|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 3, 2011 5:11:49 GMT
The editor made a mistake by limiting the reviews to climate skeptics, My gawd! I can only imagine how many editors should be resigning over papers published without a skeptic on the review panel! Way to misquote. Tsk tsk, naughty icefisher! As I said, I didn't think the resignation was the appropriate response, but as long as it was the editor's own unforced choice to resign, I can't quibble. Got any problems with my actual words? |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 3, 2011 5:17:10 GMT
Way to misquote. Tsk tsk, naughty icefisher! As I said, I didn't think the resignation was the appropriate response, but as long as it was the editor's own unforced choice to resign, I can't quibble. Got any problems with my actual words?
No misquote there. You said it was a mistake to not have warmists in the review process.
So do you have any idea what that implies for the entire body of global warming science if the standard is to be politically correct and ensure all political views are fairly represented? Perhaps there should be an audit of this parameter?
|
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 3, 2011 5:54:06 GMT
Way to misquote. Tsk tsk, naughty icefisher! As I said, I didn't think the resignation was the appropriate response, but as long as it was the editor's own unforced choice to resign, I can't quibble. Got any problems with my actual words?No misquote there. You said it was a mistake to not have warmists in the review process. So do you have any idea what that implies for the entire body of global warming science if the standard is to be politically correct and ensure all political views are fairly represented? Perhaps there should be an audit of this parameter? No, it was a complete misquote. You twisted my words into saying that I thought the editor should have resigned when in fact I said the opposite. And now you are bringing up "political views"? Way off base there, Icefisher. No, S&B's points had already been refuted in the literature, and neither S&B nor the journal bothered to tackle the refutations. This is bad science and bad journaling which has nothing to do with politics at all. Your attempt to paint mainstream science as being political (or even religious in other threads) is completely off base. Spencer's paper is garbage, and the editor made a mistake. Perhaps a good analysis in the next issue would have been a more productive response. Now, perhaps we should discuss why Spencer went to an off-topic journal to publish his paper. Obviously, the answer is because he knew his paper couldn't get published in a topical journal precisely because a topical journal wouldn't make the same mistakes as the refutations would have been discussed. Spencer made an end-run around the peer review process, which is a completely unethical move. Yes, the editor so much as admitted that it was "sloppy journaling". Hmm, didn't you discuss "professional standards" with regard to the polar bear paper? Perhaps you'd be wise to show a little consistency. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 3, 2011 8:22:27 GMT
No, it was a complete misquote. You twisted my words into saying that I thought the editor should have resigned when in fact I said the opposite.
Are you some kind of moron? I quoted your comment: "The editor made a mistake by limiting the reviews to climate skeptics"
I didn't quote anything about you claiming editors should resign. You were silent on what should be done about the "error" of not including politically correct scientists.
My comment on the editors was only to imply that if the political orientation of reviewers is going to be considered an "error" that the standard should be applied consistently and retroactively as well!
And now you are bringing up "political views"?
Way off base there, Icefisher.
Hardly off base. You are the one that claimed "The editor made a mistake by limiting the reviews to climate skeptics". If climate skeptics aren't political I am not sure what the definition of a climate skeptic is, perhaps you can elucidate?
No, S&B's points had already been refuted in the literature, and neither S&B nor the journal bothered to tackle the refutations.
Nothing has been refuted. There is a disagreement as to whether the period chosen for validating the models was incorrect but they chose the entire period the models have been available. The findings are non-controversial, even Real Climate replicated them.
The disagreement is how long we should wait to start believing the models. The models suggest "True Faith" as the standard and that validation isn't necessary and that lack of performance is not a sign of model failure.
S&B suggest that we should use something, anything but "True Faith"
and they offer something the only thing.
The modelers would like us to believe the models based upon paleontological data, the data for which the models were fitted to in a complex curve fitting exercise. But for validation purposes that's pure mental masturbation.
You are like a babe in the woods. You have no clue.
I am the guy that has to chop the experts off at the knees. I have to tell top investment gurus they are booking too much income. And my position will stand as long as my peer review will back me up.
There is no third party reviewer here nor any of the peer reviewers have to come from the investment firm. They all work for the same firm I work for.
This is why you are the babe in the woods. The modelers need to validate their models by performance and they are not performing. Your suggestion amounts to the auditees doing self auditing.
Spencer stated that now it is in the literature, the IPCC has to pay attention.
So what we are seeing as opposed to papers pointing out errors are 100% pure political moves.
Its plain as day that there only course of action to proceed business as usual is to execute an end run to ignore the lack of model performance and the complete lack of model validation beyond historic curve fitting.
I allow curve fitting but only in the absence of something else. S&B provided a solid something else.
This is bad science and bad journaling which has nothing to do with politics at all. Your attempt to paint mainstream science as being political (or even religious in other threads) is completely off base.
This is a completely unsupported claim.
The "error" you called is not an uncommon practice.
99.9% of the time its hidden from view by keeping reviewer names confidential. If this were an important element of science no way would that be the case.
As I said my too young too stupid fellow poster; you need to provide evidence that this practice is unusual before giving it two seconds of credibility.
If you fail to do that as you are certainly destined to fail; it just proves exactly how naive and gullible you are.
This was what an experienced investigator recognizes as a diversion, an implied violation for which zero control exists over for 99.9% of published science. Its a complete non-issue. Its a control long ago determined as unnecessary. The reason it is not a necessary control is that bad science can be directly addressed by publishing what the alleged errors are. In this case they can't do that because there is no error.
There is just disagreement that 11 years is sufficient time. But its the only time available for model validation so while one might want to wait and see; there is no certainty for the climate having high sensitivity under the model assumption of properly identifying forcings.
And actually S&B was quite restrained. The globe was robustly warming for half the time of the study in large part from global momentum. This is being caused by natural variation claimed by the warmists to be far weaker. We need to know what is causing this. If it turns out to be sun S&B is just the tip of the iceberg. On top of S&B there is a major "going concern" issue that begs to be fleshed out.
Bottom line is in a world of secret reviewers the identity of the reviewers is a non-issue. If it is an issue then an audit is going to be necessary for all science. Scientists will need to be classified as skeptics and warmists and all science without fair representation needs to be tossed out consistently across the board. Otherwise they bluntly should just take this issue and shove it.
Bottom line is this is like an ad hominem when you can't come with a paper to refute the findings you have to find something else to cast doubt with. This has all the earmarks of pure unadulterated desperation.
And you my gullible fellow poster gobbled it up like a cod on a clam.
And since you obviously cannot even read what I did or did not quote of yours I suggest a course in remedial English.
Obviously if you misread that you have no hope understanding S&B much less knowing what the controversy really is or that you have been handed your butt by your own side.
Hmm, didn't you discuss "professional standards" with regard to the polar bear paper? Perhaps you'd be wise to show a little consistency.
I think thats exactly what I am calling for here. Consistency. If peer reviewer identity is important be consistent and bring all the names forth. If political orientation is important make that a standard AND BY ALL MEANS BE CONSISTENT!!!!
I have frequently called for consistency. Where I have not inserted myself is in specifically what standards need to be changed or established, but consistency is the issue here. I realize you are having difficulty grasping that but that probably is due to your reading comprehension disorder. I have also called for adequate enforcement. Obviously if reviewer identity is going to be a standard confidentiality has to go to provide the necessary transparency.
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 3, 2011 8:45:23 GMT
I agree that Spencer's paper is crap and his recent "economics" book with cartoons removes any credibility the guy had left, that said, science and peer review is not the fair system we all wish it was. Here is a great article on point: www.bmartin.cc/pubs/92prom.html |
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Sept 3, 2011 21:08:08 GMT
And let us not forget the wise words from that bastion of scientific integrity, Phil Jones:
"Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” – Phil Jones 8/7/2004
Guess they missed one!
|
|
|
|
Post by justsomeguy on Sept 4, 2011 11:46:20 GMT
And let us not forget the wise words from that bastion of scientific integrity, Phil Jones: "Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” – Phil Jones 8/7/2004 Guess they missed one! They did better by letting it publish and getting the head of the editor on a stick - every editor will think twice before publishing anything anti-climate change. My concern is that it will even effect solar publication on the L&P effect and the current activity low. |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 4, 2011 21:34:29 GMT
They did better by letting it publish and getting the head of the editor on a stick - every editor will think twice before publishing anything anti-climate change. My concern is that it will even effect solar publication on the L&P effect and the current activity low. That's just common sense. Any paper which purports to overthrow vast reams of the literature should be examined very closely. One should think three or four times before publishing such a thing because, as was shown in the S&B paper, revolutionary papers tend to be wrong. The flip side is that the rewards for publishing such a paper that is actually correct are vast. Your concern about L&P and such things is unfounded. Go to the mainstream blogs. They've all commented and there's absolutely no indication of any attacks against L&P. The take-home is clear. Write and publish professionally, like L&P, and you'll have few worries. Write and publish goop, like S&B, and get justifiably reamed. One quibble. "Get the editor's head on a stick" seems a bit harsh. That implies that he was attacked viciously and driven out. His mistake was noted, but his resignation was completely self-induced. Of course, we can't know what went on behind the scenes, so I can't be 100% certain. |
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 4, 2011 22:09:56 GMT
commonsense:
If past history is any indication, there was a lot going on behind the scenes. I doubt the the team has changed tactics at all. They are very heavily vested.
Just as Dessler stated that the science doesn't matter anymore, it is the social/political interests that must be satisfied......kinda makes anything Dessler write and get published not credible.
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Sept 6, 2011 7:44:32 GMT
That's just common sense. Any paper which purports to overthrow vast reams of the literature should be examined very closely. One should think three or four times before publishing such a thing because, as was shown in the S&B paper, revolutionary papers tend to be wrong.
How naive!
Why not give up the song and dance and just advocate burning books!
The way it works for science is if a bad paper gets through the response is supposed to be to publish another paper with data and good science behind it that shows the bad paper was wrong.
But when you have zero observations to prove the paper wrong that presents a political/philosophical problem.
Namely, you can only complain philosophically against the paper and it will remain unresolved until more observations that validate one side of the other.
But this is not about science its about philosophy and orthodoxy. Thats why it has to be about banning publication which is effectively the same thing as burning books.
Journals have procedures in place to prevent publication of science papers KNOWN TO BE WRONG. But thats only an issue for the journal's own reputation. Having to retract papers or have papers refuted, which is even worse than retraction, can make a journal look unreliable. But regulating journals is not about protecting science. Science has its own way of protecting itself as long as good papers are allowed to be published and we don't have some despot running around burning books.
When you have science on your side there is no need for any of that.
The real reason for the resignation was revealed yesterday. A huge monetary connection between Trenberth and Wagner. Suddenly there is a rationale for the bizarre action of Wagner writing an apology to Trenberth of all people.
With Trenberth marked in the climategate emails working to ban publication of AGW adverse positions and Trenberth in a position of responsibility this stinks of corruption.
|
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Sept 6, 2011 12:43:15 GMT
That's just common sense. Any paper which purports to overthrow vast reams of the literature should be examined very closely. One should think three or four times before publishing such a thing because, as was shown in the S&B paper, revolutionary papers tend to be wrong. How naive! Why not give up the song and dance and just advocate burning books! The way it works for science is if a bad paper gets through the response is supposed to be to publish another paper with data and good science behind it that shows the bad paper was wrong. But when you have zero observations to prove the paper wrong that presents a political/philosophical problem. Namely, you can only complain philosophically against the paper and it will remain unresolved until more observations that validate one side of the other. But this is not about science its about philosophy and orthodoxy. Thats why it has to be about banning publication which is effectively the same thing as burning books. Journals have procedures in place to prevent publication of science papers KNOWN TO BE WRONG. But thats only an issue for the journal's own reputation. Having to retract papers or have papers refuted, which is even worse than retraction, can make a journal look unreliable. But regulating journals is not about protecting science. Science has its own way of protecting itself as long as good papers are allowed to be published and we don't have some despot running around burning books. When you have science on your side there is no need for any of that. The real reason for the resignation was revealed yesterday. A huge monetary connection between Trenberth and Wagner. Suddenly there is a rationale for the bizarre action of Wagner writing an apology to Trenberth of all people. With Trenberth marked in the climategate emails working to ban publication of AGW adverse positions and Trenberth in a position of responsibility this stinks of corruption. Icefisher: Where did you read about a money connection between Trenbeth and Wagner? |
|
|
|
Post by hankslincoln on Sept 10, 2011 0:10:46 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Sept 10, 2011 17:07:26 GMT
That's just common sense. Any paper which purports to overthrow vast reams of the literature should be examined very closely. One should think three or four times before publishing such a thing because, as was shown in the S&B paper, revolutionary papers tend to be wrong. How naive! Why not give up the song and dance and just advocate burning books! The way it works for science is if a bad paper gets through the response is supposed to be to publish another paper with data and good science behind it that shows the bad paper was wrong. But when you have zero observations to prove the paper wrong that presents a political/philosophical problem. Namely, you can only complain philosophically against the paper and it will remain unresolved until more observations that validate one side of the other. But this is not about science its about philosophy and orthodoxy. Thats why it has to be about banning publication which is effectively the same thing as burning books. Journals have procedures in place to prevent publication of science papers KNOWN TO BE WRONG. But thats only an issue for the journal's own reputation. Having to retract papers or have papers refuted, which is even worse than retraction, can make a journal look unreliable. But regulating journals is not about protecting science. Science has its own way of protecting itself as long as good papers are allowed to be published and we don't have some despot running around burning books. When you have science on your side there is no need for any of that. The real reason for the resignation was revealed yesterday. A huge monetary connection between Trenberth and Wagner. Suddenly there is a rationale for the bizarre action of Wagner writing an apology to Trenberth of all people. With Trenberth marked in the climategate emails working to ban publication of AGW adverse positions and Trenberth in a position of responsibility this stinks of corruption. Icefisher: Where did you read about a money connection between Trenbeth and Wagner? Icefisher:
Where did you read about a money connection between Trenbeth and Wagner? Nothing to see here, move along.... wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/05/journal-deliverance-the-true-story-of-the-climate-hillbillies/The connection on the other side? Trenberth and Wagner? Well, Wagner is apparently the director of a group that wants to start a Soil Moisture Network. For this, they have asked the help of the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX).
GEWEX in 2010 announced the appointment, by acclamation, of Kevin Trenberth, as its new Chairperson. (page 3 of this newsletter). On Page 4, is the announcement that the Soil Moisture Network (which is the department Wagner runs) is looking for help. Not, coincidentally, on Page 5 is an article on how cloud albedo is overestimated in models, thus it’s worse than we thought.
In the conclusion of this cloud albedo discussion, is some boot licking directed at the new Chairperson.
Thus, the circle of climate is complete.
Cue the banjo’s, and squeal like a pig…. |
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Sept 11, 2011 4:03:25 GMT
They did better by letting it publish and getting the head of the editor on a stick - every editor will think twice before publishing anything anti-climate change. My concern is that it will even effect solar publication on the L&P effect and the current activity low. That's just common sense. Any paper which purports to overthrow vast reams of the literature should be examined very closely. One should think three or four times before publishing such a thing because, as was shown in the S&B paper, revolutionary papers tend to be wrong. The flip side is that the rewards for publishing such a paper that is actually correct are vast. Your concern about L&P and such things is unfounded. Go to the mainstream blogs. They've all commented and there's absolutely no indication of any attacks against L&P. The take-home is clear. Write and publish professionally, like L&P, and you'll have few worries. Write and publish goop, like S&B, and get justifiably reamed. One quibble. "Get the editor's head on a stick" seems a bit harsh. That implies that he was attacked viciously and driven out. His mistake was noted, but his resignation was completely self-induced. Of course, we can't know what went on behind the scenes, so I can't be 100% certain. I have been watching these fellows for years. I reported on NCAR and NOAA/NWS in Boulder, Colo., and am well aware of the ideological careerism that emerged in the early 1990s with the onset of taxpayer money via government 'grants.' "Contemporary science is a large-scale enterprise, heavily funded and highly directed. The dominant players are governments and large corporations, which provide most of the funding for science, and the community of professional scientists themselves, especially the scientific elites."The fact of the matter is this - Anthropogenic global warming violates the laws of thermodynamics and climate physics. Most, if not all of the AGW climate scientists of the IPCC and AGW insiders know this, but figured the public did not; so they played their AGW gamble with the public for years to gain billions in funding while fueling their careers while pocketing the bread in typical baby boomer fashion. Climategate proved what others had been saying about the falsification of data, the attacks on so-called 'AGW deniers' and the peer-reviewed head games fueled by ideological politics rampant in the field since the boomers entered the upper echelons of climate science in the late 1980s and 1990s. But the game is nearly up and they all know it, which is why there are attacks on people like Dr. Spencer and others who continue to prove that AGW violates the laws of thermodynamics and physics that rule the Earth's climate. More proof comes in every day with the progression of Space Weather science. The clock is ticking... So, the rush to secure high-paying chairmanships and government grants has been sped up because the AGW house of cards is coming down soon - in for a hard fall. Moreover, the global economic crisis means less money for climate science coming to a climate center and university near you. So with the waste of billions over the last 15 years on the AGW scam expect ever more AGW pushers to run towards getting as much $$$ as they can before it all goes poof! And it will. |
|
|
|
Post by commonsense on Sept 11, 2011 5:29:50 GMT
That's just common sense. Any paper which purports to overthrow vast reams of the literature should be examined very closely. One should think three or four times before publishing such a thing because, as was shown in the S&B paper, revolutionary papers tend to be wrong. How naive! Why not give up the song and dance and just advocate burning books! Absolutely! One should ignore the science and trust in a bad paper because it supports a denial of science. LOL. |
|
