Dr David Evans claims new climate change discovery

[TheRocketSurgeon]

I think you should watch this video, about how these deniers operate:

I'm not interested in watching a video about American climate policy.

It's not a video about American climate policy. It's a video about how climate denial (and other science-muddling) professionals operate on behalf of corporations so companies can continue to make a profit by delaying regulation legislation from passing, influencing both popular and political opinion.

Why would I suggest a video about American climate policy?

Submitted for peer review is irrelevant. 100% irrelevant. However, if they are found to be supported after the peer-review process, I'll take note of them.

It disturbs me a little that you don't know the difference. I could submit 100 papers for peer review, and even if they are accepted by the journals for publication, every one, it doesn't matter until other papers about my paper come out, citing my methodology and/or anything I may have missed in my evaluation and/or experimentation. Granted, I'd rather cite a paper by someone who has written 100 peer-reviewed articles than one who has written only ten, but it's still no guarantee that the papers will be of scientific accuracy or value, in either case.

The real measure of a scientist's accuracy, in the peer review process, is how many other scientists make reference to that person's work when doing their own work for peer review. Whether they are duplicating the results of the original paper or working to do better work using other methodology, good science quickly shows by who takes note of the work.

Are you sure you understand how peer-review works? Peer review works by having your submitted article sent to your academic peers by the Journal editors for review prior to publication. Your article gets accepted and published only AFTER it has been peer-reviewed.

1) That only addresses the difference between published and cited, and

2) That ignores that, especially in smaller journals, the process of getting published can be loose at best.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2586872/

The principal implication of our findings, when taken together with the previous studies cited above, is that journal editors should not assume that their reviewers will detect most major flaws in manuscripts. The study paints a rather bleak picture of the effectiveness of peer review. Improvements after training were minor despite using the types of papers easiest to review for errors, our reviewers being better trained and qualified than those at many smaller journals, and despite focusing on technical errors that are easier to detect than more fundamental errors involving flawed assumptions and theoretical models. Clearly, using more than one reviewer may increase the total numbers of errors detected, though some errors are likely to remain undetected. [...]

What scientists typically don't  do is put out a press article about their findings, or work with their "Global Warming Skeptics" blogger wife to put this data out there prior to peer review. With mathematical modeling, it's very easy to miss factors and get highly-skewed results, even if that's your main profession (as apparently his once was), which is why we even have peer-review. I'm not saying he's wrong, but some of the things I've seen in the articles, presumably being presented by him, are claims of a highly-dubious nature. (By "dubious", I mean that they seem to parrot many of the claims of conservative organizations I've been seeing for years, in some cases word-for-word.)

Oh bullshit. NASA has a whole section of their website devoted to press releases. Did you hear they "found flowing water on Mars"? You didn't learn that from peer-review ... the claim was published on their website. What about something more recent: Scientists discover new rat species in Indonesia (source). “We knew immediately it was a new species and then the only question was rather [whether] it was a new genus or whether it was related closely to anything already described.” Here's a video of them making this claim:

{snip}

I guess they're not real scientists - according to you - since they made a press-release about their findings instead of writing a journal article and waiting for it to be published?

I said "scientists typically don't", not "real" scientists. Try not to straw-man.

We have dedicated entire threads to the fact that NASA pimps their work in a desperate attempt to maintain funding. As for the biological finding, he's not making such a radical new finding that he's claiming to throw all of biology into an uproar over it. Can you really not grasp the difference between saying, "Hey we found a new species that may or may not be a new genus of rat. Neat!" and "Hey, everything scientists knew was wrong!" in a pre-peer-review public article?

For instance:

Except NASA says the opposite: (Source = http://data.giss.nasa.gov/)

{snip}

Your graph ends in the year 2000, so how does it tell anything about the accuracy of prospective climate modelling?

That's why I linked to the GISS website on the NASA page, which contains dozens of other graphs and listings of their data and conclusions, right above the graph I chose. I picked that particular one because it shows the radical upspike trend most clearly.

Except they do. There are other factors at play in determining global temperatures, to be sure, but we know what they are and can account for them (this is part of why NASA is involved in the climate research field; their satellites are one of the major methods of gathering data not impacted by being on/near the surface).

Great an unlabelled graph. You do know that the RED line is CO2 and the BLUE is temperature, right? There is an 800 year lag - difficult to see on that compressed graph. This is discussed in dozens of Journal articles, only one of which in recent years has claimed there's a problem with the data suggesting that there is not an 800-year lag.

All true; but I picked the 400,000+ year graph to show that there is indeed a direct (if delayed) correlation between the figures. Most of the papers on the subject have concluded that there are "buffer" elements in play which absorb the impact of the increased CO2 for a while, like melting ice/glaciers, ocean pH changes, plant growth, etc. The 800-year figure may be the natural number, but of course nature has never before had to deal with the sudden massive spike in CO2 caused by the hydrocarbon-producing and forest-clearing activities of humanity, so they also concluded that we are unlikely to experience the same degree of lag as has been historically observed.