|
Post by scpg02 on Mar 29, 2010 6:17:53 GMT
John gave me permission to post part of his email so here it is: [/a]. [/ul]
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 29, 2010 18:12:10 GMT
socold, So I will take that as an "OK" irt climategate papers and their method of release. I am glad we can finally get you true believers out of that self-painted corner.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 29, 2010 18:46:45 GMT
I've always said the leaked emails contain many more problems for the skeptics which they'd rather ignore. Including finding out what scientists, such as that reviewer really feel about skeptic arguments. They aren't saying it for public effect, these emails are private exchanges so when they call someone's argument rubbish, it's not to smear them, it's what they actually think. Here's a good article about the whole McLean affair and how peer review is self-correcting: www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2858332.htmPeer reviewed science is fallible but self-correcting.
In a recent ABC interview, Mr McLean claimed that he was "censored" because his reply to this rebuttal was rejected and thus will not appear in the peer-reviewed literature.
The rejection of this reply is a perfect example that peer review exercises quality control and not censorship.
To understand the difference between quality control and censorship it helps to consider my own experience as editor. I just ended a three-year term as an Associate Editor of a leading journal in my field. During that term, I made 300 editorial decisions based on around 700 peer reviews.
I accepted only 50 manuscripts. Does this mean I censored the remaining 250?
No.And one of the critic authors explanations of why McLean's response was probably rejected: julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/03/mcleans-whine-part-2.htmlIn the AGU journals there is no automatic right of reply, there is only the right to submit a reply for the consideration of the editor. In this case, it seems that after peer review McLean et al's reply was not found to meet the standards for publication. I don't make any claim to be disinterested but on reading it, I can only agree with this judgment, specifically on the following grounds.
(A) Their reply performs a dishonest bait-and-switch in initially claiming that their analysis was not based on the filtered data[1], but then conversely stating that their statistics only refer to the filtered data and were never even intended to refer to long-term variation[2]. Of course their acknowledgment of this second point means that there is not one scrap of support in the paper for their claim that the analysis "shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation" [over the last 50 years]. Their analysis simply has no bearing on any long-term trends, since they filtered them out of the data.
(B) They don't even try to address the fact that their original paper pretended that the differencing was done to reduce the noise, when in fact it amplifies noise and eliminates long-term variability[3]
(C) they present no defence of their claim of a "stepwise shift" in the mid-1970s, which (as we pointed out) their naive statistics do not support.
There is other stuff that I could criticise in their reply, but this is more than enough to justify a rejection. They simply aren't responsive to our criticisms.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 29, 2010 22:52:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 30, 2010 16:53:09 GMT
I've always said the leaked emails contain many more problems for the skeptics which they'd rather ignore. Including finding out what scientists, such as that reviewer really feel about skeptic arguments. They aren't saying it for public effect, these emails are private exchanges so when they call someone's argument rubbish, it's not to smear them, it's what they actually think. Here's a good article about the whole McLean affair and how peer review is self-correcting: www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2858332.htmPeer reviewed science is fallible but self-correcting.
In a recent ABC interview, Mr McLean claimed that he was "censored" because his reply to this rebuttal was rejected and thus will not appear in the peer-reviewed literature.
The rejection of this reply is a perfect example that peer review exercises quality control and not censorship.
To understand the difference between quality control and censorship it helps to consider my own experience as editor. I just ended a three-year term as an Associate Editor of a leading journal in my field. During that term, I made 300 editorial decisions based on around 700 peer reviews.
I accepted only 50 manuscripts. Does this mean I censored the remaining 250?
No.And one of the critic authors explanations of why McLean's response was probably rejected: julesandjames.blogspot.com/2010/03/mcleans-whine-part-2.htmlIn the AGU journals there is no automatic right of reply, there is only the right to submit a reply for the consideration of the editor. In this case, it seems that after peer review McLean et al's reply was not found to meet the standards for publication. I don't make any claim to be disinterested but on reading it, I can only agree with this judgment, specifically on the following grounds.
(A) Their reply performs a dishonest bait-and-switch in initially claiming that their analysis was not based on the filtered data[1], but then conversely stating that their statistics only refer to the filtered data and were never even intended to refer to long-term variation[2]. Of course their acknowledgment of this second point means that there is not one scrap of support in the paper for their claim that the analysis "shows the potential of natural forcing mechanisms to account for most of the temperature variation" [over the last 50 years]. Their analysis simply has no bearing on any long-term trends, since they filtered them out of the data.
(B) They don't even try to address the fact that their original paper pretended that the differencing was done to reduce the noise, when in fact it amplifies noise and eliminates long-term variability[3]
(C) they present no defence of their claim of a "stepwise shift" in the mid-1970s, which (as we pointed out) their naive statistics do not support.
There is other stuff that I could criticise in their reply, but this is more than enough to justify a rejection. They simply aren't responsive to our criticisms.I accepted only 50 manuscripts. Does this mean I censored the remaining 250?
No.
Thanks, that's reassuring. socold, can you ever look beyond your own pre-conceived notions of so-called peer review? Do you even understand the inner workings? What makes people think peer review somehow validates or invalidates science? The evidence is incontrovertible that many journals are a tightly controlled totalitarian system by which a small group of scientists have attempted to thwart other scientists from publishing or even reaching the review phase. If you want to debate that part of issue, let's go for it.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 30, 2010 18:02:12 GMT
It is rather Orwellian that the author of a paper published in a journal is not allowed to respond to criticism of that paper, and the true believers do not find taht troubling.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 30, 2010 21:54:25 GMT
John gave me permission to post part of his email so here it is: [/a]. [/ul][/quote] Interesting, I missed this post. So you got into direct contact with McLean in response to my post? And their response is interesting..
|
|
|
Post by socold on Mar 30, 2010 21:56:10 GMT
It is rather Orwellian that the author of a paper published in a journal is not allowed to respond to criticism of that paper, and the true believers do not find taht troubling. That's the problem hunter, they didn't respond. They danced around the criticisms rather than address them. Games like that might work on the internet, but evidentially not necessarily in peer reviewed literature. One of it's plus points.
|
|
|
Post by stranger on Mar 30, 2010 22:37:42 GMT
Nice paper. Clearly presented data, most of it is easy to check, and with something you can base an actual forecast on. If the forecast is "true," there may very well be something there.
The writing style is typical of multi authored papers, and the paper should probably have gone to an advanced comp student to smooth it out. (Seniors should be good for something!) But perhaps that will be taken care of in the final draft.
The criticism is also typical - of advocates who have just seen something that may destroy their raison de etre. Not the "moi, je suis contre" but the "Moi, je vais te foutre mon poing sur la gueule" reaction.
Stranger
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 31, 2010 0:44:48 GMT
It is rather Orwellian that the author of a paper published in a journal is not allowed to respond to criticism of that paper, and the true believers do not find taht troubling. That's the problem hunter, they didn't respond. They danced around the criticisms rather than address them. Games like that might work on the internet, but evidentially not necessarily in peer reviewed literature. One of it's plus points. socold, Bunk. If they are playing games, all the better to let them be seen doing so. If we did not have the context of documented cases by AGW promoters suppressing papers and corrupting peer review, your defense might have some merit. Instead, it is an obvious contortion and transparent rationalization.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Mar 31, 2010 1:59:10 GMT
icecap.us/images/uploads/McLeanetalSPPIpaper2Z-March24.pdfRead that again and compare to slimeballs Tamino and James Annan account. The process was rigged no ifs ands or buts. It doesn't matter if there were errors in the McLean paper, the editing board was stacked and wouldn't it be nice to have been a fly on the wall during the conversations. John Daly (whose death Phil Jones gloated over) discussed the SOI issue many years ago here and more recently here. What really bothers the authors against McLean et al is this statement by John Daly. There is ZERO evidence that CO2 has any measurable effect on the great climate drivers of earth, the oceans. A more interesting question then arises as to what `causes’ the cycles in the Southern Oscillation. We know it results from gargantuan changes in ocean currents and in deep water upwelling in the eastern Pacific, but as to what triggers this response is still an unknown. The answer may well lie in long-term solar changes. The Greenhouse industry readily blames greenhouse gases, but the idea that a few parts per million of CO2 can cause the overturning of trillions of megatonnes of sea water is fanciful to say the least, a reasoning based more on ideology than on science. Those who point to greenhouse gases as the `cause’ of El Niño fail to describe exactly what mechanism they imagine the gases to be performing to achieve such a feat.
It will be noticed from the chart that the two volcanic eruptions had no effect whatever on the course of El Niño or La Niña. The SOI cycled back and forth, quite oblivious to the cooling being imposed by the eruptions. Thus the Southern Oscillation is not dependent on, or influenced by, changes in atmospheric temperature, whether these changes are caused by volcanic eruptions or, by alleged changes in temperature due to greenhouse gases. In fact, it is quite the opposite - the Southern Oscillation forces the temperature to change, not the other way around.
With each failed hypothesis, the AGW frauds must come up with a new storyline.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Mar 31, 2010 12:44:06 GMT
I just read an excellent book that involves how "Nature" magazine works. The book is called "No Apparent Danger", a history of two volcano eruptions in Colombia in the 1985- 1992 era. One scientist, Stanley Williams, who literally got colleagues of his killed, stole the very analytical tool that he deliberately ignored to put himself and his colleagues in harm's way and got credit in the peer reviewed journal as the discoverer. To add insult to injury, Williams was a frequent and well paid speaker and media star as he recounted how he was the only survivor of his folly. Except that he was not the only survivor. And Nature, when confronted with these facts, simply ignored the truth and went with the popular lie. AGW true believers repeat, mantra-like, how immaculate the peer review process is. As if it assures accuracy and truth. It does not. The defenses we have read here of why it is OK to suppress author's responses to criticism are transparently bogus, and could only fool the willing.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 4, 2010 15:00:19 GMT
McLean in his continued attempt to salvage credibility claimed:
"If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation."
And there you have it. The kind of "logic" the SPPI, Icecap.us and evidentially all skeptics on this thread want to defend.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Apr 4, 2010 15:04:19 GMT
socold, Your ability to avoid the point is extremely good. McLean may be wrong. Or he may be right. Suppressing him with Orwellian procedures will assure that is not discovered. Peer review can be a great tool, and when climate science starts to use it, I am certain things will be improved.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 4, 2010 15:54:51 GMT
Under your idea of peer review people would be able to publish anything. Any attempt to decline publication would in your eyes be an act of "suppression".
Should McLean be able to publish logically invalid arguments like If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation? No. If peer review is working properly then such arguments should be suppressed from publication.
|
|