Re: Lindzen publishes, admits he was mistaken, revises his paper, then republishes. Isn't this the way science is supposed to work?
Eli Rabett did a bit of documenting on this point, i.e. here http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/06/winos-lament.html Lindzen had been asserting that science is not working the way it is supposed to. Rabett is heaping scorn upon him from a great height. "Lindzen and Choi II", is Rabett's nickname for the 2011 paper which is actually entitled "On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications". It was eventually published as Asia-Pacific J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, 2011 (It is available here: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen- Choi-2011.pdf ) The way I expect science to work is that if the ideas explained in a paper that had great difficulty getting through peer review fail to convince scientists studying the same phenomena it is most likely because the ideas were unconvincing. If no one in the world was impressed enough to bother to respond to Lindzen and Choi II that fact would appear to reflect more on Lindzen and Choi II than on climate scientists, or on climate science. The detailed comments made by the entire group of 4 PNAS reviewers who rejected Lindzen and Choi II as unsuitable for publication by PNAS, all of whom rejected the conclusions in the paper as not justified, are publicly available in this document: http:// www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Attach3.pdf And, I presume, because so many non-scientists take Lindzen seriously, Andy Dressler published "Cloud Variations and the Earth's Energy Budget" in Geophysical Research Letters, VOL. 38, L19701, doi: 10.1029/2011GL049236, 2011, which refute Lindzen and Choi II, in response. His paper is here: http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf I agree completely with Dr. Socolow that there is a need to refute people like Lindzen. Scientists who are unimpressed with Lindzen's current climate science contributions could ignore him as irrelevant, except for the fact that Lindzen is taken so seriously in what is a significant public policy debate. If it was just a question of how science is supposed to work, it would seem that scientists must ignore the people who fail to address issues they are concerned about in a convincing fashion or they would have no time to consider the ideas of those who succeed. >On Mar 2, 7:07 am, "Robert H. Socolow" <[email protected]> wrote: > Let me try again. Dick Lindzen has presented a science argument, to the > effect that one can infer the climate sensitivity from sea surface > temperatures and satellite measurements of radiation. This idea needs to be > dealt with on its own terms, it seems to me, for the sake of the climate > science community's credibility and because, just conceivably, there is > something interesting in there. > > This is a revised version of work that Lindzen published earlier. The first > time around, others found a serious error, and Lindzen acknowledged it. Isn't > this the way science is supposed to work? > > Probably someone has already reviewed Lindzen's revised work. It was > suggested that an earlier note to this group had included something of this > sort, but I couldn't find it. > > Rob > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
