Hansen’s paper, of course. Tee hee. So all you po-faced people who want to be Terribly Serious can go off and put really really silly comments over at ATTP’s (gloss: too many people who haven’t even read the paper are simply pushing their own views via the paper; much in the same way that too many people that want fewer CO2 emissions manage to convince themselves that suing Exxon makes sense1). Peter Thorne has already said almost everything that needs to be said, although since he is a nice chap writing within the scientific style, much of what he said was too subtle for many people; but I’m not going to gloss what he said because no-one but a bozo could mistake his meaning. I don’t really agree with his “It is the absolute right of the journal and its editors to publish any piece using their best judgement upon completion of a proper peer review process”. Or rather, I agree with the literal words but not that they mean anything in this context so they are effectively deceptive (I don’t think they used their best judgement, and the peer review process wasn’t proper). At one point it looked like the editor, F. Dentener, might show some spine but in the end he knuckled under to Da Man.
I jumped the gun a little last time, but not much: compare the original, the “gun jumper” and the final:
|we posit that ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling time up to sea level rise of at least several meters. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield sea level rise of several meters in 50, 100 or 10 200 years||We hypothesize that ice mass loss from the most vulnerable ice, sufficient to raise sea level several meters, is better approximated as exponential than by a more linear response. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield multi-meter sea level rise in about 50, 100 or 200 years||We hypothesize that ice mass loss from the most vulnerable ice, sufficient to raise sea level several meters, is better approximated as exponential than by a more linear response. Doubling times of 10, 20 or 40 years yield multi-meter sea level rise in about 50, 100 or 200 years|
Meh, they’re all the same. The WaPo quotes one “Barbara Ferreira” as saying the paper was subject to “major revisions in terms of organisation, title and conclusions”. But I’m dubious. Indeed the WaPo is too, since it says the paper is “relatively intact”, whatever that means. Here is something from the old and new versions: can you tell which is which?
|The message that the climate science delivers to policymakers, instead of defining a safe “guardrail”, is that fossil fuel CO2 emissions must be reduced as rapidly as practical.||We conclude that the message our climate science delivers to society, policymakers, and the public alike is this: we have a global emergency. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions should be reduced as rapidly as practical.|
There’s a 19-page “shorted version” available. 19. Page. Short. Version. Did you get that?
I don’t think this process says anything about the value, or otherwise, of open peer review2. The problem was the paper and the author, not the review. We all remember RC’s Peer Review: A Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition so we all agree that anyone saying James Hansen’s Bombshell Climate Warning Is Now Part of the Scientific Canon is an idiot.
The silence of the co-authors
Need I say more?
Hence the extreme short-term sea-level rise is not a prediction arising from the model at all, and assertions to the contrary are patently false
PT notes this point, and it seems that many of the less thinking meeja were fooled; e.g. the Graun. Indeed Hansen et al. get it wrong too, stating we conclude that multi-meter sea level rise would become practically unavoidable, probably within 50–150 years. Whereas what they really mean is that they assume large sea level rise.
Apologies for the break in blogging: I’ve been rowing again. Click on the pic for more.