published in the journals.
  6. But the inner circle of climate scientists, in their enthusiasm for a savior in the quest for human cause, failed to critically evaluate the Matthews “proportionality”. If they had they might have found that the proportionality between temperature and cumulative emissions that serves as the foundation of TCR rests on a spurious correlation.
  7. The mathematical argument for the spuriousness of correlations between cumulative values may be found here: SSRN1  SSRN2  SSRN3 . The spuriousness is demonstrated in the video below where we can see that the cumulative values of random emissions and random warming generate just the kind of correlation shown in the Matthews paper and all subsequent papers on this subject. Yet this proportionality continues to be used in climate science as the only link between human fossil fuel emissions and global warming.




The Anomalies in Temperature Anomalies

The Greenhouse Effect of Atmospheric CO2

ECS: Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity

Climate Sensitivity Research: 2014-2018

TCR: Transient Climate Response

Peer Review of Climate Research: A Case Study

Spurious Correlations in Climate Science

Antarctic Sea Ice: 1979-2018

Arctic Sea Ice 1979-2018

Global Warming and Arctic Sea Ice: A Bibliography

Global Warming and Arctic Sea Ice: A Bibliography

Carbon Cycle Measurement Problems Solved with Circular Reasoning

NASA Evidence of Human Caused Climate Change

Event Attribution Science: A Case Study

Event Attribution Case Study Citations

Global Warming Trends in Daily Station Data

History of the Global Warming Scare

The dearth of scientific knowledge only adds to the alarm

Nonlinear Dynamics: Is Climate Chaotic?

The Anthropocene

Eco-Fearology in the Anthropocene

Carl Wunsch Assessment of Climate Science: 2010

Gerald Marsh, A Theory of Ice Ages

History of the Ozone Depletion Scare

Empirical Test of Ozone Depletion

Ozone Depletion Chemistry

Brewer-Dobson Circulation Bibliography

Elevated CO2 and Crop Chemistry

Little Ice Age Climatology: A Bibliography

Sorcery Killings, Witch Hunts, & Climate Action

Climate Impact of the Kuwait Oil Fires: A Bibliography

Noctilucent Clouds: A Bibliography

Climate Change Denial Research: 2001-2018

Climate Change Impacts Research

Tidal Cycles: A Bibliography


2 Responses to "Peer Review in a 97% Consensus Science"


[…] SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS: The strong agreement among climate scientists is often presented as evidence that therefore climate science must be correct. This logic is flawed. Correctness of a scientific finding must rely on data and the scientific method and not on opinion polls. If anything, the 97% consensus statistic works against climate science because it is indicative of a field  of study that harbors a cult-like belief system and therefore incapable of objective scientific inquiry. A climate science peer review case study is presented in a related post that seems to indicate a cultist group-think culture in climate science. The case study is presented in a related post here: CLIMATE SCIENCE PEER REVIEW CASE STUDY. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: