|
Post by magellan on Apr 5, 2010 16:47:48 GMT
This is not specific to climate science. Peer review exists in all fields. In all fields a lot of submitted papers are rejected. Peer review enforces a necessary standard. It's not perfectly enforced - for example McLean et al managed to get published in the first place. The errors were pointed out in a response by other scientists. The main error that drew attention in the first place was where the McLean paper made an unsubstantiated wild claim in it's conclusion. It was also paraded around certain venues as proof that recent warming could not have been caused by co2, at least one of the co-authors said as much in the media too. This claim could not be scientifically defended. McLean didn't try to defend it. He could have and could have issued a correction. Instead he evaded. The editor was having none of it. That's the difference between science and Internet discussions - standards - someone is there to insert some common sense and stop the messing around. As explained here: www.skepticalscience.com/McLean-de-Freitas-and-Carter-rebutted-by-McLean-de-Freitas-and-Carter.htmlMcLean argues that "If the SOI accounts for short-term variation then logically it also accounts for long-term variation". And yet despite McLean's attempt to hide the incline, his own analysis shows a strong divergence between temperature and the El Nino Southern Oscillation. Thus, the attempt to blame global warming on El Nino activity suffers from a serious divergence problem.We note you always omit papers you like and know that are wrong. Also, what about stratospheric warming/cooling. You seem to have avoided the problem with your unsubstantiated statement. Nonetheless, peer review is not a Holy Writ as you make it appear. Why Most Published Research Findings Are FalseSummary
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 5, 2010 19:08:47 GMT
magellan's 1st post: What makes you think "peer review" is pure as the wind driven snow? and an attempt to derail the subject of the thread to talk about the stratosphere.
socold's response: I didn't say or even imply it was perfect. That you have to resort to a strawman in response to my clear posts...and that you now try and cahnge the subject suggests you are evading
magellan's second post: what about stratospheric warming/cooling ... peer review is not a Holy Writ as you make it appear
It's like you can't even read.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Apr 5, 2010 19:13:40 GMT
so, does this mean we will hear and read less from AGW true believers claiming they can ignore skeptics unless they are peer reviewed? Remeber: Until the climategate and IPCC fraud exposures, AGW true believers relied greatly on the assertion that peer review means accurate. Now we see a true believer getting frustrated about being reminded of just that.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 5, 2010 20:43:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Apr 6, 2010 2:08:08 GMT
One thing the British Parliament Committee got right was: "The committee said that climate scientists had to be much more open in future — for example by publishing all their data, including raw data and the software programs used to interpret them, to the Internet."
|
|
|
Post by hunter on Apr 6, 2010 4:54:00 GMT
socold, Bunk. You true believers, until climategate, relied on the mantra of 'peer review' to justify asserting any AGW cliam as true, and any skeptic position as unworthy. You continue that habit in your Orwellian convolutions on this thread.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 6, 2010 12:01:23 GMT
Yes, yes.....the peer review process is not perfect....almost, but just not quite perfect. Obfuscation once again by socold. Give precise examples of the imperfections of "peer review"; your own please, not lectures by RealClimate. If you are going to criticize the McLean paper and say I built a strawman, then you must also be consistent with all "peer reviewed" articles, otherwise my sarcasm (which you mistake as a strawman) of illustrating the absurd by being absurd peeled the onion so to speak, revealing your propensity to only see what you want to see. Would you agree then the hockey stick is a good example of failed "peer review"? Does RealClimate agree in light of the overwhelming evidence? Ah, what was that you say? How about Steig (Antarctic)? Santer 08? ("hot spot") Hansen 05? (OHC and heat "in the pipeline") And hosts of others. Your defense of the example I gave of IPCC temperature "trends" spoke volumes. Saying temperature data is not sinusoidal (DUH) completely misses the point. The IPCC graphs intentionally mislead the casual observer. Even a novice data watcher should spot the mischief, but True Believers think its fine. More chicanery by the same hockey stick fraudsters: IPCC and the Law Dome Graphic
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 6, 2010 20:50:43 GMT
socold, Bunk. You true believers, until climategate, relied on the mantra of 'peer review' to justify asserting any AGW cliam as true, and any skeptic position as unworthy. You continue that habit in your Orwellian convolutions on this thread. Climategate changed nothing in this regard. Before and after climategate sceintists have seen peer review as a, in realclimate's words, " Necessary But Not Sufficient Condition" That is, it's both a required and yet not perfect (what is?) "standards filter" to prevent obviously bad stuff getting through, doesn't always work (both ways).
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 6, 2010 21:07:56 GMT
Yes, yes.....the peer review process is not perfect....almost, but just not quite perfect. Obfuscation once again by socold. Riiight. So by pointing out that peer review isn't perfect I am obfuscating? More likely I am annoying you because the reality I speak is not black-and-white enough to you to find a reasonable response. You'd love me to call peer review perfect because then you could point out it's not. Perhaps you'd love me to claim the Earth is flat too so you can point out it's round? When someone presents stuff you can't refute, that's not "obfuscation". It might confuse you momentarily in how to respond but that isn't the intention. It's a human enforced standard. So it suffers from the typical false positive and false negative errors. Ie bad papers sometimes get published in error, good papers sometimes don't in error. I am happy to be consistent. No, any errors that existed in that were complex statistical ones and peer review can only hope to spot obvious errors (like the errors of logic in McLean et al). If any of these papers do contain an error, it isn't as blatent in McLean, where the longterm trend of global temperature was removed and the result was then claimed to mean there was no longterm trend that could be attributed to co2! The biggest mistake was on the part of the reviewers who had not spotted the paper made such a clearly invalid conclusion based on. Why you think I am claiming peer review is perfect when McLean passed peer review, I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Apr 6, 2010 23:46:21 GMT
Yes, yes.....the peer review process is not perfect....almost, but just not quite perfect. Obfuscation once again by socold. Riiight. So by pointing out that peer review isn't perfect I am obfuscating? More likely I am annoying you because the reality I speak is not black-and-white enough to you to find a reasonable response. You'd love me to call peer review perfect because then you could point out it's not. Perhaps you'd love me to claim the Earth is flat too so you can point out it's round? When someone presents stuff you can't refute, that's not "obfuscation". It might confuse you momentarily in how to respond but that isn't the intention. It's a human enforced standard. So it suffers from the typical false positive and false negative errors. Ie bad papers sometimes get published in error, good papers sometimes don't in error. I am happy to be consistent. No, any errors that existed in that were complex statistical ones and peer review can only hope to spot obvious errors (like the errors of logic in McLean et al). If any of these papers do contain an error, it isn't as blatent in McLean, where the longterm trend of global temperature was removed and the result was then claimed to mean there was no longterm trend that could be attributed to co2! The biggest mistake was on the part of the reviewers who had not spotted the paper made such a clearly invalid conclusion based on. Why you think I am claiming peer review is perfect when McLean passed peer review, I don't know. You still have not explained how AGW papers make it through "peer review". Its because they are not "peer reviewed" at all, but pal approved. It doesn't sound like you know much about Steig, and strange, I don't recall McLean being plastered on the cover of Nature.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Apr 9, 2010 23:01:01 GMT
You still have not explained how AGW papers make it through "peer review". Its because they are not "peer reviewed" at all, but pal approved. Not all of them pass. Did Steig et al recieve any published critical comments?
|
|