JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Science is not done by peer or pal review, but by evidence and reason

The termination of the Pattern Recognition journal ought to be PR gold for skeptics. Nothing like this happens to unskeptical scientists, ever. It’s a telling spectacle.

A major science publisher gasped in horror that one amongst its scores of journals had “doubted the IPCC”, so the journal had to be axed forever. Oh the Crime! The over-the-top dummy-spit exposes the religious zeal in a supposedly scientific process. So much for the hallowed “Peer Review”. Fans of establishment science want us to believe it’s a gospel part of the scientific method, but it is neither intrinsic nor essential, and skeptics should not be fooled into thinking it is.

Peer reviewed papers may be gems or  junk but we won’t know which by discussing who reviewed them.

Let’s follow due process in science, but that is not by review whether peer-or-pal, it’s by prediction, test, observation, and repeat.

Some people seem to have lost sight of this, and think that skeptics ought to be trying to play the Peer Review Game according to the fine print of arbitrary rules dictated by unscientists who hate skeptics and who don’t even play by the rules themselves.  The game belongs to them –  they set, change and break the rules, and they decide who gets an invite to the clubhouse.  But in the end, the review game is a sideshow, and it is usually used to lock out those who question a consensus.

Decisions by anonymous unpaid reviewers are not worth much and never will be.

Should skeptics maintain the high ground? Absolutely, but the real high ground is another level entirely. I’m not going to fight to preserve the current system. Decisions by anonymous unpaid reviewers are not worth much and never will be, the incentives are too weak. We need accountability and responsibility of one individual, not so much committees, or brand-names, or boards.

Anyone who claims that science only exists on official approved pages of anointed publications is a Gatekeeper of Dogma. (How many trolls respond to a valid point by saying “why don’t you publish it in the peer review?”) Real scientists know that the truth is not dependent on where it was printed, nor who reviewed it. It’s time to rise above the Gatekeeper’s Rules, not fight over them.

The rules are arbitrary, the hypocrisy rife. When establishment climate scientists do pal-review they call it peer review; when skeptics do anything that could be construed as pal review, it’s “nepotism and malpractice”, and destructo-the-journal. Seriously?

It’s about politics not science. The publishers themselves said:” PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate sceptics”. No one can define “climate sceptic” in scientific terms (who denies there is a climate?). It follows that if PRP was used as a platform for climate unskeptics, presumably that would be fine.

Neither Peer nor Pal is perfect. Open review is the only one that counts

You don’t need to have a science degree to understand that there is nothing rigorous or scientific about what happened. The charge of “nepotism” was added as an afterthought. The journal announced the termination, and then got blow-back and apparently realized they had accidentally revealed their very unscientific philosophy where the IPCC = God, and one of the ten commandments was that it shall not be doubted. The publishers (“not-so-Copernicus“) belatedly added, without any detail, that the 14 papers published by 19 scientists in one special edition had reviewed each others work, and therefore should not have been published. The only “error” listed was to disagree with the IPCC. This is a scandal.

Not permitted: “This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.”

If all these articles had been published one month after each other, who would have noticed or cared that over a year there was a form of what could be construed as pal review? Isn’t this business as usual — if we looked at many clusters of specialist topics wouldn’t we find patterns where a small group of authors and reviewers cross check  each others work?  What does it mean? It means we can’t ever get past the human foibles, and there are always conflicts of interest. On the one hand if-you-pat-my-back then I’ll-pat-yours is a real phenomenon and definitely a temptation, and virtually impossible to police. But, in a Special Edition, if I allow your junk paper to be published next to my good one, I’m hardly doing myself a favour.

Asking someone outside the group doesn’t guarantee rigorous reviews either. How much effort should an unpaid unnamed reviewer go to, to cross check and improve a paper that they won’t get any credit for? There is no perfect solution. It’s not a bun-fight we need to waste time on. Bureaucratized Peer review is highly flawed, doesn’t prove a thing scientifically and works to the advantage of those who are already in the game.

Asking one outside-reviewer might improve the paper, asking two is better, but how long is a piece of string, and where is the sweet spot? Let’s ask  a thousand outside reviewers — call it published and set it free. Then pick the most insightful responses and publish them too.

The only way to know if the review process helped or hindered is to discuss the papers themselves, not the details of the review process. Let’s not get lost fighting in the bureaucratic maze, when what matters is the rest of the universe.

Curve fitting is not a crime

Curve fitting or wiggle-matching is a low end tool. It doesn’t prove anything, but sometimes it points to something worth investigating. Nearly every discovery starts with noticing a curve that fits, then people ask why…

For some perspective, ponder that the people who misuse it shamelessly are the ones with billions of dollars, PR departments, a BBC fan club and two-week junkets to Bali. Climate modelers are the worst Curve Fitters of all. The infamous IPCC climate models do the lowest form of wiggle-matching possible yet are hallowed in the peer review literature and in hundreds upon hundreds of papers, and then in thousands of media articles. In their wiggle-matching there are not even any wiggles to match. It is all done on a monotonically rising CO2 trend. There are no turning points, and no places on any graph where CO2 falls, and leads to a temperature fall. There is only the weakest of correlations between rising CO2 and a rough-rising temperature. (And there are countless examples where temperatures fell while CO2 rose.) Yet billions of dollars rests on these curves.

Just because curve-fitting finds a match, doesn’t mean “therefore” the match is a false one. This is as illogical as pretending curve-fitting is “therefore” the truth.  Some forms of curve fitting are worth protesting about. Let’s keep our eyes on the target.

 Rise above the Peer Review Game

Current journal reviewers are not crucial to science, there are other ways to review material.

If their pal-review system blocks the truth emerging in their journals, it will emerge somewhere else. So be it.

Reviewing papers is treated far too seriously after the fact, and often far too casually during the review. We have it completely back to front.

Let the free market review the papers

Peer review should not be raised on a pedestal, but it should be overhauled, as well as put back in it’s place. Here’s one possibility, but there must and ought be many, and the more we force science to fit a bureaucratic regimen, the less science we’ll get.

What if one named editor solely makes the decision to publish, and they can ask advice from reviewers, whomever they should choose. The reputation of that one editor should depend on the value of the papers they pass. The buck stops with them. They need to be paid, and the best ones, more. An editor’s name ought go on the paper (obviously as an editor, not as an author). Great editors would accrue great status. Reviewers can earn brownie points from the best editors by doing a good job to protect the editor’s reputation (which means accurate, complete reviews). Good editors pay off the brownie points, in turn, getting the best reviewers to improve and review each others papers. Whether the reviewers are pal or peers is up to the editors judgement — if they only ask pals, and the paper is poor, it’s on the editors head. Reviewers can still be anonymous. If the editor leaves the journal, the cachet of the editor stays with the editor, not with the journal. Some editors will prove to be much better than others at choosing which papers are worth publishing. It would be a very hard job.

As a small point to notice, bloggers sometimes work just like this…

Many journal editors today palm off their responsibility to vague anonymous reviewers. It’s death by committee.

Let’s not lose our focus

I am disappointed to see many good names in the Pattern Recognition paper being treated with so little respect and goodwill. This is not the way to advance science. Can we get back to ideas, tests, logic and results?

The Pattern Recognition debacle exposes what a waste of time most peer review journals are as they currently stand. (Has a single one spoken out against censorship because a paper “doubts the IPCC”?)  Anything that shows that there is nothing rigorous about peer review is a good thing for independent thinkers.

Therefore this incident is a bonus in the campaign to let the public know how weak the warmist case is, how unable to compete.

The main aim should be more than Peer Review Poker. The deck is stacked…

The Peer Review Game works as a gatekeeper to silence critics, so pandering and bowing  to it is exactly what the unscientists want. Let’s put the process exactly where it belongs. It’s not science, but sometimes it’s useful despite that, and sometimes it’s fun to play anyway, so we do it for the entertainment and wins we get (despite the odds). But the deck is stacked, and when we play the game we should not be placing big bets, nor attacking real scientists to score points in a flawed game.

Science, after all,  is not done by “Peer Review”, it’s done by evidence and reason.

Double standards? Not here…

People will accuse me of double standards, but quote me carefully (and in context) and you will find I have never attacked a paper purely because it was pal-reviewed, but always because I had problems with the reasoning and arguments first. When good scientists pal review good science, we can get better science. When poor scientists pal review poor science, we get a cheating loophole, though good editors ought to know that, and rebuttals can clean up mistakes. Pal review merely explains why some truly junky papers get put into supposedly eminent journals. My real problem is with scientists who make out that Peer Review is gospel while practicing bad pal-review. There is active deception in that contrast.

Nils Axel Morner, Roger Tattersall, Ian Wilson, have not said their papers are true because they are published, they all say “judge me by my work”.

Into the Fray (sigh)

In response to Anthony I would say:

1. The media are going to one-sidedly cherry pick a belated unsubstantiated excuse anyway. They always falsely try to pin any flaw to “all skeptics”. Why amplify that or accept it?  I would point out their hypocrisy, rather than join the chorus.

2. The real priorities are logic and reason, evidence and free speech. In the peer-pal debate there is no win worth achieving. Peer review is a weak system anyway. And current journal editors are only going to send alarmist papers to independent skeptics as a matter of course when everybody realizes the real debate occurred online, and some bloggers were closer to the truth than Nature.  Let’s help independent scientists continue to push the bounds of knowledge.

3. As far as dashing “…any chance of any sort of climate skeptic or citizen science based journal coming into existence…”. I would say, No. Not at all.

4. Until Copernicus shows that the papers contained flaws worse than MBH98, which was not even retracted, terminating a journal for no named error at all is a scandal. When will Copernicus be closing the other journals?

 

 

*     *    *

Roger (Tallbloke) stands by his work: “our papers are still available for download at PRP so people can read our science and decide the merits for themselves. Backup copies are available at the Talkshop in case the link dies. “

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.3/10 (123 votes cast)
Science is not done by peer or pal review, but by evidence and reason, 9.3 out of 10 based on 123 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/kjkqofg

563 comments to Science is not done by peer or pal review, but by evidence and reason

  • #
    Truthseeker

    Peer review is nothing more than argument from authority and should be considered entirely irrelevant when evaluating the science. Only the data, methodology and resulting conclusions should be used when evaluating science. Nothing else is relevant.


    Report this

    362

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Very succinctly put.

      In the commercial world, no significant document leaves an organisation without the content being independently checked, and then being signed by somebody authorised to do so.

      That is essentially the “Editorial” approach that Jo is suggesting, if I understand it right.

      And in the commercial world, the bigger established companies tend to carry more clout, because they have been around longer, and their name is known in the market. But on the other hand, the smaller entrants into the market tend to be more innovative and willing to push the established boundaries – the bicycle shed effect. In these cases, it is the customer who decides which they want to go with, for their own practical reasons, one of which may be the reputation of the person currently heading up each company (the editor in Jo’s suggestion).

      People say that the peer review process, and seeking to be published in eminent journals, makes science competitive, but it does nothing of the sort. Quite the reverse, in fact. The process allows the journals to effectively form cartels, to protect and retain each journals’ income stream from their existing stable of authors.


      Report this

      101

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Not succinct, but put much better than I could have hoped to achieve.

      The good Lord writes to Copernicus and gives them what-for.


      Report this

      00

    • #
      Philip Shehan

      Late to this party but I already commented on peer review in an earlier section. From comment 46.6

      http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/forgotten-historic-hot-temperatures-recorded-with-detail-and-care-in-adelaide/#comments

      Most of the statements by people here who have no experience of the peer review process are complete rubbish.

      Take for instance this one from the introduction:

      What if one named editor solely makes the decision to publish, and they can ask advice from reviewers, whomever they should choose. The reputation of that one editor should depend on the value of the papers they pass. The buck stops with them. They need to be paid, and the best ones, more. An editor’s name ought go on the paper (obviously as an editor, not as an author). Great editors would accrue great status. Reviewers can earn brownie points from the best editors by doing a good job to protect the editor’s reputation (which means accurate, complete reviews).

      This is EXACTLY how the current system works.

      As I wrote previously:

      It is not a committee process, and it is not about doing legwork for the reader. It is a quality control measure.

      A manuscript is submitted to a journal. The editor searches a data base to find people who have published track record in the area that is the subject of the paper. And as science has become very specialised sub categories of disciplines, it won’t be a general subject area like “chemistry”. It will be “Multinuclear Magnetic Resonance relaxation times”

      Usually three people qualified to assess the manuscript will be sent a copy. They will not know who else is doing the assessment and the authors will not know who the referees are unless the referee gives permission, but the referees will know the authors whose names appear on the manuscript.

      Each referee independently assesses the manuscript for its quality in terms of the experimental method, the experimental data and whether the discussion of the results and conclusions are justified by the data. Also even if the paper holds water, it may not pass muster if it is not considered important enough for publication in that particular journal. The top journals like Science and Nature are inundated with manuscripts and can be very picky as far as the importance criteria go.

      The referees go through this process very diligently. I know I do and I know how tough it is to satisfy the detailed comments and suggestions of referees of my own manuscripts. It is most certainly not a rubber stamp process.

      It is rare for a paper to be accepted for publication without having to satisfy referees questions or demands for further experiments to be carried out. This can involve several cycles of back and forth between the author and the referees via the editor over many months before the referees are independently satisfied and recommend to the editor that the paper be published. Or they may be unconvinced and the paper does not appear in the journal. The authors usually then lower their sights and submit it to a paper which is lower on the “impact factor” scale (roughly a measure of the pecking order of journals standing in the prestige stakes.) A lower impact journal will be less fussy about importance but just as fussy when it comes to the quality of the Science. Sometimes the paper never finds a home and the manuscript languishes in a drawer.

      Sometimes the referees will remain split. It then becomes the editor’s call as to whether he publishes or not. Many require unanimity from the referees but in the case of a split decision, some will send the paper to another expert for assessment before making a final decision.

      In short the process is very rigorous and depends on the individual opinion of experts in the field who act entirely independently from each other and the Editor.

      To paraphrase Winston Churchill (on democracy as a form of government), peer review is the worst way to assess the quality of a scientific manuscript prior to publication, except for all the others.


      Report this

      02

  • #
    King Geo

    There is so much “pseudo science’ or “voodoo science” going on out there trying to prove that the “Theory of AGW” is real, which of course it isn’t – it’s mere fantasy,ie “No Evidence and no Reason”. Many of this so called research is based on “computer modelling”, as Bob Carter and many other skeptics (real scientists) refer to as “GIGO” (garbage in garbage out). And we the poor tax payer are funding this “crap computer modelling research” to the tune of many A$millions. If I want to see any useful “modelling” I would be far better off watching “Project Runway” on Foxtel which does engage in “Evidence and Reason” – at least on this show the modelling makes sense and who better to assess the modelling than the beautiful former supermodel Heidi Klum, and myself of course back here in Oz, naturally in the company of my dear wife.


    Report this

    132

  • #
  • #

    Bravo Jo! A cracking post, well said!

    “As far as dashing “…any chance of any sort of climate skeptic or citizen science based journal coming into existence…”. I would say, No. Not at all.”

    After this debacle it will be our pleasure to wrest Pattern Recognition in Physics from the dead hand of Coppernickers control and set it up as an independent journal with open peer review along the lines Jo suggest in her excellent post.

    Lord Monckton has indicated that he will help with this, so god help anyone who tries to prevent, thwart or denigrate it. Martin Rasmussen is on thin ice legally.

    I have a feeling good honest scientists will be queuing up to submit papers to it, partly as a clear signal to the corrupt and shoddy controllers and gatekeepers of the overblown and over the hill mainstream big hitters such as ‘Nature’ and ‘Science’. They are already being boycotted by many scientists who are sick of their approach to real science and real scientists.


    Report this

    572

    • #

      A better strategy would be to Nuke it from Orbit.

      “I have a feeling good honest scientists will be queuing up to submit papers to it,”

      Unlike other journals you can put up on your website, as seen in “Science” and “Retraction Watch“. This should be good publicity that is surely to line them up.


      Report this

      58

      • #

        Yep, we should dedicate a section of the new PRP site to explaining it’s history. Including Anthony’s two posts and all comments. Good idea, thanks for that.


        Report this

        202

        • #
          AndyG55

          Rog, I know Anthony has been a PITB, and there seems to be some bad feeling between you and him…

          but maybe not necessary to include his comments..

          be the bigger man is all I’m saying.


          Report this

          111

        • #

          Sounds like a winning strategy!


          Report this

          212

          • #

            But I though you and Mosher were all for having everything out in the open. Suddenly changed your mind?

            Free the data! Free the Code! Free the nastiness and denigration!

            Live by the sword, die by the sword, that’s how Willis likes it after all.

            And it’ll show how seriously you guys take peer review. What’s not to like?


            Report this

            193

            • #

              Since when did I become associated with Mosher?

              Do you honestly think the papers are going to be taken seriously simply because the review is open?


              Report this

              024

            • #

              On the HNC thing, check my response to poptop further down the thread. Mine was the full fat 4 year version afforded to trainee engineers in the 80s by big companies. Not the boil in the bag modern 1 yr course he googled.


              Report this

              321

              • #

                I see we have graduated to childish name calling,

                “An HNC is one level below an HND and two levels below a bachelor’s degree, generally it is equivalent to the first year of a bachelor’s degree.”

                Regardless of how long your HNC was, it is equivalent to one year of a University level bachelor’s degree. It’s a vocational certificate and is not a relevant qualification for an editor of a physical scientific journal.


                Report this

                127

              • #
                Greg Cavanagh

                Poptech, this article of Joe’s is exactly what you are doing. But you’re not commenting on the article, you’re attacking Tallbloke, for wanting to open science up.

                So far youre arguments against the idea have been trivial. Got anything more substantial to say about the idea?


                Report this

                361

              • #

                It is a strawman to claim that is what I am arguing about.


                Report this

                325

              • #
                Heywood

                Gentleman,

                I am still reasonably new to the climate debate and consider myself sceptical of CAGW. I have read and posted in a few blogs on the subject and believe that both of you (Rog and Poptech) provide leadership to the sceptical side of things.

                What I see here is mindless bickering about stupid and irrelevant details between two guys who share a common goal. It is OK to disagree on a point, many of us do, but to start with the name calling and belittling of someones qualifications just gives the warmists ammunition. Don’t forget that William Connelly is posting on this thread and we certainly don’t want to give activist w@nkers like him any reason to think the sceptical movement is in disarray.

                My two cents anyway.


                Report this

                211

              • #
                Lars P.

                Heywood, I agree with you, however unfortunately this is not seldom.
                One of the reason is that there are very many kinds of skeptics, some who know “some” science, some who have incredible stupid theories, some who have really good ideas.

                I have not seen real proper classification of the skeptics – maybe this post from Claes sheds some light for you – if you are so new to the climate debate:
                http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2012/03/can-greenhouse-effect-be-detected.html
                “The recent exhange with Roy Spencer and Fred Singer concerning the “greenhouse effect” and “backradiation” identifies three groups in the climate debate with the following standpoints:

                Alarmists: There is a greenhouse effect and it threatens to overheat the globe.
                Skeptics: There is a greenhouse effect, but it is so small that it cannot be detected.
                Deniers: As long as no greenhouse effect has been identified, one can act as if there is no greenhouse effect.”

                Claes has also some very interesting posts analysing the greenhouse effect:
                http://claesjohnson.blogspot.se/2013/03/the-fabrication-of-co2-alarmism-decoded_16.html


                Report this

                41

              • #
                Ian H

                Regardless of how fat or four year it is, it is not a research qualification and it did not train you to do research. If you have indeed acquired research skills which qualify you to sit in judgement of scientific research as editor of a scientific research journal, you did not learn these skills in a subdegree qualification.


                Report this

                26

              • #

                Heywood, I have not belittled Roger’s qualifications at all, he has earned his qualifications.

                I was simply trying to clarify that an HNC is not a university degree as some were falsely assuming Roger had a university level degree in engineering. So I do not consider Roger a university graduated engineer but someone who has had some equivalent training, at the university level as an engineer.

                His university level degree is in the philosophy and history or science but I do not believe it is relevant for an editor of a physical science journal. I do consider him qualified as both a philosopher and historian on science at a university level as everyone should.

                As Ian pointed out, none of these qualifications are research (graduate) level. Such qualifications are looked to for editors of scientific journals.


                Report this

                16

    • #
      Joe Lalonde

      TB,

      “Peer-review” is an ENCLOSED system that no one can challenge.
      Common sense and facts have no bearing on a system that MUST protect THEIR theories at ALL costs.
      If not, then MANY scientists would be found out as FRAUDS!


      Report this

      182

      • #

        Sad but true Joe. OPEN peer review can change that. Once reviewers know their reviews will appear online with the paper, the whole ballgame changes. Pals will think twice before helping crap papers under the wire to meet IPCC deadlines for a start. And pals colluding to reject a good paper from a ‘sceptic’ will think twice too, lest they be shot down by the wider community.


        Report this

        341

        • #
          Joe Lalonde

          TB,

          You sort of know that is impossible as it would change precedence as well as history and bring forth further failures.
          After all, the VAST MAJORITY of papers ARE receiving government grants.


          Report this

          111

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      You know, somebody really should take PopTech to one side, and explain that you totally loose any argument on this site when you are reduced to Ad Hominum attacks.


      Report this

      222

      • #
        Ian H

        An ad hominem is when you bring irrelevant stuff into the conversation or try to win by abuse or name calling. Poptech asked

        What exactly qualifies you to be an editor of a scientific journal? Please list relevant education or employment.

        Now Tallbloke might — undoubtedly does — find that question awkward. But as far as I can see it is right on the money in terms of relevance to the discussion. It certainly doesn’t meet my definition of an ad hom.


        Report this

        27

        • #
          wayne, s. Job

          Ian H. Through out our modern history almost all of our important advances have been by free thinking unqualified people. Often swimming against the tide of main stream science and academia.

          Apart from being push bike mechanics what qualifications in aeronautical engineering did the Wright brothers have. The best and brightest scientists at the time said heavier than air flight was impossible. Forgetting entirely about all the things heavier than air flying around. Like the warmists they forgot to look out the window.

          Honesty to the scientific principle is all that Roger requires to do a good job everything will follow from that.

          Tallbloke go for it, release science from the dark hole it has been hiding in. Succeed and every other branch of science will follow, allowing all the scientists, and there are many that have been kept out in the dark by consensus. Compared to the 19th century the 20th has been a dark age for many catagories of science.

          Turn the lights on for them Roger you will be a science hero.


          Report this

          71

      • #
        Ian H

        For an example of a real ad hominem look at the previous comment where Tallbloke says

        But then, you know jack sh1t about astrophysics, so why would we care?

        Abusive. Irrelevant. Ad hominem.


        Report this

        35

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    What does peer reviewed mean?

    ‘First let me clear up any misunderstanding how these papers get published and especially the process of peer review. It’s a system that has been around for over 200 years. And its purpose is to keep bad research out of the scientific literature. Referees look through submitted papers for obvious mistakes and flaws in methodology and advise the editor of the journal accordingly. Papers are excluded if the mistakes and flaws are very obvious, papers should not be excluded simply if the referee or an editor disagree with its contents or conclusions.’

    As can be seen here:-

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l_SEy8gt3c


    Report this

    132

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      Correction, correct link is

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l_SEy8gt3c

      [Link fixed above - Mod]


      Report this

      118

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      It’s good in theory. And the fact that the papers “shouldn’t” be excluded simply if the referee or an editor disagree with its contents or conclusions.

      However;
      1/ we’ve seen many cases where papers have been excluded for this very reason.
      2/ The papers could still be junk.

      Peer review simply confuses the issue about science. It makes it appear as though it’s a valid paper when fact, it doesn’t in fact do that.

      Peer review isn’t a bad thing in itsself. It’s the illusion that the paper is valid that is at fault here.


      Report this

      170

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘Peer review isn’t a bad thing in itself’, I refer you to!

        ‘It’s a system that has been around for over 200 years’

        If its not broke why try and fix it?

        ‘it appear as though it’s a valid paper when fact, it doesn’t in fact do that.’ well proof is in it’s operation and then it becomes at solid theory and stands for itself!

        The power of theories!

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFcWwJOJUZc


        Report this

        012

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        My thoughts entirely.

        If you don’t like the implication of what a report says, it is relatively easy to question the process, or the way that references have been interpreted (especially foreign language references, where two interpretations are required – first language, and then meaning).


        Report this

        60

    • #

      The effectiveness, and the desirability, of peer review is negated where a ostensibly scientific subject is politicized.

      If one side ends up controlling peer review, and if that side is pushing for a “cause” that has nothing to do with the science, peer review is worse than worthless. Clearly, climate science fits that bill. The Climategate emails illustrate how, regarding AGW, peer review has becomes a corrupt and incestuous system where a small group promote and protect papers that advance their “cause,” while excluding all others.

      Notice how today’s climateers like Mann and Peter Gleick can be seen almost daily hobnobbing with leftist politicians. That’s no accident. Virtually all the Chicken Littles in the forefront of promoting the agw scare … are leftists. True. And they certainly all have internalized the words of the leftist US senator Tim Wirth (1993): “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.” And they’ve come to believe that their “cause” supersedes everything else, such that improper behavior is explicitly condoned … encouraged actually … if it’s for the “greater good.”

      You can expect that they also internalized this 1988 pronouncement of lead ipcc author Stephen Schneider: “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

      For a brief but relevant digression, let’s talk about the hockey stick. In 1998, Mann’s fault-ridden bogus hockey stick paper overturned decades of accepted thinking about the past climate. Normally this type of revolutionary paper would have been met with intense scrutiny and taken a long time to gain full acceptance. But the leftist climate (and scientific) establishment fully accepted Mann’s thesis in months, without question. This article, just out, an EXCELLENT (the best I’ve seen) summary for the layperson on the hockey stick, tells that sorry tale: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-hockey-stick-and.html

      So they accept the idea that pushing the leftist climate policies is the right thing to do regardless of any science, and that being dishonest in “offering up scary scenarios” is condoned to be applauded. Period. That’s undeniably what the words of Wirth and Schneider spell out. And that’s exactly what the hockey stick was: a “scary scenario” where the author was attempting to be “effective” (per Schneider) by being dishonest. There’s no question about that. And the climate establishment that immediately accepted the dubious hockey stick paper without question, they were also following the advice of Wirth and Schneider, because Mann’s hockey stick advanced “the cause.” Not good.

      In climate peer review, we can also see the repugnant ideas of Wirth and Schneider at work. That makes climate peer review ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS. Reform it, or junk it.


      Report this

      210

      • #
        blackadderthe4th

        ‘If one side ends up controlling peer review’, and which side would that be? Because it goes to independent referees, who make are scientists in the field and would take great pleasure and gain browny points in finding fault with somebody’s paper!

        ‘Notice how today’s climateers like Mann’, well I assume you refer to his ‘hockey stick’? Which has been validate many times:-

        The truth behind Mann’s hockey stick!
        ‘They said the hockey stick was a fiction, because there was virtually no trace of the MWP. They accused Mann of using faulty data and dodgy statistics to rewrite history, The hockey stick still provokes strong reactions today, what is your reaction when you see that, the most famous graph in the world…[what a shame…it’s a scandal]…[this has been discredited]…[well the first thing is great dis-belief]…some even accused him of the ultimate scientific crime, fraud [If it’s fraud they should be in jail]…(I never expected the sort of attacks we were subject to)…[this was clearly and I’m going to say it bluntly, deliberately bent]…(if you {they} can’t win on the basis of science, you try to win on deformation, slander, rhetoric…which has no basis in fact)…M Mann was attacked in print and on the web…but while the sceptics were busy attacking Mann, other researchers were doing there own science, hunting for more proxies and using different methods to work out past temperatures…soon M Mann’s graph was joined by many others, all reconstructing the past 1000 years of temperature, the question was would they back up M Mann or prove him wrong? It might look confusing but this graph has a really clear message, the red line is M Mann original hockey stick graph, very flat and hardly any MWP…the other lines are the reconstructions done since, there is a big spread in other words scientists disagree about a lot of the temperature, that’s not really surprising, because working out the temperature for the last couple hundred years…but the crucial part…this is 1000AD…M Mann probably under estimated…what these lines all agree on…there is evidence nowhere in any period of past 1000 years that is as warm as the second part of the 20th century. In other words the end of the 20th is really unprecedented, once again the sceptical attacks has made this science stronger, we now have a whole hockey team of graphs, they make a very convincing case that global warming…really is unusual’ Dr Iain Stewart.

        Now watch for yourself:-

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9jtVZ3RUCU

        —–
        YAWN. Mann censored data, artificially truncated data, used the wrong type of proxy, didn’t release the data, and used an algorithm that produced hockey sticks out of red noise. His stick has not been meaningfully replicated (except with cherry-picked junk, more bristlecones and six sigma trees like Yamal). Even if it had been replicated and the stick was real, the fact that you (and real climate scientists) defend work that is outrageous mathematical ethical trash says everything we need to know about your scientific standards. Cheating and misrepresenting things, lying and deception is all OK with you. – Jo


        Report this

        016

      • #

        Jo, I just wanted to run this below your statement because I used your words on the hockey stick. Steven Goddard just did a post that highlighted Stephen Schneider, way back in 1976, up to his new scare mongering tricks, but that time talking about global cooling causing our doom. I commented:

        “We have to offer up scary scenarios… each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.” -Stephen S. Schneider, 1989

        Schneider, the master of “scary scenarios,” was already at it in 1976. Maybe some of the warmists just like to scare people, especially the children, for its own sake. Regardless, without a doubt, for more than a score of years, the words or sentiment of Schneider has been serving as the guiding force behind the fear mongering Chicken Littles. Over and over again, year after year, it never ends and it never stops, the warmists just keep on like a broken record repeating the same regurgitated warnings of our imminent doom. It never comes true though. It’s all baloney. Small detail.

        By the way, that’s what the hockey stick was, I mean is, a “scary scenario.”

        Mann was doing his duty, promoting “the cause,” being “effective” by not being honest. The statistical “technique” Mann used to create the hockey stick involved heavily weighting any data that helped create a hockey stick, and seriously downplaying anything that didn’t. If random numbers are fed into Mann’s algorithm, nearly every time the result is… a hockey stick. From Jo Nova today: Mann censored data, artificially truncated data, used the wrong type of proxy, didn’t release the data, and used an algorithm that produced hockey sticks out of red noise. The hockey stick overturned decades of accepted thinking on what the past climate was like. Normally this type of paradigm changer would be met with intense scrutiny over a long time period. No scrutiny for the hockey stick though, despite the hockey stick being riddled with issues. No time period either, within months the hockey stick was accepted “by all” without question as the new shining star of the climateers. It didn’t matter to the establishment scientists and climatologists whether the hockey stick was true or not, because it was the scary scenario that would allow their “cause” to be realized. Hallelujah! Check out The Rise and Fall of the Hockey Stick: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/the-rise-and-fall-of-hockey-stick-and.html


        Report this

        31

    • #

      Crick’s paper on DNA wasn’t peer reviewed.
      Einstein’s work wasn’t peer reviewed either.

      For an expert opinion on modern peer review, read this
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2562197


      Report this

      71

  • #

    This doesn’t help anything either.

    If peer-review doesn’t matter then there is no reason to waste time setting up a journal that pretends to be peer-reviewed.


    Report this

    329

  • #
    AndyG55

    Its very simple,

    If peer-review in climate science had any integrity left at all,
    papers from the likes of M.Mann, Lewindowsky, Cook, Karoly, Gergis etc would NEVER get published.

    It is the so-called climate scientists that have destroyed the peer-review process.


    Report this

    481

  • #
    Gossie

    Peer Review = Lies agreed upon!


    Report this

    132

  • #

    Poptech misses the point bigstyle.

    OPEN PEER REVIEW

    This is something Peter Webster (Judy Curry’s fella) and I were discussing at the 3 day Royal Soc meeting last year I went to.

    Publish all submitted papers, but move rejected ones to a separate stack where they can still be accessed.

    Reviewers to allow their reviews to be published along with papers.

    THE WAY FORWARD


    Report this

    382

    • #
      Joe Lalonde

      TB,

      Open review by ALL…Not “Peer-review” as that implies ONLY the people in that field can have any contributions when if fact MANY fields can contribute or show errors.

      Both you and I know the system is totally enclosed to ONLY the few.


      Report this

      70

    • #

      TB do you have a model you would use or build this idea from the ground up?

      Just for the non-journal reading readers here, open peer review advocates (from all walks of science including the establishment, government paid types) have formulated models for producing such journals and some journals offer it in full or in part.

      I’ve not read down so maybe this question has been answered or developed already…


      Report this

      22

    • #
      Ian H

      Impracticable. Unworkable.

      If you reject one of my papers I’m not going to let you publish it under the label “rejected”. I’m going to take it away and tweak it and submit it somewhere else to try to get it accepted.

      You can’t publish unless I agree. Ever heard of “copyright”? There are workable open review models but this isn’t one of them.


      Report this

      04

  • #
    AndyG55

    As these papers appear to be about solar and planetary effects….. (sorry, been busy all day, no time, no time at all)

    there would not be ANY of the registered “climate scientists™ ” that would have the comprehension or intelligence to review them anyway !!


    Report this

    160

  • #
    Hans Jelbring

    It shines and radiates around Jo´s words and her surname seems to be a promise and guarantee to keep the ideas of the enlightment alive in the darkness that have fallen on contemporary climate science and elsewhere in the scientific community.


    Report this

    180

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Here is a quote I received:

    Nevertheless, I want to assure you that NASA’s policy of providing grants to individuals associated with institutions does not in any way weaken the models or science that results; in fact, the tried and true method of peer review has been the standard for selecting the best available science for over 100 years.
    T. Jens Feeley, Ph.D.
    Deputy Director
    Strategic Integration & Management Division
    Science Mission Directorate

    This does NOT allow ANY possible changes from technological advances as the system is final and then USED for referencing by later “peer-reviewers”.


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Winston

    The case of Jan-Hendrik Schon bears repeating, notwithstanding that I have posted it a couple of times previously. This gentleman published a series of journal articles in several of the most prestigious journals, including “Science”, “Nature”, “Applied Physics Letters”, “Physical Review”, etc) on semiconductors, nanotechnology and condensed matter physics which amounted to a frequency of one paper every 8 days in 2001, winning multiple prizes in physics and becoming the flavour of the month in his field in the process. Most, if not all of the “peer review” was done by the same core group of associates, compadres and colleagues in a very boutique clique of those kindly disposed to belief every utterance from his pen was gospel. His fraud was discovered by an independent PhD Physics student at Princeton who noticed quite by chance that two graphs for different experiments had been duplicated in spite of vastly different parameters, and therefore proving his “breakthrough” discoveries had in fact been fraudulently obtained. It is important to note that the peer review process did nothing to validate this gentleman’s findings and merely endorsed fraudulent work which was later withdrawn in disgrace.

    It is naive in the extreme to suggest that peer review serves ANY purpose other than to entrench the prevailing paradigm, and hence it perhaps ironically stands at the vanguard of preventing rather than potentiating scientific discovery, or even the search for the truth. Unless it is completely independent and demonstrably rigorous, peer review is less than worthless, it is dangerous and unconscionable.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schön_scandal


    Report this

    300

    • #

      Here, is another story about Pyschology gurus with no understanding of maths (Could reflect on Prof? Stephen Lewandowsky) in the guardian no less http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/19/mathematics-of-happiness-debunked-nick-brown?CMP=twt_gu


      Report this

      90

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      I have my own anecdote. Based on work that I had done previously, I tried to explain someone’s result with a simple model (a long formula but the calculations could be done with a calculator). The trend looked like a cross between a Poisson distribution and the outline of a dolphin (sorry, best analogy that I could come up with). I did it and went around high-fiving people in the lab. When I sat down and rechecked, I found that I had forgotten a pair of brackets. With the brackets, it was not even close to explaining the results.

      My best guess as to what had happened is that he had made the same mistake and fudged his data. By then it was too late to withdraw the data but he could leave out the analysis. It made it through the peer-review process.

      I don’t expect the peer-review process to pick up on errors like this, even if it was not corrupt (no way could I get a letter in pointing out what I had found). The point is that peer-review doesn’t guarantee quality and integrity. Flaws will be found by researches repeating the work and re-analysing it. Silencing sceptics is, fundamentally, unscientific.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      According to my recollection (I saw this on the goggle-box, because those journals aren’t exactly my choice of reading), the duplication of the graphs was absolutely blatant. I found it hard to believe that any “reviewer” had read the articles conscientiously before approving them. It was as if Schon had printed a map of Australia upside-down, twice, and nobody had noticed.

      I absolutely agree with your comments (and Jo’s) about the danger of assigning excessive value to peer review.


      Report this

      60

  • #

    As usual, logic, reason and fair play at Jos site.

    A very good post, well done.


    Report this

    280

  • #

    An smashing post Jo. When the game is rigged, the only winning strategy is not to play it.

    “When people are prevented from publishing in the mainstream science journals, they’ll publish on the internet. When sensible commentary on dubious science is heavily censored, that commentary moves out to the freedom of the internet. Once moved onto the internet, it won’t be coming back anytime soon, which is one of the reasons why circulations of what used to be the popular science journals, are plunging.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/02/15/were-going-to-have-to-do-something-about-peer-review/

    Pointman


    Report this

    340

    • #

      Yep, Open access, open peer review, open internet.

      WAY TO GO.


      Report this

      270

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        I remember advocating a similar system here about a year ago, which was the last time I can remember a peer review kerfuffle erupting.

        There’s a couple of software suites which could each provide part of the answer, though none by themselves are a one-stop shop.
        For portable data analysis or simulation, the Kepler project looks interesting. There is also now a website being set up called PubPeer to fill the gap in easy online comment of establishment journal articles. Probably in Wikis there’s almost everything you need already in terms of collaborative editing of articles (and how much longer are we going to keep calling these things “papers”?)
        Put those three together and you have collaborative editing for disparate peers, portable analysis execution environment for verifying reproducibility, and centralised discussion site for review of any published paper.

        That’s just what I could remember and find in 10 minutes, so probably whatever system you can imagine someone has already done it somewhere on the Internet.


        Report this

        10

      • #
        AndyG55

        Even then, I think it is highly advisable to have someone who knows their stuff and can be trust to be thorough, go over your submission before it is put into publication.

        Which as far as I can see, is essentially what has happened in this case.

        I mean, you could hardly ask any of the registered climate brigade to do that, they wouldn’t have a clue what you were talking about..

        because they are ……… basically

        THICK !!!


        Report this

        10

  • #
    Konrad

    Jo,
    Congratulations on taking the high road on this sorry incident. I know it is a risk considering the claims of pal-review. (claims notably added as a panicked band-aid after the publishers letter claiming “climate scepticism” as the cause was revealed.)

    In Anthony’s defence he has chosen the middle road. I have serious respect for Anthony’s achievement with WUWT, in particular the empirical surface stations project. The critical role WUWT has played in defeating the climate propagandists cannot be ignored. WUWT is now part of scientific and media history.

    But I believe it is Anthony’s sudden success that has lead to problems. Anthony has unexpectedly achieved a world wide reputation and fame, and compromising it could reduce WUWT effectiveness at combating climate alarmist. But we have all seen the danger of this in bureaucracies. After one employment cycle, no matter what the primary mission was, the primary goal becomes the survival of the bureaucracy. The excuse is always the same – if we don’t survive, we can’t do the good work.

    The middle road leads to mediocrity. There is safety in the mediocrity of the herd, you are never seen to fail. But you guarantee the you will never excel. Ever. When survival becomes a motivation, fear becomes a factor. WUWT wants no association with “slayers”, but that is exactly the fear that “falseflag” was intended to create. (again, I state for the record I have nothing to do with that group or their claims.)

    To avoid looking foolish, WUWT relies on the advice of Willis and Dr. Svalgaard. Both very good, but both compromised.

    Unfortunately Willis has an ego the size of a super heavy exoplanet. He has staked this on there being a net radiative GHE and that incident LWIR can heat water that is free to evaporatively cool, and he is never going to back down. Despite being shown a simple experiment to check the latter, he refuses to check it simply claiming (repeatedly) that the maths says it “must”.

    Dr. Svalgaard has been successful at gatekeeping on any claim that solar variability could have caused the MWP or LIA. Sadly for Dr. S, gatekeeping against sceptics is one thing, but right now the full force of the BBC’s climate propaganda unit is charging like herd of panicked wildebeest toward the “its the sun” exit. (I’m sure you have noticed the stories they have been steadily seeding since late 2013).

    To illustrate my point about fear – Willis and Dr. Robert Brown (a major WUWT contributor) were shown a design for a simple empirical experiment -
    http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
    A simple rig that just checks if our oceans would actually freeze without DWLWIR as claimed by AGW believers. Given a starting temperature of 15C, three simple questions were asked -
    Would the water sample freeze?
    Would the water sample heat towards 80C?
    What effect would the cycle frequency of the SW source have on the sample temperature?

    I would say Wills and Dr. Brown went to extortionary lengths to avoid any direct answer to any of those simple questions. That’s to me is absurd in what is supposed to be the net’s best science blog. The main voices now fear attempting answers about a simple experiment design.

    Is applying Stephan-Boltzmann equations to moving translucent fluids in a gravity field a good idea or a bad idea? The state of fear almost guarantees that the answer will not be found at WUWT.

    Sadly it is also this state of fear lead to WUWT joining the attack on the Pattern Recognition journal.


    Report this

    222

    • #

      Konrad, agree with the first part of your comment. One should always keep an open mind but on blogs there are trolls who try and upset things for their own perverse pleasure. Jo does a great job. This blog is now read around the world with increasing readership. I think it could well get the top science award this year (I think WUWT is not eligible)
      The second part is off topic but is worth a separate post as I put here http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/breaking-pattern-recognition-in-physics-axed-by-copernicus/comment-page-1/#comment-66155


      Report this

      90

      • #
        Konrad

        Agree the second issue is not for this thread.

        As to the first I feel that both Jo and Anthony do a greet job and have had a serious impact on the plans of the AGW propagandists.

        Even now the BBC appear to be engineering their escape.

        But it may be time for Anthony to look at alternate discussion threads or some other mechanism that bypasses what has now become a problem of gatekeeping that is in many ways a mirror of “team” behaviour.

        From one perspective, Anthony just told Tallbloke he was out of order with Pattern Recognition because he was affecting Anthony’s reputation.


        Report this

        92

        • #
          Paul Vaughan

          Konrad (January 21, 2014 at 12:01 am) wrote:

          “But it may be time for Anthony to look at alternate discussion threads or some other mechanism that bypasses what has now become a problem of gatekeeping that is in many ways a mirror of “team” behaviour.”

          The (curiously 100% California-based) WUWT Quartet increasingly looks compulsively obsessed with engineering a (shady) bureaucratized thought-policing movement — darkly attempting via some misguided toxic mix of ignorance &/or deception to red tape the boundaries of acceptable thought and enforce belief in things that cannot be true.

          Jo: You may be the only one who can administer the antidote. For sure your intellect towers above Anthony’s and I’ve never seen Anthony looking so shaken.

          May God bless all of the sensible contributors.


          Report this

          105

          • #
          • #
            Greg Cavanagh

            I find some of Anthony’s replys to comments rather rude, and is the main reason I rarely visit the blog myself. He has little humility.


            Report this

            72

          • #
            Ian H

            The (curiously 100% California-based) WUWT Quartet increasingly looks compulsively obsessed with engineering a (shady) bureaucratized thought-policing movement — darkly attempting via some misguided toxic mix of ignorance &/or deception to red tape the boundaries of acceptable thought and enforce belief in things that cannot be true.

            Those sinister Californians eh! Got a bit of conspiracist ideation going on there by the look of it. Maybe you should talk to Lewandowsky.

            Anthony sees himself as the voice of the rational skeptics. To preserve his blog as a space for rational skeptics that means he has to regularly smack down the nutjobs who keep trying to take it over. Nutjobs like

            * the electric sun people
            * the astrological “planetary resonance” people
            * the skydragon slayers with their weird thermodynamics

            And I’m very glad he does it.

            If he didn’t then rational skepticism would blur into all this other weird [snip] and I wouldn’t be able to call myself a skeptic because skepticism would be irrevocably linked to whacky physics and astrology.
            [Some words will automatically get you moderated -Fly]


            Report this

            08

            • #
              Ian H

              [Some words will automatically get you moderated -Fly]

              I figured that is what it was. I do trust the moderation policy here and was confident it would come through OK. I did hesitate as I wrote the word and wonder if I should insert an obfuscating symbol. But I wasn’t being abusive and as far as swear words go that one is so mild it hardly counts as a swearword at all. This blog is Australian after all, so I thought it would be OK.

              I should have realised that while the blog is Australian the automoderation software is probably American. And they are really uptight about swearwords in that country.


              Report this

              05

              • #

                Ian, the moderation rules on crass are very much my design. Sometimes crass words are entertaining and get passed, but I discovered that if I let cheap-shot common-crass through, the spirit of the thread degrades fast and we get more crass commenters and less intelligent ones.

                Hence, if you want to toss in a swear word, make it worthwhile. The enlightened or funny contributions will still pass.


                Report this

                80

            • #
              Konrad

              Ian H
              January 21, 2014 at 10:43 am
              ————————————–
              Here we go again…

              “the skydragon slayers with their weird thermodynamics”

              Familiar with illegal immigration in Australian politics? When the compassionate, caring and inclusive Left start losing a debate the result is always the same. The face reddens, the arm extends, the finger points and the shriek begins – “wwwrrrasist!!!”

              Very few of those seeking to raise issues about what you call “weird thermodynamics” at WUWT have anything to do with PSI. But raise a simple engineering principle and the result is so often the same under the Reign of Willis, the shriek begins “slaaaaayer!!!” That’s pretty much like using the “D” word in climate debate.

              I for one have nothing to do with PSI and have no interest in their claims. I am only interested in empirical results of physical experiments. I am not interested in BS(blackboard scribbling) because that is what caused this hideous mess in the first place. Those raising issues of thermodynamics or fluid dynamics at WUWT are often accused of not understanding radiative physics. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many not only understand, but also understand why (as Sir George Simpson warned Callendar in 1938) that radiative physics alone cannot determine the temperature profile of a fluid body in a gravity field.

              The basics of the radiative physics behind global warming claims is quite simple. Here is a physical empirical experiment I refined so others can replicate demonstrating the radiative two shell model -
              http://i44.tinypic.com/2n0q72w.jpg
              http://i43.tinypic.com/33dwg2g.jpg
              http://i43.tinypic.com/2wrlris.jpg
              - It works. You can run it in a high-school science lab if you have a high torr vacuum pump. However, due to radiative and conductive losses results will not conform to Stephan-Boltzmann ideal. (Note – if attempting this, always use hardened or laminated glass and keep the unsupported area of the glass low, 50mm square is sufficient.) For entertainments sake you can compare this design with Dr. Spencer’s for a lesson in the difference between science and engineering ;-)

              (Given my criticism of Anthony above, I should point out that he has actually dedicated some threads to the running of such experiments to combat the claims of PSI.)
              I say there are serious problems with applying traditional radiative physics to translucent or fluid bodies in a gravity field. Many of those involved in engineering like myself believe the failure of all climate models lays there, in particular the failure to correctly model non-radiative energy transports within the oceans and atmosphere.
              You say Anthony is defending “rational” sceptics. However there can be no doubt at WUWT that the party line is that a net radiative greenhouse effect warms the planet. Those that say there is a radiative greenhouse effect, but the net effect of radiative gases is radiative cooling of the atmosphere are no longer tolerated. Is this rational?
              I can put a block of clear acrylic with a black base on insulated pad in a matt black vacuum chamber with super cooled walls. Very little LWIR impinges on the block, yet it can cool by LWIR to the walls of the chamber. I illuminate it with a SW source equal to the power of the sun at earth’s surface. An engineer would say- “gee, leave that too long and you’ll melt the base of the acrylic”. What would a radiative GHE believer say? “but, but it’s not relevant! and anyway, um, err…Slaaaayer!!!” One might as well ask what does the Fox say?


              Report this

              60

              • #
                Vic G Gallus

                Why can’t the argument about the second law be kept simple. If IR radiation passes through the atmosphere unhindered at the speed of light, then surely the rate of heat loss is greater than if along the way, some wavelengths are absorbed and the energy spread around the atmosphere before being emitted as IR energy into space.

                There is a problem with quantifying how big the difference is using a model where a very cold layer of atmosphere warms up a warmer layer. Yes, heat flows both ways and the net flow is always from hot to cold but it does come out looking a bit clumsy.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Konrad

                Vic,
                this -
                “If IR radiation passes through the atmosphere unhindered at the speed of light, then surely the rate of heat loss is greater than if along the way, some wavelengths are absorbed and the energy spread around the atmosphere before being emitted as IR energy into space”
                - is the radiation only argument.

                The primary question is atmospheric temperatures and this question cannot be answered by SB equations alone. Non-radiative energy transports dominate in our atmosphere. These must be modelled correctly.

                When non-radiative energy transports are properly considered, it can be seen that radiative gases play a dual role. They do slow the exit of LWIR from the surface, however they also increase LWIR exiting to space from altitude. It is very important to remember that energy exiting at altitude did not get there directly by interception of surface LWIR, rather this was intercepted in the first few hundred metres of the atmosphere then transported higher by non-radiative transport, vertical convective circulation.

                Most, and I stress this, most of the energy being emitted by the atmosphere as OLR to space was not acquired by interception of radiation, but was acquired by surface conduction and release of latent heat. The net flux of intercepted radiation into the atmosphere is less than half the OLR flux out of the atmosphere to space.

                Without radiative gases our atmosphere would still heat, but it would have virtually no way to cool. Cooling by surface conduction is ineffective for a moving atmosphere in a gravity field.

                The critical mistake of the radiative GHE theory is believing you can determine the temperature profile of transparent materials or moving fluids in a gravity field through the use of Stephan-Boltzmann equations. Climate “scientists” incorrectly calculated (correct only for a desert planet) that the average surface temperature under a non-radiative atmosphere would be -18C, then set the temperature of the atmosphere above based on surface Tav. From empirical experiment, the bulk of such a non radiative atmosphere would be far hotter, with only a very thin near surface layer showing a -18C Tav. In fact much of our atmosphere would likely boil into space were it not for the cooling power of radiative gases.

                What is adding more CO2 going to do? Slightly speed up vertical tropospheric convective circulation is all. The observed lapse rate is already near the adiabatic limit, any cooling from additional CO2 would be immeasurably small.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Vic G Gallus

                Agree, Konrad. Only a quick read but I found nothing to disagree with.

                My point was that I would put it as it might be sane to look at it as a simple energy balance between a hot and cold object if only there was simple heat energy transfer between the two, but it is not simple nor completely understood how the energy energy is transferred between the surface and the upper troposphere. Add to that, more ‘greenhouse’ gasses should mean the atmosphere as a whole cools quicker.

                But you can’t convince people that there is absolutely no effect because of what I stated in the first paragraph, even if the description of the GHE is still as bad as ‘its like a greenhouse’.


                Report this

                00

        • #
          ianl8888


          Even now the BBC appear to be engineering their escape

          Well, Plan B, anyway


          Report this

          50

    • #

      Or it could just be that “pal-review” is considered both hypocritical and unethical.


      Report this

      310

    • #
      Peter Champness

      Good points Konrad,

      By the way:

      To illustrate my point about fear – Willis and Dr. Robert Brown (a major WUWT contributor) were shown a design for a simple empirical experiment -
      http://i42.tinypic.com/315nbdl.jpg
      A simple rig that just checks if our oceans would actually freeze without DWLWIR as claimed by AGW believers. Given a starting temperature of 15C, three simple questions were asked -
      Would the water sample freeze?
      Would the water sample heat towards 80C?
      What effect would the cycle frequency of the SW source have on the sample temperature?

      I would say Wills and Dr. Brown went to extortionary lengths to avoid any direct answer to any of those simple questions. That’s to me is absurd in what is supposed to be the net’s best science blog. The main voices now fear attempting answers about a simple experiment design.

      What is the answer to your experiment? Have you tried it?


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Konrad

        Peter Champness
        January 21, 2014 at 10:52 am
        ————————————-
        The short answer is no, unlike all other experiments I have presented, I have not built this one. The cost of that initial design is prohibitive. (you may think the cryo cooling is expensive, but it is the near instantaneous temperature control of the incoming dry nitrogen preventing conductive loss that is the bigger problem). I am currently looking at alternate approaches to reduce costs. There will likely be a simpler design that compromises on the temperature of the absorber plate and accepts greater conductive losses. I suspect the temperature difference from the SB prediction will be so great as to make such compromises irrelevant.

        The closest experiment I have conducted is a check on “solar pond” temperatures -
        http://i40.tinypic.com/27xhuzr.jpg
        This is simple an insulated water sample with the top double glazed with LDPE film which is around 90% transparent to LWIR (full scientific name – microwave safe clingwrap). The first layer of this is in contact with the water. That’s 76.4C the thermometer is reading.

        This shows what happens when conductive and evaporative cooling is restricted for water exposed to solar SW for around two hours. The sample is still exposed to down-welling LWIR from the atmosphere. The question to be answered is whether it will freeze, as global warming calculations claim, in the absence of down-welling LWIR.


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Peter C

          Thanks Konrad,

          So the solar pond experiment shows that solar radiation is thermalised by the black surface of the container and it heats the water, which gets hot. That is in line with common experience.

          Most of the long wave IR emission from the pond is lost to the environment. Water still gets hot.

          You have controlled heat loss from conduction and convection as far as possible for a simple cheap experiment, hence the water gets quite hot. No radiative thermal blanket involved, or needed!

          Your other more expensive experiment (proposed) seems to be the same thing but with better insulation and better control of down welling long wave IR. While expensive for an individual it is easily within the budget of any University Physics department. The problem is to get them interested and to get the “Luke Warmers” and others to agree that the experiment is useful proof of the principle (of the absence of a measurable GHGE). Given the billions going into Greenhouse mitigation that does not seem a big ask but that is just me, and I suppose also you.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Bananabender

            @Peter C

            The IR is fully absorbed in the first 0.1mm of water. This heats the surface water. The cling wrap film prevents evaporative cooling. The heat is transferred downward via conduction.

            No Greenhouse Effect is involved at any stage.


            Report this

            00

        • #
          Bananabender

          I gave up on WUWT a long time ago. It is now nothing more than a bunch of egotistical “luke-Warmists”.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Jaymez

    In my opinion, this is the clincher sentence in the post:
    “Let’s follow due process in science, but that is not by review whether peer-or-pal, it’s by prediction, test, observation, and repeat.”

    While I am very uncomfortable with a small cabal of scientists reviewing each other’s papers, it seems to me that the climate science establishment have only just discovered any discomfit with this.

    Where were the voices of discontent with every edition of the UN IPCC Climate Reports when it was clear to everyone that there was a group of climate alarmists controlling what went into the IPCC reports?

    Donna Laframboise’s excellent book The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert (2011) amply demonstrated the problems with the IPCC pal review system, but did the Climate Science fraternity care?

    Laframboise went into forensic detail of the IPCC’s “use of graduate students, WWF and Greenpeace sympathizers as IPCC authors; the use of gray environmentalist literature in IPCC (especially WG2); lack of conflict of interest oversight; the review process and the process producing the executive summaries; etc.” As noted by well-respected climatologist Judith Curry in her review of the book.

    Laframboise continues in her book with comments from IPCC insiders:

    “It would appear that the relationship the IPCC has with its expert reviewers borders on the abusive. First it asks these people to volunteer their time in good faith. Then it gives its authors the right to dismiss their input with nothing more than a single word: ”rejected.” While expert reviewers are expected to comply with the IPCC’s deadlines, this organization feels no need to respect such deadlines itself. Instead, it nonchalantly adds in, after the fact, arguments and source materials these reviewers had no opportunity to asses.

    “People who know people at the IPCC have their yet-to-be-published work taken into account, but researchers without these sorts of connections are out of luck.”

    “But a problem surely arises when journals are run by IPCC insiders themselves.”

    “This is a circular, incestuous process. Scientists make decisions as journal editors about what qualifies as peer-reviewed literature. They then cite the same papers they themselves played midwife to while serving as IPCC authors.”

    Judith Curry went on in her review, “Her final chapter is entitled “Disband the IPCC.” She makes a good case for this.”

    But were there calls from the climate science community, concerned about how closed the IPCC was, the incestuous nature of the review system, and the lack of declarations of conflicts of interest? Not on your nelly!

    Here is the most important climate document in the history of the world and the climate science community can overlook such glaringly obvious issues with its authorship. Yet we are supposed to believe climate science has suddenly found a moral backbone now that there has been a journal which publishes a paper which doubts the IPCC!

    It beggars belief!


    Report this

    340

    • #
      Jaymez

      For anyone interested, I should have included a source for the above comment: http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/

      While I am back, I probably don’t have to remind readers of the gold mine of examples we can dig up from the Climategate emails of prominent IPCC climate scientists who set out to manipulate the peer review process, and again there were no calls from the Climate Science establishment to suspend the scientists involved, the Journals involved or to question the IPCC.

      Now we are supposed to believe as Jo writes, that the ‘establishment’ is now terribly concerned “that the 14 papers published by 19 scientists in one special edition had reviewed each others work” a whole journal must be closed down immediately!

      Like I said, it beggars belief!


      Report this

      280

      • #
        Owen Morgan

        Thanks for the link. I read the book when it came out, but I hadn’t seen Judith Curry’s review. I was struck by this quotation she extracted from the book:

        “From Laframboise’s Citizen Audit: ‘Of the 18531 references in the 2007 Climate Bible we found 5,587 – a full 30% – to be non peer-reviewed.’”

        So, I wonder if Poptech and Mr Watts consider those 5,587 to be more reliable, for not being pal-reviewed, or less, for not being peer-reviewed.


        Report this

        30

        • #

          This is a bizarre strawman argument. Anthony and myself have commented on extensively on this topic. If you are this new to the debate don’t make yourself look foolish with such comments.


          Report this

          18

          • #
            Owen Morgan

            “Anthony and I”, not “Anthony and myself”. If it’s a “strawman” argument, why are you [snip] commenting “extensively” on it, [snip]

            [Not happy with your choices Owen. Please express yourself a little better. mod oggi]


            Report this

            11

          • #
            Owen Morgan

            You could just answer the question. Ooops, no…. Apparently, you couldn’t.


            Report this

            11

            • #

              If you remotely attempted to investigate those you criticize you would know that I consider the 5.587 to be less reliable than the peer-reviewed papers the IPCC cites. I do not consider “pal-review” to have any real value outside of pre-review prior to submission to a journal.

              The strawman argument was your “question” but I did not know it was a question because you forgot the proper punctuation “?”.


              Report this

              11

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Laframboise issue was not with the contents of the documents per se (as she did not read them, nor should she have).

          The IPCC stated its standards of ONLY peer reviewed literature. She pointed out their abysmal failure along with their lies.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Tim

    “When will Copernicus be closing the other journals?”

    When another lax gatekeeper inadvertently lets a paper offering a divergent view to the ‘agenda’ slip through the censorship control system.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    janama

    “Yep, Open access, open peer review, open internet.

    WAY TO GO.”

    then why does Willis maintain that he’s banned from posting on your site?


    Report this

    30

    • #

      Willis correctly claims he’s banned from my site.
      He also incorrectly claims it’s because I can’t answer his science.

      The truth is he banned himself from my site because I wouldn’t allow warmist Joel Shore to post there. And that was because Joel has the MO of posting ten comments a minute and evading fair questions. He’s too disruptive of the conversational and collaborative style at the talkshop.

      Then I confirmed the ban after he wrote a 20 page diatribe on WUWT attacking me for my ‘censorship’, telling me in comments that “my mouth had written a cheque my science couldn’t cover”. This was just after he had deleted a large number of comments from people supporting what I was telling him.


      Report this

      190

  • #
    • #
      janama

      I’m sorry Roger, that was a serious question.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Joe Lalonde

      I’m up to 4 feet of snow so far this winter and have had to shovel my roof along with my disabled neighbours roof.
      Expecting another…”Arctic Vortex” that you were discussing a week ago on your blog.

      I have lots of food, lots of heat and lots of booze… :-)


      Report this

      40

      • #

        Western Europe is starting to feel the cold now. They’ve dodged the cold for more than 4 weeks now… Sudden ice has caused a surge in emergency ward admissions as a result of accidents.

        Stay warm, folks. Keep an eye on the sky and a nose to the wind.

        Even more of a chill is being felt at Deutsche Bank (one of our host’s “favourite” bankers) which has just announced a loss of a billion Euros for the period October to December 2013. That’s one thousand million Euros in 3 months. (link to Handelsblatt – in German)


        Report this

        50

        • #
          Winston

          Deutsche Bank (one of our host’s “favourite” bankers) which has just announced a loss of a billion Euros for the period October to December 2013. That’s one thousand million Euros in 3 months.

          Damn shame.


          Report this

          10

  • #

    Jo,
    Peer review system does work in experimental sciences just fine since the peer reviewers themselves are the world recognised experts in their respective fields. I should know about it since I have been one doing it for last 15 years for international journals that deal deals with numerical analysis of experimentally generated datasets. The problem that your blog site as well as Anthony’s have is to confuse the data called ‘annual global temperature’s’ generated by computers as the ‘experimental or instrumental data’ which is nothing of the sort! The single number called ‘annual global temperature’ is totally and utterly meaningless number, irrespective whether it is generated by averaging thermometer based readings, satellite, ice cores or tree rings. It does not exists, it has no physical meaning and it cannot be measured and yet everyone in so called ‘climate sciences’ which by the way is out-of-air picked term which means nothing to the real experimental sciences, uses it as a key reference point and the main input into the models. Let me ask you and any reader of your website a question: “Where is the experimental evidence of so called man-made alarming global warming coming from”? The only possible evidence of any warming and cooling trends must come from the instrument called ‘calibrated thermometer’ that is the ONLY instrument used in all fields of experimental sciences to detect temperature of the molecules that surround the thermometer. What calibrated thermometer does is to report the thermal equilibrium between two sets of molecules – molecules inside the thermometer, like mercury in old days, and the molecules surrounding the thermometer. In other words, thermometer is telling us about the kinetic energy of the molecules surrounding that thermometer. If we look at the historical data since 1800s (first thermometer was manufactured in 1714) we see that parts of our planet are recording sub-zero temperatures around -50C in one extreme, some +60C and most somewhere in between. That means that an ‘annual temperature pattern’ is not and can NOT be a single number but usually consists of 2 daily Tmax/Tmin readings over 365 days making it a 730 dimensional annual fingerprint. What the real travesty is that not a single either so called ‘climate scientist’ or any ‘amateur scientist’ bothered to look into the thermometer data since the start of this global warming alarm in early 1980s (which was pre-ceded by the global cooling in 1970’s) and check whether this warming trends can be found in the calibrated thermometer data. This seriously challenges the real scepticism of so called ‘sceptics’ since two major paper have been alerting scientific community that the annual global temperature does NOT exists, Essex et al in 2007 based on basic principles of statistics, and Kramm-Dlugi in 2011. The first ever paper that actually does an extensive numerical analysis of thermometer based daily tmax/tmin data of the archive data in public domain for period between 1844 and 2004 was published last year by a retired scientist, myself, and could be read free of publisher’s charges on my website http://www.l4patterns.com. What the paper clearly shows is that we cannot distinguish between the annual temperatures patterns observed in 1850s from those in 1990’s and that the hockey stick only exists in Mann’s models. The take home message is that every single aspect of man-made global warming/climate change is based on purely theoretical and totally useless number that has no physical meaning and therefore impossible to prove either right or wrong. So it is NOT the peer review system that is wrong, it as acceptance of that number as a reference to temperatures by majority of climate scientists and blog sites that is wrong.
    By the way, my paper is using data downloaded from the Armagh Observatory home page and uses computational tools recognized in field of pattern recognition, machine learning and datamining and the most of results could be reproduced using standard functions in excel.


    Report this

    230

    • #
      Jaymez

      You make some excellent though not novel points here Dr Darko. I have read many times, and I am sure more than once here in Jo Nova’s posts, that the concept of a global average temperature is absurd. Jo has also posted extensively on how irrelevant the BOM’s average mean temperature for the year is.

      I get your point about how multidimensional the measurement is but when it is averaged from a relatively few temperature stations around the country the questions of relevance become even louder. The issue of ‘adjustments’ and ‘homogenisation’ of the temperature records which BOM have deemed unfit for public consumption make it even more questionable!

      With regards to another point you raised, you feel that peer review is reliable if it involves experimental sciences. Perhaps in your individual experience that may be the case, but that is certainly not always the case. Issues of confirmation bias still exist and duplicating someone else’s erroneous methodology can perpetuate an erroneous but believed outcome in experiments. This has happened throughout scientific history.

      In general I agree that peer review errors will be found out sooner with experimental science, than ‘theoretical’, but it is still a flawed system.

      This study revealed how easily reviewers miss major and minor mistakes. http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(98)70006-X/abstract “Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance”


      Report this

      50

      • #
        Peter C

        I must have missed the blog where Jo says average global temperatures are absurd. She will sometimes refer to them e.g. in her “Skeptics Handbook – page 6″, where she shows poor correlation of CO2 levels with global average temperatures(GISS).


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Vic G Gallus

          There have been temperatures recorded around the globe for almost two centuries. Collation of these (and corrections) can be compared with other data, but declaring that they actually correspond to a precise measure of the average temperature of the atmosphere at the surface of the globe is feeding the chickens (and people think that Rereke Whakaaro is a cool screen name. hmmpf!).


          Report this

          00

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      There is a famous 1998 paper in Nature that was peer reviewed and had about a dozen authors to boot. It states that the average pH of the surface waters of the oceans is 8.104, dropping down from 8.179 (from memory) 300 years ago. It cited an earlier paper for the data so I do not know the method but how big could the sample have been?

      PS It is very difficult to measure the pH of one sample of sea water to that sort of precision and the pH changes with temperature.


      Report this

      30

    • #
      Ian H

      Help!

      My poor eyes!

      Use paragraphs next time … please!


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Ian Wilson

    Well written Jo! You provide logic and reasoned arguments to counter those who prefer mob-rule and emotion.

    Here are my comments from another thread since they seem to be pertinent here:

    When a Journal decides to run a Special Edition, they appoint one or more editors to carry out the process. These appointments by their very nature can potentially be biased. No more so than if the field of study covered by the Special Edition is contentious. This is particularly true if Special Edition covers an area that is speculative and has the potential of over-turning years of scientific consensus.

    Normally the chosen Editors try to mitigate their own bias and prejudices by allocating the review of the submitted papers to so-called independent reviewers who have an expertise that covers the content of the papers that are submitted. However, when it comes to politicized fields like climate science or highly contentious fields like
    the causes of long term variations in level of solar activity, a whole set of new factors come into play that severely restrict the use of the principled policies of peer review.

    First and foremost is the stark reality that the pool of potential reviewers is highly polarized into those who support the theme of the special issue (protagonists) and those that do not (antagonists). This back-and-white dynamic becomes even worse when the content of the Special Issue primarily deals with issues and ideas that are held
    by a small number of scientists (protagonist). In this case, the editor is faced with the situation where virtually every antagonistic reviewer rejects the manuscript somewhere between the time that they read the paper’s title or by the time they have read about half way down through the abstract. There is no science involved in the antagonist reviewer’s decision making, just political bastardry and frothing bile.

    So what is a respectable journal to do in this type of situation?

    Here is what one unnamed Journal [not PRP] did to get around this problem:

    All of the authors where asked to give a list of five possible reviewers. This is standard practice at most climate science. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that it open to all sorts of biases that can be hidden from the general public.

    Then the Review process was broken into two rounds:

    The First Round: A given manuscript was sent to 1 – 3 collegial reviewers – i.e. the authors in the Special Issue were asked to review other papers in the Special Issue. This is pal-review at its finest.

    The Second Round: The papers were send for external review. This meant that each paper was sent to two supposedly independent anonymous reviewers chosen from a preset list. The list contained specialist in the fields being incorporated in the Special Issue.

    In the event that one of the two external reviewers rejected the paper then a third external reviewer was chosen to break the deadlock.

    Sounds fair doesn’t it!

    However, what the guest editor decided to do was stack the list of external reviewers so that ~ 2/3 were protagonists and about 1/3 were antagonists.

    Hence, in reality, each paper was initially sent out to a protagonist and an antagonist. Lo and Behold, it often turned out that the protagonist reviewer accepted the paper with some modifications while the antagonist reviewer rejected the paper outright [usually giving up their review before they had read about half way down the abstract].

    This gave the guest editor the right to choose another so-called independent external reviewer and of course, in most case this was another protagonist reviewer.

    This wonderful little technique allowed the guest editor to protect themselves should the peer-review process be questioned, since they could point towards the fact that at least some submitted papers were subject to the review of three independent reviewers with at least one being an antagonist.

    So, is this pal-review? Bloody-oath this is pal-review wearing a small fig-leaf to cover the messy details.

    How common is this when Journals do a Special Issue? I would say that it is far more common than people realize. I wouldn’t be too surprised if there was a similar use of collegial-review followed by a stacked external review by most, if not all, of the Special Issues that are published main-stream Climate Journals.

    That it is flagrantly practiced in the Alarmist Climate Journals goes without question. Yes truly!! How do you think the main-stream Climate Journals do Special Issues that always manage to leave out people like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, the Pielkes, Curry, Singer, and Happer?

    It also practiced in the few climate skeptics Journals that are available, as well. Although I am sure that they are much more discrete with this use of this practice.

    People like Anthony actually think that peer-reviewed Science is played out on a level playing field. This couldn’t be any further from the messy truth.


    Report this

    211

  • #
    graphicconception

    Peer review is past its sell-by date. Forty years ago, when I would find a reference in a book and then ask the company library to get me a copy of the paper there might have been a point. A copy of the paper would arrive in my mail a week or so later.

    These days, using a Google-like search engine, I can look through a dozen abstracts in less time than it took to walk to the library.

    We have seen from the ClimateGate emails that peer review is being used as a gatekeeping exercise to limit the number of ideas in circulation. This is not good.

    However, the alternative of an open system has its problems too. We all know the problems with trolls on blogs. How would that be prevented in an open publishing system? Will there still need to be gatekeepers or moderators who decide whether a paper should be accepted? If so, aren’t we back to square one?

    I am all for an open internet-based system but feel it might still have problems.


    Report this

    120

    • #

      Most trolls would be defeated by a simple monetary gatekeeping.

      Read all you like but pay to publish a review. The funded trolls wouldn’t get very far as payments can be traced. Even Richard Windsor got found out.


      Report this

      100

    • #
      Peter H

      An open structured review system would not be anonymous and should not be anonymous. Scientists and Contributors could be accredited and registered.

      A blog and a review system while similar in technical function would need different protocols associated with identity, ownership, acknowledgement, etc

      The system would need to have clearly understood charter and protocols to limit any fraudulent representation.

      Who would operate it, how would it be financed, how would it be administered. They are difficult questions.

      Who would ensure the integrity of it?

      You can see how even the most revered of organisations such as the ABC, the CSIRO and Many universities , and Government Departments have been degraded and now discredited by manipulative political interests and appointments.

      How would you protect this, who can you trust?


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Joe Lalonde

    Jo,

    Society has been molded to follow a certain mindset.
    Any “free-thinkers” are a threat as they do not conform to the mass psychological process that has been propagated from birth.

    Any new knowledge should be embraced and enhanced…
    Instead, it is found to be a threat to the system we are born into…

    I have researched a FANTASTIC amount of material over the years and very little has not been corrupted by some person or organization/government.
    Facts have no bearing as long as it doesn’t put a cog into the system currently in place.

    We have created and live in a fantasy due to our ingenuity, but the REAL world is VERY MUCH different!


    Report this

    60

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Like the illusions of peace, and cooperation!


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Joe

      Joe Lalonde (there are a lot of Joe’s here :) ) I think that the point you raise is the crux of the biscuit. In a way I think we wrongfully assume that ‘scientific truths’ guide the way the world works and while scientists are at each other’s throats arguing the ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ of the science, the politics and guiding forces go about their agendas and promote their own ‘truths’. This has been happening since humans grew a brain. Goals and outcomes are the agenda and facts are often just tiny obstacles on the way. Humanity has grown up on a diet of religious doctrines and other dogma controlling their lives and arguably that has very little to do with ‘scientific truths’ but undeniably it has affected (rightfully or wrongfully) humanity to a very great extent (and continues to do so). Until the ‘real’ and ‘purist’ scientists start controlling the agendas, their ‘truths’ are often going to be irrelevant or quashed. If somebody’s agenda was to knock off the coal mining businesses for whatever reason, and they had lots of cash to splash, why wouldn’t they be jumping on the CAGW bandwagon? Why should they be concerned about the ‘scientific truth’ when pop-truth and outcomes are all they are concerned with? And where’s the crime if Big Coal backs the ‘sceptics view’ with some cash, regardless of the science as it too is outcomes that they are concerned with? I don’t think that the whole CAGW just came about because some international body was a bit concerned about the welfare of mankind and it coincidentally turned out to be a bit a sticky problem for the scientists. I think we need to turn our scientific minds to working out the agenda behind the CAGW story and venture outside of the ‘science’ a little or we are just going to see these sorts of expensive deceptions happening all the time.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    Speedy

    Evening all

    The sorry tale of the IPCC and climate science peer review demonstrates that it simply doesn’t work. It might look good, but at the end of the day the paper has to survive on its own merits, based on the evidence, the calculations, the logic it employs. If it is cr4p, then having an army of reviewers say otherwise won’t change that.

    Cheers,

    Speedy


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Robert O

    A good article Jo.

    If scientists kept to science and were prepared to accept that conflicting evidence means the hypothesis is wrong we wouldn’t have the AGW religion. However, this wasn’t the case and Carbon became demonised and taken over by snake-oil salesmen. It really goes to show how gullible, or dumb, people are to accept that something which is the basis of life-photosynthesis, Krebs cycle etc.-with concentrations of a mere 400 ppm. in the atmosphere controlling the temperature of the planet! And there isn’t a decent mathematical correlation between levels of carbon dioxide and global temperature. Amazing, but true and yet we keep hearing from our politicians, e.g. Milne, Shorten etc. that they believe in Global Warming!


    Report this

    60

  • #

    Since people may not be reading the comments at WUWT,

    Comments from the Talkshop joking about “Pal-Review”,

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/29/lucy-skywalker-graeffs-second-law-seminar/comment-page-1/#comment-25781

    “The really interesting bit [paper to be published when it gets past pal review] is that the end of ice ages is caused by massive melting of the Antarctic ice pack due to the tsi increase and a reduction of local cloud albedo, no CO2 involved.”

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/05/30/is-the-earth-a-cosmic-feather-duster/comment-page-1/#comment-25915

    “It’s a cracking read – another good scientist fails the pal-review test, with good humour and insight.”

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/12/14/emissivity-puzzle-energy-exchange-in-non-vacuums/comment-page-2/#comment-40407

    “Happy also to pass it by Wayne before publication for a bit of pal review :-) if you think that would be helpful.”

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/06/10/caption-competition-cook-mann-and-lewandowsky/comment-page-1/#comment-54323

    “Cook ‘I still can’t believe the pal review was so easy’”

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/is-this-where-the-missing-heat-is-going/comment-page-1/#comment-58621

    “I’ll leave the other errors until later, possibly a monograph to bypass the corrupt pal review process, possibly by assembling the sub arguments to peer review in other venues with a final paper that assembles it all.”

    Comment by Roger himself,

    http://www.backpackinglight.com/cgi-bin/backpackinglight/forums/thread_display.html?forum_thread_id=12706&nid=145170&print=1&id=sTo7STin:68.83.112.211

    “Long held belief in veritable institutions such as the peer review process (more like pal review process in the case of the climate clique) need a makeover in the internet age, where a greater number of well informed and able minds can be quickly brought to bear on the fruits of new research.” – Rog Tallbloke

    WordPress Tag from Tallbloke,

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/tag/pal-review/

    [Poptech this is Jo Nova's Web Blog. If you want to make a link to another site with a relevant comment then you are welcome. But it is not appropriate to simply dump the contents of another site here - Mod]


    Report this

    122

    • #

      I debunked this poptop trollery on Wassup earlier. I’ll repost my reply when I’m back at a keyboard.


      Report this

      121

      • #

        Still with the childish name calling?

        You didn’t debunk anything. You made baseless claims by not reading what I actually wrote. The only comment I claimed you made was the one with your name at the end.


        Report this

        015

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      In the 70s and early 80s in Australia, institutes of technology could only award diplomas and certificates rather than degrees. When they became universities, the name of the qualifications changed but not the content. I assume that it was similar in the UK.

      I worked in a mining lab run by some engineers. They were a difficult mob and I gave up trying to contribute. All I could do was laugh and keep my mouth shut when they found that the light scattering instrument gave a different result for particle size (as a function of log x) than what was obtained using sieves (as a function of x).

      I’ll let PT or tall bloke explain what the problem was.


      Report this

      30

  • #

    I do not believe Roger has the relevant credentials to be an editor of a physical science journal,

    Roger Tattersall, HNC [Higher National Certificate] Mechanical and Production Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University (1985); B.A. History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds (1988); Customer Services manager, Vital online Ltd. (2000-2004); Fundraising Coordinator, Yorkshire Air Ambulance (2006-2008); Digital Content Manager, School of Education, University of Leeds (2009-2013)

    * HNC [Higher National Certificate] is a 1-year vocational certificate not a degree.


    Report this

    022

    • #
      Jaymez

      Yours is kind of the same argument Michael Mann came up with When Steve McKintyre and Ross McKitrick slammed his hockey stick. They aren’t climate scientists. Poptech what you should concentrate on, especially if you are a supporter of scientific method, is critiquing Roger’s work, not his personality or his credentials. Though I would add that Roger’s academic qualifications, his long successful work career and an excellent blog which he has run for many years, stands as credible testament to his ability to act as editor. However, if Roger was the problem, they why not change the editor, why close the journal?


      Report this

      241

      • #

        Actually no it’s not, as neither was an editor of a climate science journal.

        The argument is not about the science but the peer-review process.


        Report this

        022

        • #
          Jaymez

          But you are critiquing whether he can edit the journal, not by addressing his editing, but by asking what his qualifications are? As I have pointed out elsewhere, your concern about how the peer review was handled is clearly fake because otherwise you would have died of apoplexy by now given the history of peer review in climate science.


          Report this

          172

    • #

      My HNC was a 4 year course involving degree level mathematics, degree level mechanical science and fluid dynamics, metrology, metallurgy, theory of heat engines and thermodynamics, computer science and production planning.

      But that was in the 70s and 80s when engineers got a proper vocational training rather than the half pint version you just googled.

      Carry on.


      Report this

      241

      • #

        “An HNC is one level below an HND and two levels below a bachelor’s degree, generally it is equivalent to the first year of a bachelor’s degree.”

        Regardless of how long your HNC was, it is equivalent to one year of a University level bachelor’s degree. It’s a vocational certificate and is not a relevant qualification for an editor of a physical scientific journal.


        Report this

        024

        • #
          Jaymez

          Poptech, I can’t speak with certainty on Roger’s qualification, but in Australia, in the vintage Roger is speaking of, tertiary engineering institutions did not award degrees because they were designated ‘technical colleges’ and supposedly only ‘universities’ could award ‘degrees’. In the same way teachers never received teaching degrees because they attended Teachers Colleges so they were awarded Diplomas of Teaching. All that has changed.


          Report this

          210

          • #

            Jaymez, no matter how long his HNC was, I have found nothing to suggest it is equivalent to anything but one year of a University level bachelor’s degree. Even in the age he received his.


            Report this

            126

            • #
              Bananabender

              Until the 1970s very few professions in Australia required formal degree studies. Many engineers, surveyors, accountants, solicitors and even pharmacists were trained via cadetships. These cadetships involved a combination of “on the job” training and formal theoretical classes and examinations. The training was essentially equivalent to a bachelors degree.

              One of my family members is a surveyor. He began as a chain man and earned a degree after many, many years. He was actually performing the role of a senior graduate surveyor long before he completed his degree. The only thing that changed when he graduated was a substantial pay increase and a fancier job description (he works in the public sector).


              Report this

              10

              • #

                Until the 1970s very few professions in Australia required formal degree studies. Many engineers, surveyors, accountants, solicitors and even pharmacists were trained via cadetships. These cadetships involved a combination of “on the job” training and formal theoretical classes and examinations. The training was essentially equivalent to a bachelors degree.

                Leeds Metropolitan University is not in Australia. Vocational education is completely legitimate for specific jobs but an irrelevant qualification for being an editor of a physical science journal. Regardless I would need to see evidence to support your claim of equivalency as I consider it merely anecdotal at this point.


                Report this

                01

          • #

            I got my B.E. at UWA (finally) in 1982. And they were probably glad to be rid of me. ;-)

            In my experience, Degrees, Certificates, Diplomas aren’t, after a few year in the profession, as important as the personal application of the individual. Quite a few experienced tradesmen (qualifications unknown), had better ideas than those sitting in an office, knitting abstract formulae that departed ever further from reality and practicality.

            Professional Engineering is inherently autodidactic; one learns how to learn new stuff rapidly and to a professional level. Those who fail to be able to build on the basis of what they should have groked by graduation, move away from the hard Engineering, settle into routine or management streams. Horses for courses.


            Report this

            200

        • #

          Poptech, an editor needs very different skills to a specialized scientist. What matters most is not trying to know all the details of one particular area, but being able to choose, motivate and listen to reviewers, and then pick out their most important points. An editor would need to know how to pick the people likely to see the flaws in a piece, and then to figure out whether those flaws mattered. They would probably need to do this across a few different areas, and would need both people skills, management skills as well as writing. They would have to be good interogators to quiz both authors and reviewers.

          A degree in the history and philosophy of science might be of more use.

          In any case, if the editors name is on the papers and he has bad judgement that would quickly become obvious in the free market.

          I am genuinely surprised you are taking this form of argument-from-authority?


          Report this

          350

        • #

          I didn’r claim it was a degree poptop.
          My joint honours degree is in the history and philosophy of science. Tell me that’s not a suitable qualification for a physical sciences journal editor and you’ll get laughed at even more than you are already.

          We all have our part to play, and you have done a great job with your collation and curation of your lists of sceptical papers.


          Report this

          181

          • #

            I do not believe it is relevant for a physical science journal. I do believe it is relevant for a journal discussing the history and/or philosophy of science.


            Report this

            022

            • #
              Greg Cavanagh

              Who cares, let him do it. It will either succeed or fail on its merrits.

              And who are you to tell Tallbloke what he can or cannot do?


              Report this

              181

              • #

                My point is whether he should of been chosen to be an editor based on relevant credentials. From what I could tell was he was chosen based on his outspoken support of certain scientific theories.

                I don’t pretend to tell him to do anything.


                Report this

                115

              • #
                PeterK

                me thinks poptech wants to be nominated for the editorship position for which he lacks any common sense.


                Report this

                71

              • #
                Bob Malloy

                Poptech

                I hesitate to join this debate, however I a lowly automotive engineer,(motor mechanic) to the punters, feel your argument lacks any foundation. YOU ARE SHOUTING at all and sundry that sitting on your arse in the right collage/university for a number of years, obtaining the right qualifications and getting a bit of paper with a few initials behind your name, automatically makes you better than someone who gets his smarts by actually doing things in the real world.

                Several members of my family worked as tradesmen in the metal industries in Newcastle Australia, often under the supervision of trainees just at the end of their university degrees, who believed they new better on operational matters than the experienced tradespeople, after all they had the pieces of paper with the initials and all. Generally these people were referred to as educated idiots until it dawned on them that not every thing can be learnt in the class room.

                After all “Ben Lexcen” the designer of “Australia II” that little bit of sailing excellence that took the Americas Cup away from the New York Yacht Club for the first time in 132 years left school at 14 and no formal qualifications at all.


                Report this

                120

        • #
          John, UK

          Sorry Poptech but back in the day when HNCs were 4 yr they were a damn site harder to achieve than any modern day 1st Yr undergrad course.


          Report this

          190

          • #

            I believe you they were harder to achieve, I do not believe they are equivalent however.


            Report this

            021

            • #
              Apoxonbothyourhouses

              Lordy, Lordy PT but you are a pedant of the first order and becoming boringly repetitive. What gives you the right to decide who is the correct choice? As Cavanagh rightly says give it a go and decide on the resulting merits.

              At the time of “flat earth”, had the “round earth” proposition been perfectly peer reviewed by the very best they would have got it wrong. As has been repeatedly stated on this blog the only way is to put the science “out there” for open criticism. How it gets out there and who gets it out there are secondary to the process itself.


              Report this

              161

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              What arrogance, to place so much credence on a piece of paper.

              Does having a piece of paper mean that everything a person says, must be the truth? Does not having that piece of paper, mean that it will ipso facto be wrong, or worse, a lie?

              Can you not see the flaw in the logic of your ad hominem attack?

              Would you like to share your qualifications with the rest of us, and your entire work experience, and your list of original discoveries and inventions, so that we can dissect them in minute and tedious detail, and keep on harping about them, every time you try to make a comment on any blog?

              Do you actually comprehend how some people, who are less generous than I, might think that you were petty and small?


              Report this

              131

              • #
                Bob Malloy

                Maybe I should have read a little further before commenting myself @ http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-is-not-done-by-peer-or-pal-review-but-by-evidence-and-reason/#comment-1375453, I could just have said ditto.


                Report this

                20

              • #
                Bob Malloy

                Damn, in moderation.

                [I have released it for you. I have no idea why it was stuck -Fly]


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                It’s OK Bob, I was reading your mind, so I said if for you.


                Report this

                51

              • #
                john robertson

                Actually Rereke, Poptech was asked this exact question when he first started this unhinged bellyaching about the authority of persons to prosticate.
                His response demonstrates a bizarre personality at work.
                This was a few weeks ago on WUWT, tomorrow I may go back and dig.
                But I doubt you will get any coherent response.
                It is possible that prolonged exposure to the entrails of CAGW pseudoscience deranges the mind.
                Poptech insists on his right to post anonymously, yet insists all others shall provide their credentials at the door.
                Now this ugly obsession with; “Whats your paper qualifications?”
                If it is the same poster, it was not always like this.
                Some valuable contributions were made, but the effect of combing the entrails of the magic gassers of the IPCC has taken a toll.
                Certainly has on me, I remain enraged by what the CRU emails confirmed, the kleptocrats days are numbered.
                Either the beast starves or french haircuts become high fashion.
                I do not contribute to these creatures willingly.


                Report this

                31

              • #

                John, quote were I said people are not allowed the right to post anonymously.

                What I have instead done is pointed out the credentials of those I felt was necessary to make an argument relating to relevant qualifications.

                I have always been interested in credentials and have been compiling them in relation to climate science for well over 7 years now.

                Qualifications matter even if people pretend they do not.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                john robertson

                Poptech read again.
                You insist on your right to post anonymously.
                You insist the credentials of others are important.
                The credentials of an anonymous poster can be verified how?
                Pull the log out of your eye mate.


                Report this

                01

              • #

                Where did I claim the credentials of an anonymous poster can be verified? I do not claim to be a scientific authority nor do I claim to be an editor of a peer-reviewed journal – those that do, I believe should have their credentials examined. Roger claimed, “you know jack sh1t about astrophysics, so why would we care?” so I asked a valid question and supported it with evidence.

                Show me were I ask for credentials for simply posting anonymously on a website.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                john robertson

                Poptech, the hypocrisy of your position seems to escape you.
                What are your credentials to demand the credentials of others?
                Even if you claimed any,as an anonymous by choice poster, why would anyone trust your claims?
                Credentials do not matter, with respect to the use of the scientific method.
                Either the idea stands on its merits or it is tossed.
                Of recent years credentials are almost synonymous with a lack of common sense.

                We are in this political mess because of consensus authority(quite littered with credentials) being passed off as science.
                Credentials may become a social demerit in the fallout from this abuse of public trust and wealth.
                A PHd in climate science may be the new mark of Cain.


                Report this

                01

              • #

                So people are not allowed to ask for the credentials of doctors, lawyers or police officers without presenting their resume? I have never had to bring my resume when I asked to see a doctor’s qualifications.

                Why did they go through the trouble to create the journal ‘Pattern Recognition in Physics’ with Copernicus Publications?


                Report this

                00

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            Back in the 1970′s General Motors Holden in Australia hired Engineers with either a Bachelor degree or a Diploma (4 year, some part time). The Diploma holders started a year earlier than the Degree holders on a slightly lower wage. The next year both were on the SAME wage.

            Indeed in a number of companies involved in engineering (back when the various Governments hadn’t decided they weren’t needed) preferred Diploma holders as being more “practical’ i.e. more inclined to follow what worked in real life rather than the more theoretical textbook idea.

            DISCLOSURE: Neither a B.E. or Dipl. Eng. holder.


            Report this

            60

            • #

              I’ve known degree holding engineers my whole life and they are more practical than every non-degree holder I have met. None were theoretical but rather determined to find out how and why something works instead of a “gut instinct” – this works so we do it this way. In almost all cases those without the education believed a massive amount of urban legends to explain things they did not understand.


              Report this

              01

    • #
      Gareth

      Poptech,

      Your comments about Roger’s suitability to be an editor of a journal might be better directed at Copernicus, seeing as they thought he was a fit and proper person to do it.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Mark D.

        I have to agree with you Gareth.

        I also wonder if Copernicus lead them into a bit of a trap? I’d like to hear from Roger what transpired in a full time line. It would be very interesting to know if they (Copernicus) lead the team to think that their review process would be acceptable early on, only to pull out the rug in the end.

        One thing I’ve noticed in life is that honest people are easy targets for dishonest people. Translated; if you have a political agenda to move forward, you are better off working with slippery liars. Honest people aren’t very good at politics.


        Report this

        30

      • #

        I believe it was the editor or co-editor of PRP who made that call, as publishers are unlikely to get involved with a special edition.


        Report this

        02

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … publishers are unlikely to get involved with a special edition.

          Don’t you believe it. I worked (for a short time) as an Assistant Editor for Elsevere (S&T), and they were all over Special Editions and other one-off publications like a dose of the Measles.

          To say that company management, of any publisher, would not get editorially involved with something that is new in some way, or significantly different, is just plain naive.


          Report this

          30

          • #

            PRP (an open access journal) was published by Elsevier?


            Report this

            03

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            No, I did not say that. I then went on to mention “company management, of any publisher.

            What I did say, was that I worked for a publisher in the technical area, and they, like all publishers paid particular attention to Special Editions, because they are non-standard, and have a particular novelty appeal to their target audience, and therefore carry a far higher reputation and commercial risks than periodical publications. The editor would still be in charge of developing the output, but the company management would certainly be involved as well.


            Report this

            20

            • #

              Unless you have worked for “all publishers” with every special edition they released your claim is baseless. Your experience is simply anecdotal and not evidence of any such industry wide rule.


              Report this

              05

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I presume from your ad hom, that you have extensive experience in every aspect of every field of activity you have an opinion on? If so, you must be older than your writing style. And of course, you would have no opinion whatsoever on the merits, or otherwise, of different brands of motor car, because you haven’t owned them all.

                But you do seem to be a master of pedantry, with little knowledge of business practice, whether in publishing or otherwise. So let me enlighten you.

                The point I was making, is that most businesses, including publishing, have regular and routine processes that they exercise in the production of their output. Some of those processes will incorporate quality management, that is assessed against established standards for both for content and for production material. Publishing, is not an exception to this model, and the routine processes and quality standards for each product (i.e. publication), will be well defined and known. It is a production line business. The editorial content changes, but the container is defined by a set of standards.

                By definition, anything that requires a change from routine and the regular types of content, or differences in production material, introduces more commercial risk, because the established quality assessment methods and criteria will either need to be redefined, or actively assessed for suitability. Special Editions fall into this category. They are a one-off, and if they were not, then they would not be a Special Edition.

                In business, deviation from routine production standards introduces risk, that remains until such time as standards and metrics can be defined, and then applied to reduce that risk. And while risk is present, management will want to remain involved. That is why you were mistaken in saying that, “publishers are unlikely to get involved with a special edition”.

                They are less likely to get involved with regular editions, because they can leave the content to the Editors, and the “container” will look after itself.


                Report this

                61

              • #

                Let me know when you have actual evidence not unrelated anecdotes and “beliefs” that Copernicus Publications overseas special editions.


                Report this

                05

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                No. Waste of time. The lights may be on, but there is nobody home.

                I explain how the publishing industry works, and where the management focus will be. And in response what I get is a loud whooshing noise, as it all goes entirely over your head.

                You appear to be incapable of discussing the real world of commerce, preferring to cling to your two dimensional storybook concept of a theoretical world.

                So you respond to me with a reworded repeat of your demand for “evidence” but offer no opinion of your own. A child of six can do that.


                Report this

                41

              • #

                Yes of course, my lack of taking you anecdotes at face value as facts means “I don’t understand”. I don’t have to provide evidence for your claims, you do. FYI, “opinions” are not evidence of anything, except that you have one.

                Do you have any verifiable evidence that Copernicus Publications overseas special editions? If not let me know when you do.


                Report this

                03

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                I have described for you, an organisational model, that would be very similar to one you would find being taught at, say, the Harvard Business School, or the London School of Economics, or the Stanford Graduate School of Business, in regard to business process and risk management.

                So I actually have access to several opinions, and surprisingly (or not) they all form a consensus of “best practice”, which then becomes the default position, at least for Business Management and MBA graduates, but also for graduates of the Institute of Directors.

                So the onus is really on you, to present verifiable evidence that the Board and Management of Copernicus Publications, in their wisdom, chose to not oversee a project that had the potential to, and in fact did, blow up in their faces; and in so doing, were negligent in their duty of care to the shareholders of Copernicus Publications.


                Report this

                20

              • #

                Prove Santa Claus does not exist and I will work on your request.

                In the mean time you can get back to actually supporting your argument by providing verifiable evidence that Copernicus Publications oversees special editions.


                Report this

                01

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              Oh, so you believe in Santa Clause! Well, that explains a lot. I wonder if you have managed to think of five other impossible things before breakfast?

              Since it is a new day, where I am, let me recap:

              1. You made a statement that, “… publishers are unlikely to get involved with a special edition.” [28.3.2]

              2. I disagreed, and interjected that it was wrong to say that, “… any publisher, would not get editorially involved with something that is new in some way, or significantly different …”, and gave one example where I had personally observed it. [28.3.2.1]

              3. You then totally ignored the central point of my interjection, and instead chose to focused on my example. [28.3.2.1.1]

              4. I then attempted to correct that “misinterpretation”, by pointing out that the central point of my interjection would apply to all publishers. [28.3.2.1.2]

              5. You then persisted in focusing on the example, whilst ignoring the central point, and responded with an ad hominem statement that, unless I had, “… worked for ‘all publishers’ with every special edition they released [my] claim is baseless”. [28.3.2.1.1(1)]

              6. I responded in kind, by pointing out your fallacy of generalisation. I then went on to summarise general commercial manufacturing practice, and the additional attention that would be required for something that was not routine, such as a “Special Edition”. [28.3.2.1.1(2)]

              7. Instead of addressing my previous comment, you then chose to ignore my explanation, and instead demanded that I provide detailed commercial information about the specific company in question. This is something I could not legally do, even if I was privy to that information. [28.3.2.1.2(1)]

              8. So, I actually had no option but to refuse, and included an ad hominem of my own, on the basis that the whole conversation had degenerated around you winning an argument, rather than the facts of the matter. [28.3.2.1.3(1)]

              9. You then responded by repeating your demand for specific information about a specific company. A demand that you presumably knew I could not legally meet. Another attempt to win the argument, rather than engage in an exchange of honest opinion. [28.3.2.1.4(1)]

              10. So, I pointed you towards several eminent business schools, that collectively constitute the accepted body of knowledge in this area. Much of their material is available online if you know how to intelligently phrase a search statement. [28.3.2.1.5(1)] I also made inference back to your original statement (at 28.3.2), where you stated that, “… publishers are unlikely to get involved with a special edition.”

              11. In response you once again (the third time) demand that I provide, “verifiable evidence that Copernicus Publications oversees special editions”. [28.3.2.1.6(1)]

              To my mind, you acted deviously and dishonestly at point 28.3.2.1.1, in attempting to divert the conversation. This is the action of a person who does not actually care about the truth, or an honest sharing of information, but only about winning an argument at all cost, an attitude often exhibited by people with a very low level of self esteem. This impression is further bolstered by the devious attempt to win, by posing a problem that you presumably knew I could not legally answer, at points 28.3.2.1.2(1) and 28.3.2.1.6(1).

              At the crux of the matter is my statement that, “… the onus is really on you, to present verifiable evidence that the Board and Management of Copernicus Publications, in their wisdom, chose to not oversee a project that had the potential to, and in fact did, blow up in their faces; and in so doing, were negligent in their duty of care to the shareholders of Copernicus Publications.”, because that was your starting contention. (my bold)

              The knowledge you lack, in regard to that statement, is that it happens to be illegal, under the corporate law of most western jurisdictions, for a Board of Directors, and Senior Management, to not uphold their duty of care towards the shareholders of an organisation.

              So in your statement at comment 28.3.2, you are accusing people of taking an illegal action. Because you have done this in writing on this blog, and if you cannot provide tangible proof, of your supposition, then you have potentially committed libel for which, both you, and Joanne, as publisher, could be liable.

              I suggest you formally retract your original statement, made at comment 28.3.2, unless you have definitive evidence that the Board and Senior Management of Copernicus Publications were totally unaware of this new publication, and that it was prepared entirely on the initiative of the Editor and co-Editor.

              As a final point, if you go back to the start of our exchange of comments, and read them critically, you might understand that I was trying to steer the conversation away from arriving at this juncture, but unfortunately your ego has proven to be too much for me to overcome.


              Report this

              21

              • #
                Hans Jelbring

                Rereke,

                As far as I can understand this is an admirable analysis. To me your patience to uphold this type of communication is almost unbelievable. On the other hand I am no expert in social trashing of people on the internet. I prefer to produce work which in my mind is scientifically valuable. It seems that such work sometimes also is economically valuable which probably is a big factor when judging what has happened and being said on this site during the last days. “Follow the money” might be the way to see why this is happening.

                Anyway, many thanks for your efforts and comments on this blog. It is a pleasure to read them.


                Report this

                21

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Thanks Hans,

                I have been guilty of being an arrogant and egotistical jerk in the past, and some of my old friends would claim that I still am. ;-)

                But I had a lecturer who would not let me get away with it, and it has proven to have been a worthwhile experience to have had. In fact, it was probably the most relevant thing I learnt.


                Report this

                21

              • #

                Either provide verifiable evidence that Copernicus Publications overseas special editions or provide verifiable evidence that it is illegal to do so (you new invented argument).

                “The knowledge you lack, in regard to that statement, is that it happens to be illegal, under the corporate law of most western jurisdictions, for a Board of Directors, and Senior Management, to not uphold their duty of care towards the shareholders of an organisation.”

                More invented arguments, do people just buy these things when you throw them at them?

                Copernicus Publications is a German limited liability corporation (GmbH) (similar to a limited liability company in the U.S.) and since it has less than 500 employees is not required to have a Board of Directors.

                Does this BS usually work on others?


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Mark D.

                Pooptech, are you suggesting that a member of an LLC has no fiduciary or loyalty duty to other members?

                For those that do not know (like Pooptech) an LLC (limited Liability Company MAY have the equivalent of share holders and they are called “Members”.

                DOES YOUR BULL SHIT, POOPTECH, WORK ON ANYONE?


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Good, you have done some research, well done.

                But, I didn’t invent a new argument, I only linked standard legal practice to your statement that the “publisher” (whatever you meant by that) would not be overseeing the editorial activities.

                You obviously have no evidence to support your assertion at 28.3.2, or you would have presented it by now.

                Instead, you demand evidence from me. It was not I who stated, “… publishers are unlikely to get involved with a special edition”, it was you, and without basis it appears, although you will not admit it.

                No, it is much easier to try and bully people, and type in bold characters, and cherry pick phrases in order to shift the goal posts, isn’t it. But now it is my turn.

                You attempt to deflect the concept of “duty of care”, by focussing on the fact that Copernicus Publications “has less than 500 employees”, and, “is not required to have a Board of Directors”. In fact, to be sure of the deflection, you accuse me of inventing the concept of duty of care. Neither has worked.

                European law requires that any company with more than 500 employees, must have a Board of Directors. Which is not the same concept that your statement implies, because the law does not prohibit any company with less that 500 employees from appointing a board of directors.

                Do you have any evidence that Copernicus Publications does not have a board of directors?

                A lot of companies in Europe, with less than 500 employees do. Having an independent Board makes it much easier to attract investors. The reason being, that Directors are appointed to oversee the use of shareholder funds by the company, and to be accountable, under the law, if those funds are used inappropriately, or recklessly. Directors can, and do, get sent to gaol if they are shown to be negligent. Thus investors feel safer, when investing in a company that does have a Board. This is the “duty of care”, that I referred to, and it appears in all Western commercial law, although often worded in a different way. So, you are ignorant when you accuse me of “inventing arguments”, especially when that argument is central to what we are discussing. And if you happen to be hung up on qualifications and stuff, I should inform you that I became a member of the Institute of Directors in 1994, and have sat on more than a dozen Company Boards.

                But this discussion is moot, because having a Board, does not materially affect the point you tried to avoid, which was, with or without a Board, the management of the company is still responsible for the duty of care, both to its shareholders, and to its staff. Leaving the success or failure of a new “product line”, with its associated publicity, to the people doing the job, without oversight, can be construed as being reckless. The company may well have lost money in this incident. It almost certainly has received adverse press. The overall reputation of the company may have suffered, as might the reputation of the editors. And here we are, discussing the whys and wherefores on this blog, in public, for the whole world to see, should anybody be interested. Bad publicity. Bad karma.

                And still you maintain, that it was left to the Editor to make all of the decisions, on the basis that the “publishers are unlikely to get involved with a special edition”.
                A statement that you still cannot support by any evidence. But rather than admit that, you try to demand that I prove a negative. Which is, of itself a logical fallacy.

                Oh, and while I have your attention, the word, “oversees”, as in the act of watching over, does not contain an “a”. You keep typing “overseas”, which is starting to get annoying.

                Your turn …


                Report this

                11

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                so you believe in Santa Clause

                Would that be the Coat Clause, the Marriage Clause or the Escape Clause? ;-)


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                More like clause-try-phobic. :-)


                Report this

                01

              • #

                An exhaustive search of their website does not even mention a board of directors. Don’t you know how to do this research or do you need an education in this as well? You are of course free to prove me wrong at any time with actual evidence.

                Let me know when you can provide verifiable evidence that Copernicus Publications overseas special editions.


                Report this

                01

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                So, we now have definitive proof that you either do not read comments before replying to them; or your level of English comprehension is so poor that you cannot understand what it is you read. Instead, like a petulant child, you just shout your last demand again.

                The fact that you still misspell “oversees” is a clear indicator that you didn’t actually read my comment at 28.3.2.1.5, in which I pointed out that having a Board of Directors, or not, was actually immaterial. Had you read that, and comprehended it, you would not have embarked on “an exhaustive search of their website” to discover that the site is silent on whether or not they have a Board of Directors. Not finding a mention of it on a web site, does not prove that they do not have one. It only demonstrates that one is not mentioned, which is actually quite common, even when companies do have a Board of Directors. I would not have wasted my time on such an exercise.

                I do not have to “provide verifiable evidence that Copernicus Publications overseas (sic) special editions”. You made the original statement that they did not. So the onus of proof is on you.

                Either provide the proof to substantiate your original statement that, “publishers are unlikely to get involved with a special edition”, or admit that you really have no idea, and were just grandstanding.

                And since you use the plural of publisher, your statement actually implies that publishers in general, are unlikely to get involved, so we will need to see proof that other publishers, in addition to Copernicus Publications, ignore their special editions.

                Your turn once again …


                Report this

                10

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                So Poptech, here we are two days later, and you still cannot substantiate that, “publishers are unlikely to get involved with a special edition”. So the default answer has to be that you were just grandstanding, and trying to be the centre of attention. That is quite sad.


                Report this

                00

  • #
    Sonny

    I often wonder why there is such faith in scientists that if the public perceives a majority of scientists think such and such then it must be true. This is what all of climate science and CAGW comes down to – “Consensus”. Belief in a consensus of scientific opinion is naive for a number if reasons.

    1. The public does not hear directly from “the science” but instead hears a message that is massaged by politicians and the media for their own nefarious reasons.

    2. Consensus means groupthink. Pressures of conformity including the need for belongingness in a group, financial security etc. shows that the majority of people will choose conformity at the expense of honesty or intellectual rigour.

    3. A consensus implies a final decision that cannot easily be retracted. Too many careers and egos are on the line.

    4. A consensus implies that the science is settled I.e there is no more to learn, the human race is at an omniscient state. This is hubris and arrogance. Pride always comes before a fall.

    It seems that a vast majority of people need something to believe in – the more absolute and extreme the better. While religion has fallen out of favour for many, climate science has stepped in to fill the gaps. It will be interesting to see what rediculous scientific consensus is adopted next by political bodies to further their agenda.

    Today I did something interesting. I went back and read World Book Encyclopedia (circa 1990) and all of the “Science Year” publications thereafter.

    Back in 1990 “global warming” doesn’t even get its own article and I was referred to “greenhouse effect”. The term “climate change” did not have an entry, instead there was a section on “changes in the climatic system” which gave an great description of natural and potential anthropogenic causes of changes. It recognised a general cooling trend since 1940 and acknowledged that scientists were unsure if mans contribution.

    Then in 1993 (5 years after the IPCC was formed) there was an alarmist article in science year with graphs and figures from the IPCC and discussion of a “consensus” of scientists. I was amazed to see how similar this is to the story told today by the IPCC.

    Jo, I think you are completely missing the point about peer review etc etc.
    We need to be steadfast in our acknowledgement that climate science was completely hijacked by the IPCC for their own political reasons. (They need a global catastrophe so they can further their Agenda 21 through stealth mehods).

    Our focus on the scientists and their review process is pointless. While there are such dominant political forces who invent science and rewrite history, we are screwed.
    Once the climate crap dies down they will create another scare and find other ways of fleecing us of money and robbing us of our liberties and freedoms. It’s just what they do.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      graphicconception

      I believe that a lot of people think science is what they did at school.

      They learnt something, did a related experiment, teacher already knew the answer so was able to mark the report and point out any errors (peer review?).

      The reality of scientific research is rather different. No-one knows the real answer; peer review does not check any data.

      This is why we get questions asking if you would believe your doctor. They assume all the answers are known.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I am starting to talk in terms of Climate Fashion, because we have trends, that everybody who wants to be seen to be somebody, follows.

        Holes in the Ozone layer in the 60′s, New Ice Age in the 70′s, Global Warming in the 80′s and 90′s, Climate Change in the 2000′s … and it is all to do with consensus science – science done by not-so-democratic vote.

        Right now, I am waiting to see what the Climate Fashion houses will have in store for us in the next decade. You can bet it will be different. And you can bet it will be scary.

        But of one thing I am sure. It will not be based on real science, because real science is not about fashion, and it is not about consensus. It is all about trying to prove that other scientists are wrong. And it is about knowing that you are only right, for as long as nobody else can demonstrate that you are wrong. How unfashionable is that?


        Report this

        10

  • #

    Fictional scenario,

    Michael Mann starts a journal called “Pattern Recognition in Physics”, brings in Gavin Schmidt and John Cook as co-editors. Mann then invites Phil Jones. All publish and review each other’s papers in a special edition called “Hockey Stick patterns in proxy records and their terrestrial impacts”. Cook says Mann gave him an honest 12-page review, starting with “I’m sorry, this is really going to piss you off, but…”.

    Skeptics believe everything and embrace this new era of peer-review science integrity! All Hockey Stick arguments triumph from this point forward. The end.


    Report this

    123

    • #
      Jaymez

      Poptech, I am not a fan of the current peer review system. Most writers at this blog seem to agree on that point. But it is an absolute joke when the ‘climate establishment’ get upset with something they have been doing for years! As Jo wrote when 19 scientists review 14 papers in one special edition how is that different from much of the IPCC reports? See http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-is-not-done-by-peer-or-pal-review-but-by-evidence-and-reason/#comment-1375136

      You are flogging a dead horse! The funny thing is I and most of the people here only wish you would have been so incredulous when Climate Science was being systematically corrupted. Here is just one real example rather than your make believe one above:

      http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/climate-scientists-subverted-peer-review
      Climate Scientists Subverted Peer Review
      By Patrick J. Michaels

      One series of these e-mails called out the journal Climate Research, which had the audacity to publish a paper surveying a voluminous scientific literature that didn’t support Mann’s claim that the last 50 years are the warmest in the past millennium. Along with the CRU head Phil Jones and other climate luminaries, they then cooked up the idea of boycotting any scientific journal that dared publish anything by a few notorious “skeptics,” myself included.

      Their pressure worked. Editors resigned or were fired. Many colleagues began to complain to me that their good papers were either being rejected outright or subject to outrageous reviews — papers that would have been published with little revision just a few years ago.

      So what is Pauchari’s response to all of this? Denial.

      “IPCC relies entirely on peer-reviewed literature in carrying out its assessment and follows a process that renders it unlikely that any peer reviewed piece of literature, however contrary to the views of any individual author, would be left out.”

      That’s just not true. The last IPCC compendium on climate science, published in 2007, left out plenty of peer-reviewed science that it found inconveniently disagreeable.

      These include articles from the journals Arctic, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society,Earth Interactions, Geophysical Research Letters, International Journal of Climatology, Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, Nature, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, and Quaternary Research.

      But don’t believe me or Patrick Michaels, you can read the whole sorry saga with emails here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/27/the-tribalistic-corruption-of-peer-review-the-chris-de-freitas-incident/

      It has been a while since I have read these but this made me laugh from one of the emails in 2003:

      “I heard second hand that Tom Wigley was very annoyed about a paper which gave very low projections of future warmings (I forget which paper, but it was in a recent issue) got through despite strong criticism from him as a reviewer.”

      Isn’t it hilarious that the senior members of the Climate Team were annoyed that a paper got through which provided what turns out to be the closest projection to actual future temperatures!

      So Poptech, if you really are angry at any alleged slack peer review process, you are at least 10 years too late, so stop with the fake concern!


      Report this

      181

  • #

    I’m posting at WUWT that my comments showing RT and the Talkshop’s “pal-review” hypocrisy is being censored here.

    [Clearly it wasn't censored, simply held up in moderation because we don't allow commenters to simply cut and paste large swathes of other blogs to this blog post. You have been invited to make an appropriate comment and direct readers with link. That is the normal approach. Future large cut and pastes will be snipped as per normal moderation policy. I trust you will correct your statements at WUWT - MOD]


    Report this

    025

    • #

      The comment is censored and stated as such at WUWT.

      [There is nothing awaiting moderation. I assume you are referring to Comment #27? - Mod]


      Report this

      024

    • #

      Poptech, how about some goodwill. We all have so few resources to battle the tide with billions, you would think we would assume a dedicated skeptic would do the right thing. After all the years in this debate, c’mon, email and ask. I let William Connolley post. Why would I censor you?

      The comment had lots of links and was submitted at dinner time, my time. I approved it the minute I got back.


      Report this

      210

      • #

        I assumed it was a moderator not you.


        Report this

        015

        • #

          Way to go PT. Just because the moderators weren’t sitting around waiting with bated breath for your comments, you ASSUMED CENSORSHIP and rushed to WUWT to complain about it. JERK


          Report this

          280

          • #
            Apoxonbothyourhouses

            JERK is generous.


            Report this

            120

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Baa,

            Don’t forget, being censored is a badge of honour for some people.

            Not that I am accusing Poptech of that, of course. I will just let the sequence of events speak for themselves.


            Report this

            80

          • #

            Hold on a second, this moderator comment (still there) appeared immediately after I posted my comment – stating it was still in moderation,

            [Poptech this is Jo Nova's Web Blog. If you want to make a link to another site with a relevant comment then you are welcome. But it is not appropriate to simply dump the contents of another site here - Mod]

            That is does not read like a comment from Jo and clearly implies the moderator is not going to let the comment through, so I posted that it was being held up at WUWT.

            Jo then comments 2 hours and 17 minutes later that she let it through.

            I would like to know who it was that made the initial moderator comment and if they could have let my comment through.


            Report this

            08

            • #

              Poptech, the mods are volunteers of course, and to make their life hard I don’t give them an exact list of yes or no instructions. Moderation is an art form. Sometimes mods here can’t decide and sometimes they hold a comment because they know I will definitely see it and then it’s up to me.

              That mod probably thought your comment might need a response from me. And I nearly did add a note to it to inform readers that almost all the examples in your list were just from the comments on Tallblokes. (Initially I mistakenly thought they were all direct quotes from TB himself.) But then I decided it was fairly tame, the quotes didn’t demonstrate much and I just clicked publish.


              Report this

              60

              • #

                That confirms my point that the moderator did hold the comment up before you published it. They did not say they were waiting for your approval which is why I posted what I did.

                This rejects the baseless comments made above by others about “moderators waiting around for me” when your moderating team was right on top of it.

                Thank you for clearing up the confusion.


                Report this

                08

              • #

                @Poptech

                That confirms my point that the moderator did hold the comment up before you published it

                This is the second time you changed your tune from “CENSORSHIP” to “HELD UP”. The first was at 31.2.1.1.3…

                so I posted that it was being held up at WUWT.

                You’ve been insistent on evidence on this thread, so here is my evidence, from 31.1…

                The comment is censored and stated as such at WUWT.

                So, you ASSUMED CENSORSHIP (not comment held up) and rushed off to another blog complaining about being CENSORED at Joanne Novas blog. Here is the evidence from the WUWT blog…

                Poptech says:

                January 20, 2014 at 6:41 am

                I tried posting the following at JoNova’s site but it is being censored,

                Big difference between CENSORSHIP and COMMENT HELD UP Poptech you back-pedalling clown.

                It is safe to assume that you’ve been around blogs long enough to know that Jo DOES NOT EXCERCISE CENSORSHIP.To run off complaining of such is a despicable act. YOU SHOULD APOLOGISE IMMEDIATELY AND CORRECT YOUR FALSE ACCUSATION AT WUWT ASAP.

                I’ll say it again…..JERK.

                p.s. What makes you think readers and commentors of WUWT would be interested about any of your comments at another blog being held up or even censored? Do you really really believe people were going to go “ooohh aaaahhh, Poptechs wise and timeless comments are being censored/held up?

                I personally don’t believe you could be up yourself so deep, therefore it leaves me to believe that your complaint at WUWT about being censored at Jos was to cast negative light on Jos blog, hence on Jo herself.

                So which is it Poptech you jerk, are you really that far up yourself, or were you trying to cast Jos blog in a negative light?


                Report this

                41

              • #

                Quote were I claimed I never used the word ‘censored’. So much for trying to use the phrase “held up” to tone down the language.

                Actually I do not have much interaction with Jo’s moderators and explain this in detail below. You are correct again, that I have been around long enough to assume correctly that they were considering snipping my comment as the moderator explained,

                “At one point during the evening I noted the post in question @ #27, in moderation. Normally I would have simply snipped it and left a note saying “you are welcome to link to the site or comments in question, don’t do a cut and past dump”. And left it at that…”

                I know for a fact people REALLY care about the comment I posted.

                Anthony made a note that the comment was posted here.

                You totally got me, I cannot deal with such obvious things. I mean wow, if only I thought I could get away with changing words that everyone can read. But no… thanks to you I can’t hide from such embarrassment and will live the rest of my life in shame. The end.


                Report this

                02

              • #

                Quote were I claimed I never used the word ‘censored’. So much for trying to use the phrase “held up” to tone down the language

                Irrelevant. I stated clearly that you changed wording from CENSORED to HELD UP.
                So now you can quote where I claimed that you claimed that you never used the word censorship.

                You are sounding more and more like a typical alarmist jerk.

                THE FACT REMAINS THAT YOU CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CENSORED. YOU WERE NOT CENSORED, YOUR COMMENT WAS HELD IN MODERATION.

                THE FACT REMAINS THAT YOU RAN OFF TO WUWT TO WHINGE LIKE A CHILD ABOUT BEING CENSORED.

                THE FACT ALSO REMAINS THAT YOU HAVE THUS FAR REFUSED TO APOLOGISE TO JO FOR FALSELY ACCUSING HER BLOG – HENCE JO HERSELF – FOR THE SERIOUS ACT OF CENSORSHIP.

                You can wiggle and tap dance all you like PopT. Until such time as you apologise, you are a jerk of the first order.


                Report this

                21

              • #

                Oh! By the way PopT..

                So much for trying to use the phrase “held up” to tone down the language

                Tone down my arse mate. You should have thought of that BEFORE YOU RAN OFF TO WUWT LIKE A CHILD claiming to be CENSORED.
                Where was your “tone down” consideration then?


                Report this

                21

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            [The] moderator comment … appeared immediately after I posted my comment – stating it was still in moderation …

            That is just an interpretation of events, based on a set of assumptions on your part.

            I have had long comments containing multiple references get stuck in the spam filter, in the past. It is something to do with the settings. If it looks like spam, the filter grabs it.

            The moderator will usually give a reason why it is being held, when they finally recognise it is there. That reason usually gets appended on the end. Sometimes they release it straight away, sometimes they hold it for Jo to review, and sometimes they will send an email. That is the way this site works. It looks as though that is what happened this time.

            It is probably not a cause for your paranoia, unless you want it to be.


            Report this

            41

            • #

              It wasn’t my impression and it was not stuck in the spam filter. A moderator held it up for review by Jo with no mention by the moderator that this was the case, but instead posted a comment implying it was in violation of the site policy and would not be published. There is nothing paranoid about it.

              (No with that many links in your long comment,it is automatically held in Moderation.It has nothing to do with you personally) CTS

              [Normally I wouldn't post such a long moderation comment, but I believe it is warranted in this case. I can confirm, it was automatically held in moderation nothing to do with you Poptech. For sometime last night and early morning my time I was the only moderator 'on duty'. We try to watch comments as they come up. They are coming in on any number of the posts on the web blog, not just the most recent one, and in response to any number of contributors. So normally we simply watch the chronological comment feed.

              We have to go into a different screen to check for comments which automatically get held in spam or moderation. That is done usually at times when traffic dies down a bit. At one point during the evening I noted the post in question @ #27, in moderation. Normally I would have simply snipped it and left a note saying "you are welcome to link to the site or comments in question, don't do a cut and past dump". And left it at that - you would have to re-do your post if you wanted to get your message across. However, you have been a regular contributor who normally plays by the rules and, I sensed the mood, and didn't want accusations of 'censorship' (which was prescient on my part) so my inclination was to let it go through with the note I attached.

              As is normal practice with matters where there is uncertainty as we are volunteers and this is Jo's personal Weblog, I left the comment in moderation for Jo's final arbitration - she could see what I was proposing. Some time after, Jo had seen it and released it with my original comment. You posted at #31 and #31.1 that you were posting on WUWT that you were being censored at Jo Nova website. At 31.1.1 you acknowledged "now I see it", after I pointed out it was at #27.

              Jo Nova's is one of the very few climate science weblogs which allows almost unfettered contributor discussion. It is 'managed' by Jo working ridiculously long unpaid hours while managing a household and children, and a handful of volunteer moderators spread around the globe who also have other lives. I think you have been treated incredibly well here. Given my own personal experience at warmist sites, as well has well funded sites such as 'The Conversation' and ABC's The Drum Unleashed, despite their funded moderators, any comments they don't like just disappear into a black hole!

              I think you have had extremely gracious treatment here yet seem determined to try to prove you have been mistreated. Perhaps the better approach would simply be to admit you were mistaken about censorship of your comments? - Mod]


              Report this

              05

              • #
                Heywood

                Ummmm.. Did it say “This Comment is Awaiting Moderation” – which is the Autofilter response or did one of the mods actually sign their name to it? ie Ed, Fly, Oggi etc?

                It sounds very much like Rereke said above, long comment with lots of links so Autofiltered, with Jo releasing it a couple of hours later.

                [Hi Heywood, believe it or not, there is a mod with the handle 'Mod', and yes, you are correct. - Mod]


                Report this

                50

              • #
                AndyG55

                Its posted now.. so how about everyone just forget about it.. !


                Report this

                40

              • #
                Heywood

                “believe it or not, there is a mod with the handle ‘Mod’”

                Darn it. Yes I did know that. My apologies for forgetting you ;)


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Heywood

                …and CTS.. Have I missed anyone?


                Report this

                00

              • #

                I can confirm, it was automatically held in moderation nothing to do with you Poptech. [...] …so my inclination was to let it go through with the note I attached. As is normal practice with matters where there is uncertainty as we are volunteers and this is Jo’s personal Weblog, I left the comment in moderation for Jo’s final arbitration – she could see what I was proposing. Some time after, Jo had seen it and released it with my original comment.

                This confirms my series of events. I can see the comment being held in moderation with your note attached, unaware it was waiting for Jo’s approval. Based on the tone of the note I assumed correctly it was being considered for snipping [my interpretation of censorship]. As I assumed (correctly) a moderator and not her left that original note.

                I think you have had extremely gracious treatment here yet seem determined to try to prove you have been mistreated. Perhaps the better approach would simply be to admit you were mistaken about censorship of your comments? – Mod

                No, I am simply trying to prove the actual events I witnessed happened and I was not “imagining” it as has been falsely implied by some commentators here. Thank you for taking the time to detail the series or events and for clearing this up.


                Report this

                02

              • #

                One last clarification, I always assumed it was auto-held in initial moderation for some reason (too many links or some wording in the post). I never meant to imply that it was posted and then moved to moderation. My initial complaint dealt with whether it would be released from moderation and my actions was based on the note I saw. So to emphasize – it was the moderator note I saw on my post as it was being held in moderation that led to my complaint.

                [Right on. Every other of your posts went through without problems except the one with multiple links. You jumped the gun,cried "censorship" and really could just apologise for taking up all this space whinging. Clarify that.] ED


                Report this

                11

              • #

                [Right on. Every other of your posts went through without problems except the one with multiple links. You jumped the gun,cried "censorship" and really could just apologise for taking up all this space whinging. Clarify that.] ED

                Clearly you are not understanding, my argument was never about why it was in moderation (I always assumed it was auto-held for any of the usual reasons) but whether is would be released from moderation and in what form [censored or not]. The moderator note (that only I and the moderators could see) is the sole reason I took preemptive action to sway the final decision. I am not apologizing for your misunderstanding of my actions, nor do I feel my actions were unjustified based on the actual situation as it happened.

                [I suggested you could apologize for taking up all this space whinging but I see you won't. You feel badly for your misguided reaction and you're busy trying to back peddle and rationalize your behavior. Move on, I'm going to start snipping as these are off topic ] ED


                Report this

                02

              • #

                [I suggested you could apologize for taking up all this space whinging but I see you won't. You feel badly for your misguided reaction and you're busy trying to back peddle and rationalize your behavior. Move on, I'm going to start snipping as these are off topic ] ED

                I didn’t take up all this space, I made one post followed by baseless charges I had to defend myself against. Read above, my reaction was not misguided based on the information available at the time. This is my problem with you, I am not back peddling or rationalizing anything but explaining to you what happened. Please censor my defense of your libelous claims.

                [Poptech,
                1. Within less than 1 hour 11:56pm to 12:45am server time (hastily in my opinion) ran to cross post at another site claiming "censorship".
                2. You did so without first inquiring with the owner of the blog.
                3. You did so to "sway" the moderator(s) or Jo: "is the sole reason I took preemptive action to sway the final decision".
                4. You admit to understanding that the included multiple links might force automatic moderation in the first place.
                What have I got wrong so far?

                Based on the above I have formulated an opinion: you misunderstood the blog posting rules, attempted to force circumvention of said rules by intimidation and you claimed censorship instead of consulting with the blog owner for clarification. I'm sorry, where is the libel? If you could point that out specifically I'll certainly retract the offensive remark(s). Otherwise I'll expect an apology for falsely suggesting libel.] ED


                Report this

                02

              • #

                1. Within less than 1 hour 11:56pm to 12:45am server time (hastily in my opinion) ran to cross post at another site claiming “censorship”.

                Only after I noticed the ‘moderator note’ claiming my post was effectively in violation of the rules of this website (I have never seen a comment from a moderator here like that before). In all of my other experiences (including other skeptic sites) the appearance of moderator comments like that have resulted in either the post not being released from moderation, snipped or deleted. The moderator note on my comment (that only I and the other moderators could see at that time) trigger everything. If it just showed my comment waiting in moderation I would have just waited much longer.

                2. You did so without first inquiring with the owner of the blog.

                I was fairly certain it was a moderator and not Jo and felt that was the quickest way to get it taken care of so the moderator would not edit it without Jo getting involved but I was also concerned that since the comment read like I was violating a rule of this website, Jo might go along with it. In no way do I believe Jo would maliciously censor my comments, but I do believe she would snip anything she felt was in violation of a policy she set up (which was a possibility here). Also Jo is in Australia and I am in the U.S. so we have different schedules. She gets many more emails than I do and I do not expect her to be able to respond to mine quickly. Normally this would not be an issue but I felt it was too important to wait.

                3. You did so to “sway” the moderator(s) or Jo: “is the sole reason I took preemptive action to sway the final decision”.

                Correct.

                4. You admit to understanding that the included multiple links might force automatic moderation in the first place.

                I admit that I assumed it was auto-held for some unknown reason (links, wording ect…) but I was never arguing why it was initially being held (which various people are hung up on), rather getting it released from moderation.

                I’m sorry, where is the libel? If you could point that out specifically I’ll certainly retract the offensive remark(s)”

                This comment: “…you’re busy trying to back peddle and rationalize your behavior.” – I did no such thing but try to explain exactly what I did – which includes my intentions.

                Again, I thank the moderator for clearing up the sequence of events on their end and setting that record straight and apologize to Jo for any confusion.


                Report this

                03

    • #
      James (Aus.)

      Any reason you need to use bold type?

      Perhaps a better argument would cut through rather than a pathetically weak one needing such treatment.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    michael hart

    Ultimately, the only thing peer-review does, is save the competent reader time.

    If you are reading within your own specialized discipline then you know you can find good papers in journals off the beaten-track (and no shortage of bad ones on the beaten-track). It’s just that you don’t have time to read them all, so it is often necessary to take someone else’s selection of what is worth reading, along with their interpretations and biases, declared or undeclared.

    Copernicus publishing has clearly indicated that they will select against papers, authors, editors, and journals that are critical of the dominant IPCC standpoint.


    Report this

    80

  • #

    > set it up as an independent journal

    Great idea. You could follow in the footsteps of http://www.principia-scientific.org/ and be ignored as a bunch of nutters.

    > The Peer Review Game works as a gatekeeper to silence critics

    There’s too much paranoia about this. Hardly anyone commenting here has any experience of peer review.

    You’re also curiously ignorant of the experiments already going on in open peer review. The EGU already has a pile of such journals, for example http://www.climate-of-the-past.net/


    Report this

    330

    • #

      Hey William, I don’t know why we didn’t think of that before. Oh wait… Climate of the past is published by a group called “Copernicus”. So any paper that says it “supports the accelerated warming predicted by the IPCC” will be considered. The opposite finding would mean they have to termin….


      Report this

      270

      • #

        How many papers have you tried to submit? Well, you personally, zero of course. But “skeptics” in general? Zero again, I suspect.

        You’re running away without even fighting, so convinced are you by the strength of the “opposition”. But since you never even talk to them, you’ve got no idea what they’re actually like.


        Report this

        233

        • #
          Jaymez

          What you are saying here just isn’t true William and I suspect you know it. For the benefit of others and possibly yourself there is a 10 minute video which shows particularly in the Climate area how the peer review system was hijacked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydo2Mwnwpac&feature=player_embedded It shows categorically that at one stage there was a relatively level playing field until the peer review process was hijacked. This is a bit dated now, but even with your long experience, as you are pretending to be unaware of the problems with peer review in Climate science, it’s worth repeating.

          A brief summary of the video content which largely talks about the reaction to evidence of the Climategate emails is here:

          Renowned climate scientist Dr Tim Ball sums up the stunning gravitas of the leaks with regards to the process of peer-reviewing and the publication of papers on climate change in journals.

          “What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature.” Dr Ball explains.

          “So there’s a classic example of the kind of thing that bothered me.

          About twenty years ago, I started saying ‘Well why are they pushing the peer review?’… And now of course we realise it’s because they had control of their own process. That’s clearly exposed in these emails.”

          “On a global scale it’s frightening because this group of people not only control the Hadley Centre, which controls the data on global temperature through the Hadley Climate Research Unit but they also control the IPCC and they’ve manipulated that. And of course the IPCC has become the basis in all governments for the Kyoto protocol, the Copenhagen accord and so on….”

          We have long covered the fact that the so called “scientific consensus” on global warming is wholly manufactured and that there are thousands of scientists who have differing viewpoints to the human-induced warming theorists.

          Indeed, over two years ago we reported the fact that a survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, concluded that less than half endorsed the “consensus view,” that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

          We now have clear evidence that a concerted effort has been made by the IPCC connected climate scientists to block dissenting opinion on climate change, regardless of it’s scientific merit.

          “This is horrible,” said Pat Michaels, a climate scientist at the Cato Institute in Washington who is directly threatened with physical violence in the emails. “This is what everyone feared. Over the years, it has become increasingly difficult for anyone who does not view global warming as an end-of-the-world issue to publish papers. This isn’t questionable practice, this is unethical.”

          John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, “It’s disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested.”


          Report this

          210

          • #

            > Renowned climate scientist Dr Tim Ball

            You’ve gone wrong already. He’s pretty negligible outside the skeptic-o-sphere. Judged non-notable not once but twice:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Ball

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Ball

            Just look at his CV, and weep: http://drtimball.com/_files/dr-tim-ball-CV.pdf Such a thin list of publications.

            > Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate

            Oh come now. I can’t consider Wegman an impartial arbitrator: he regurgitated McI’s stuff: http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/ Those weren’t the only problems of course (http://deepclimate.org/2012/07/13/wegman-and-said-leave-wiley-journal-and-said-disappears-from-gmu/).

            > a survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research paper

            Vague, but I think you’re referring to the thing Dennis T. Avery created. As wiki points out (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Scientific_consensus) “After the publishing of this article, numerous scientists who had been included in the list demanded their names be removed after the list was immediately called into question for misunderstanding and distorting the conclusions of many of the named studies and/or citing outdated, flawed studies that had long been abandoned and deemed inaccurate.[52][53][54] The Heartland Institute refused requests by scientists to have their names removed…”.


            Report this

            226

            • #
              Jaymez

              Geez William we are hardly going to go to Wikipedia for authoritative information on climate science. Do you think we don’t know how many entries you made and how many people you blocked from editing? As you well know, it is hardly an unbiased source because of a certain William Connolley. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

              Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.

              Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

              All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles.

              His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity.

              When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand.

              When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.

              Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

              Connolley has supposedly been defrocked as a Wikipedia administrator. Or so Wikipedia claimed…..

              And you certainly didn’t mind hob-nobbing with ‘the Team’ helping corrupt the allegedly independent peer review process you claim we are being paranoid about:

              Connolley, it should also be noted, was one of the founder members of Real Climate – the friends-of-Michael-Mann propaganda outfit (aka “The Hockey Team”) which, in the guise of disinterested science, pumps out climate-fear-promoting hysteria on AGW and tries to discredit anyone who disagrees with the ManBearPig “consensus”.
              Here he is, for example, being bigged up in a 2006 email from Michael Mann:
              >> I’ve attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there,
              >> but not clickable in word format. I’ve already given it a good
              >> go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal “peer
              >> review” process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me
              >> know if any comments…
              >>
              and here are some of his associates:
              From: Phil Jones
              To: William M Connolley ,Caspar Ammann
              Subject: Figure 7.1c from the 1990 IPCC Report
              Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 13:38:40 +0000
              Cc: Tom Crowley ,”Michael E. Mann” , “raymond s. bradley” , Stefan Rahmstorf , Eric Steig ,gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov, rasmus.benestad@physics.org,garidel@marine.rutgers.edu, David Archer , “Raymond P.” ,k.briffa@uea.ac.uk, t.osborn@uea.ac.uk, “Mitchell, John FB \(Chief Scientist\)” , “Jenkins, Geoff” , “Warrilow, David \(GA\)” , Tom Wigley ,mafb5@sussex.ac.uk, “Folland, Chris”
              Get that? The guy who has been writing Wikipedia’s entry on Climategate (plus 5,000 others relating to “Climate Change”) is the bosom buddy of the Climategate scientists.

              So please William, definitely don’t pretend you are some type of academic impartial observer and definitely don’t bother citing Wikipedia and RealClimate references here!


              Report this

              270

              • #

                Quoting Delingpole gets you nowhere: he hasn’t got a clue what he’s talking about: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/

                I expected you to ignore wikipedia; you’ve been well trained. But I notice you’ve totally ignored the evidence of Ball’s own CV.


                Report this

                229

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                William,

                If you have worked as a propagandist, and acknowledged the fact, how can we ever be sure that anything else you say is not also propaganda?

                And for the removal of all doubt, the World English Dictionary, published by Collins, defines it thus:

                propaganda n.
                1. the organized dissemination of informaiton, allegations, etc, to assist or damage the cause of a government, movement, etc
                2. such information, allegations, etc
                3. RC Church a congregation responsible for directing the work of the foreign missions and the training of priests for these

                So the starting point, in reading anything you write or any opinion you offer, must be the questions, “What covert purpose could this statement serve?”, and “How much veracity should we attach to this statement?”


                Report this

                160

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Jaymez,

                My apologies. My 33.1.1.1.2 should have been addressed to William Connolley @ 33.1.1.1.1, and not to you.

                [Fixed it for you -Fly]


                Report this

                20

              • #
                AndyG55

                “I expected you to ignore wikipedia;”

                In climate matters, of course everyone ignores it

                But remember, that this is ALL DOWN TO YOU !!

                YOU have caused this with your tampering of reality to your own ends.

                YOU are the one that has corrupted all climate knowledge on Wiki so much as to make it totally unreliable.


                Report this

                111

              • #

                Good points Jaymez, I have had edits at Wiki altered by people who had no understanding of the subject and who did not look at the source references. On the particular subject (technology but nothing to do with climate) there were clearly “green” orientated comments which were untrue and not supported by any factual reference.
                Connolly, may have some qualifications but clearly has no understanding of geology and engineering science subjects such as Thermodynamics. The fact that he was allowed to edit Wiki has given Wiki an unreliable status. Connolly’s edit at Wiki is an example of how a small (science ignorant) group can distort science and develop political influence.
                by the way Mr Connolly I have been a reviewer and am on an editorial board of a journal published by Maney.


                Report this

                100

            • #
              TomRude

              We know and have exposed how you operate on Wiki with your notability strawman, helped by the Rabett when the scientist you wish to delete is still alive…

              As for the PRP affair, regardless of how that special volume came to life, only the science should concern all of us. If it is deemed to be full of holes, I truly do not care if the authors are skeptics or warmists… if it’s bad science, it’s bad science period. If there is merit then let’s get knowledge moving and explore further.


              Report this

              100

            • #
              PhilJourdan

              Any wonder no one listens to you? Your ignorance hurts our eyes.


              Report this

              10

        • #
          Streetcred

          Does anybody take any notice of you anymore ? You seem to be far more adept at corrupting Wikipedia than much else.


          Report this

          70

    • #
      Jaymez

      William if you haven’t already, see my response @ #35


      Report this

      50

    • #
      tanner

      William

      PSI have a different philosophy on the GHE. There is a great deal of confusion over the term “Greenhouse” because the earths atmosphere is not constrained like a conventional “Greenhouse” as convection can occur quite easily. So the term is misleading.

      I would like to know the estimated “atmospheric” (rather than GHE) effect in the following scenarios

      1. Equatorial area – Day time, low humidity, no clouds, over dessert area.
      2. Equatorial area – Day time, low humidity, no clouds, over ocean.
      3. Equatorial area – Day time, low humidity, no clouds, over vegetated land.
      4. Equatorial area – Day time, low humidity, no clouds, over concrete or asphalt.

      Ditto above with changed variables ie. night time, high humidity, with clouds?

      Ditto above for the Polar regions?

      Ditto Summer, Winter

      What effect do the above variables have on the incoming solar radiation at the top of atmosphere and at the earths surface and outgoing radiation at the earths surface and top of atmosphere? This would help me to understand the effect of the atmosphere on the earths temperature and how water in the atmosphere and to a much lesser extent CO2 affect our climate?

      Remembering that the ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is reasonably constant at a point in time whereas water vapour is changing all the time over different areas in very short time frames?

      Are you able to point me to the relevant literature?


      Report this

      20

      • #

        PSI don’t have a philosophy. They’re a bunch of raving nutters.

        As to confusion over the term GHE: people are indeed often confused by this. Some people are so confused that this mistake an error in terminology in public discourse for a fundamental scientific problem. Fortunately, as usual, wiki gets it right: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#Real_greenhouses . I had to fight the “skeptics” pretty hard to stop them filling that section with nonsense.

        > Are you able to point me to the relevant literature?

        Nope. And neither will anyone else here – this isn’t a blog for discussing science. I’d suggest RealClimate, or “Science of Doom” as the obvious places to ask. However, I suspect your question doesn’t really make sense (why would low humidity over the equatorial ocean be an interesting case, for example). If you really want to ” understand the effect of the atmosphere on the earths temperature and how water in the atmosphere…” then I’d recommend Science of Doom, in particular http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/clouds-and-water-vapor/


        Report this

        18

        • #
          AndyG55

          Ah Wiki again….. via the WC (as in water closet) !!!

          When will you get the message, der-brain.

          NO-ONE TRUSTS WIKI wrt to climate science

          Because of YOU !!!

          YOU have ruined its integrity to such a degree, that climate science on Wiki is now MEANINGLESS !!!.


          Report this

          80

        • #
          AndyG55

          “I had to fight the “skeptics” pretty hard to stop them filling that section with nonsense”

          So YOU filled it with nonsense instead.

          Go figure !!


          Report this

          80

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          They’re a bunch of raving nutters.

          Doing a self description again?


          Report this

          10

  • #
  • #
    Jaymez

    I think your first point is well made William and a problem which was anticipated in Jo’s post. Pure open review would be too chaotic. Which was why she was suggesting a complete move away from the current system – just saying the the current system is broken – and that has ironically been demonstrated in the peer reviewed literature a number of times, e.g. http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(98)70006-X/abstract “Who Reviews the Reviewers? Feasibility of Using a Fictitious Manuscript to Evaluate Peer Reviewer Performance”

    You say there is too much paranoia, but there is plenty of evidence in the climate science area that the peer review process has been manipulated. I have commented and provided evidence of this at this post if you care to look. But you can’t not be aware of the revelations of Climategate and Climategate II emails and the studies done on the IPCC process by a number of people including Donna Lamframboise. The latter’s book first elicited denials from the UN IPCC hierarchy. Then when they could deny the evidence no longer they promised to clean up their act, admitting most of the allegations made.

    FYI I myself have long experience with the peer review system in my area of specialisation, not just in other areas of interest. I am aware for instance that many research papers are not even written up by those involved in the research, just somebody who is prepared to do the work in order to get their name listed last on the publication to boost their publication statistics. I know that many reviewers delegate the review work to their post doctoral and doctoral students because they are too busy, but don’t want to be taken off the reviewers list because they know that being on the list of the reviewers guarantees that their submitted articles will get accepted for review by the journal. That is a quid pro quo of being a reviewer. I know that the reviewers or their post doctoral and doctoral students rarely if ever ask for or check the data when doing reviews, or the calculations or run any software or models. They assume all that works. I know there are contributors here who are academics and well qualified individuals. Some months ago an impressive list of contributors and their academic credentials was listed at the site. So your assumption about how much experience there is with peer review at this site is just that.

    What is frustrating is that these known weaknesses in the peer review system have been around and largely shrugged off or ignored by the climate establishment, until suddenly a journal published some papers which do not tow the IPCC line. Then the establish belatedly, (that is after initially admitting they were closing them down because they were criticising the IPCC), claim they were dismayed by the poor standard of peer review at the journal in question. That is the real point of this post. (IMO)

    Your last point stating “You’re also curiously ignorant of the experiments already going on in open peer review.” Is a wild assumption, but since you provided us with a link to an example, would you care to enlighten us to your opinion of it’s value in comparison to select and confidential unpaid peer review? I am aware of open peer review, but certainly not enough to have an opinion because I haven’t participated and haven’t read any reports.


    Report this

    140

    • #
      Jaymez

      The above was in response to William Connolley @ #33


      Report this

      30

    • #

      > there is plenty of evidence in the climate science area that the peer review process has been manipulated

      No, I don’t agree with that. I’ve had a look at the “evidence” you provide and its unconvincing. The “Donna Lamframboise” stuff is a joke. You also ref “Climate Scientists Subverted Peer Review / By Patrick J. Michaels / One series of these e-mails called out the journal Climate Research…”. Is that the same stuff as discussed in http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/ (which I’ve already ref’d?). Then I hope you appreciate that others don’t agree with “your” version of the tale.

      > revelations of Climategate

      There’s an entire “skeptic” sub-genre of memes about what you call climategate that the real world doesn’t follow. So you’ll need to be a bit more explicit about what you mean.

      > Some months ago an impressive list of contributors and their academic credentials was listed at the site

      At PRP? That doesn’t sound very plausible. Look at, e.g., Tallbloke’s stuff (http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/1/199/2013/prp-1-199-2013.html). He gives what looks like an academic affiliation with U Leeds but that’s not real. He gives a non-academic email address. As indeed do many of the other contributors.

      > Then the establish belatedly, (that is after initially admitting they were closing them down because they were criticising the IPCC), claim they were dismayed by the poor standard of peer review at the journal in question

      You’re making the common outsiders mistake of thinking “the establishment” is far more unified than it is. The journal was closed (by the people running it, not by some global “establishment”) because the papers were poor/junk, the peer review wasn’t good, the journal wasn’t doing what it said (viz, PRP), it was just being used as a house journal by a small group of not-very-subtle “skeptics”. Not that I expect to convince you of that (though I could try the same argument on you that has bounced on several other people: if these papers are so great, why has no-one bothered reading them?).


      Report this

      127

      • #
        john robertson

        Just curious, how many times do you have to repeat your own nonsense before you believe your own lies?
        Donna’s work stands on its merits, seen any factual rebuttals of her investigations?
        Your words and actions speak for themselves, weasel is as weasel does right?


        Report this

        260

      • #
        Mark D.

        No, I don’t agree with that.

        Is that some denial leaking out???

        It’s no wonder most warmists can’t get it right, they appear to be positively immune to honesty.


        Report this

        210

        • #
          ianl8888


          It’s no wonder most warmists can’t get it right, they appear to be positively immune to honesty

          The most potent of the famed “positive feedbacks” :)


          Report this

          60

      • #
      • #
        Jaymez

        William your other ‘points’:

        I wrote : revelations of Climategate

        William wrote: There’s an entire “skeptic” sub-genre of memes about what you call climategate that the real world doesn’t follow. So you’ll need to be a bit more explicit about what you mean.

        William when you personally have the time to rewrite at least 5,428 Wikipedia entries on climate related matters; delete 500 articles you didn’t agree with and ban over 2,000 contributors you didn’t like all by just Sep 2009, you are neither in the real world, nor a person anyone with a real life has time to get into a ping pong match with. You can pretend ignorance to the Climategate issues, as many people chose to at the time, but many other branches of science were deeply saddened to see the behaviour of the climate gate gang of scientist.

        Until then, most other scientists had been prepared to assume climate scientists were acting with at least the same levels of integrity as other areas of science. But when it was clear there were deliberate collaborations to discredit fellow scientists who didn’t tow the CAGW line, that there was deliberate action to keep data away from anyone who might want to check conclusions, conspiracies to subvert FOI laws and much, much more, other scientists felt betrayed and embarrassed. And that is also when politicians started hedging their bets and the climate change gravy train started falling off the rails.

        I wrote : Some months ago an impressive list of contributors and their academic credentials was listed at the site

        William Wrote: At PRP?

        No William. You were making your assumption about the lack of understanding of the peer review process of the people at this site. I was responding about contributors at this site. Pretty simple really.

        I wrote: Then the establish belatedly, (that is after initially admitting they were closing them down because they were criticising the IPCC), claim they were dismayed by the poor standard of peer review at the journal in question

        William wrote: You’re making the common outsiders mistake of thinking “the establishment” is far more unified than it is. The journal was closed (by the people running it, not by some global “establishment”) because the papers were poor/junk, the peer review wasn’t good, the journal wasn’t doing what it said (viz, PRP), it was just being used as a house journal by a small group of not-very-subtle “skeptics”. Not that I expect to convince you of that (though I could try the same argument on you that has bounced on several other people: if these papers are so great, why has no-one bothered reading them?).

        Harsh William! – I’m an outsider – not an insider like you huh? Member of the RealClimate team, Lord of the Wikipedia Climate gatekeeping. I think ‘the establishment’ is more unified than it really is. So those emails for instance between those climate scientists acting like bully boys, putting pressure on editors for instance weren’t real? Climate scientists didn’t really send emails out saying destroy any material you might have on such and such and tell the others etc? We must be having global hallucinations – so why were climate scientist like your buddies at RealClimate up in arms about emails being stolen if they were all imaginary?

        But William you write complete rubbish when you say “The journal was closed (by the people running it, not by some global “establishment”) because the papers were poor/junk, the peer review wasn’t good, the journal wasn’t doing what it said (viz, PRP)”

        Martin Rasmussen wrote his reasons for closing the journal here: http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/ Specifically he writes: the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).

        Apart from the issue of peer review selection mentioned AFTER this point, this is the single issue raised, and it doesn’t hold water as a genuine concern. However Nicola Scafetta addresses this and other lightweight claims you have made in his comment here: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-paper-doubts-ipcc-so-whole-journal-gets-terminated/#comment-1373542

        Seriously William, the bias you can get away with elsewhere, won’t happen here.


        Report this

        290

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I hope we all noticed the propaganda technique used to “deflect” the research undertaken by Donna Lamframboise, and her consequent book? Verification of the research for that book was crowd-sourced, and then cross-correlated multiple times to confirm that all of the cited references were genuine. The result is a striking indictment of the IPCC’s questionable processes.

        And yet, William tries to deflect it with just seven words, quickly followed by a change of subject to focus on Michaels, and the idea that Climategate was seriously overblown, and that none of it was significant, so there’s nothing to see here folks, so just move on …

        It is a technique used quite often by the Warmists. Not terribly sophisticated, but effective enough to fool the general public, at least for a little while.


        Report this

        30

  • #

    [...] Nova has a new post on the situation, implying that peer-review is a mere formality that’s subject to corruption [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    Thank you JoNova,

    You comments are a good rebuttal of Anthony WUTW’s one here
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/the-copernicus-prp-fiasco-predictable-and-preventable/#comment-1542266

    On one thing I agree with Anthony, though. The situation is a “mess”.
    Anthony only mistook that it is him who is making the mess.

    Let us see this comment from
    Willis Eschenbach says: January 20, 2014 at 12:58 am to Roger (tallbroke)
    “Finally, as I said above, you don’t want Jelbring and Scafetta reviewing your papers. You want reviewers who don’t believe in your theses, not your co-authors on the Special Edition who obviously think the sun shines out of your claims.”

    First, I did not review Roger’s papers. Second, according to Willis the perfect “reviewer” must be somebody who does not believe in the thesis of the work!

    Second, Willis statement is nonsense. Those who do not believe in the thesis of the work cannot serve as fair reviewers of a work. On the contrary, they should demonstrate their presumed “superior knowledge” by properly writing articles confuting the thesis advocated in the paper.

    Anthony, , Willis & company are making a huge mess here. My impression is that they simply do not understand the purpose of the peer review process and how it works or should work. Nor they understand the difference between peer and pal review.

    PRP was shut down because of one single sentence questioning the AGW projections of the IPCC, not because there was some problems with the reviews or because there was some problem with the planetary theory (as Anthony falsely claimed).

    The publisher is crystal clear on the point. He read the sentence on the AGW IPCC projections. He yelled: “Heresy!” and burned the journal.

    No errors have been found in the peer review process either. Only an insinuation such as that Morner used his relatives as reviewers (the accusation of nepotism), which is actually a false claim, was added in a second time to fool the ignorant with some smoke in the eye. And Anthony fell in the trap.

    Read also Molt:
    http://motls.blogspot.com/2014/01/agw-inquisition-burns-journal-pattern.html

    Read my comments:
    http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/19/scientists-react-sharply-to-copernicus-publishing-censorship-of-alternative-scientific-explanations-do-you-realize-what-you-have-done/


    Report this

    180

  • #
    Mark D.

    I think you all have been mis-spelling the word and hence the attention has been mis-directed.

    It should not be “peer” review.

    It should be “PURE” review.

    With peers you automatically suffer all the weaknesses character flaws of the human being no purity at all.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Bernie Hutchins

    Jo -

    Your essay is excellent and then some.

    With regard to credentials vs. substance, I seldom agree with Noam Chomsky, but I am very fond of this which he famously said:

    “Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content.”

    How much simpler it is for some to just demand your degree and proof that your work was peer reviewed than to show concern for content.


    Report this

    130

    • #
      jorgekafkazar

      Free advice is worth every penny you pay for it. I guess that would apply to reviews, too.

      All peer review does is say that somebody has looked over the author’s shoulder, probably not his mum.

      ‘Copernicus’ spelt inside out is ‘open circus.’


      Report this

      70

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    Copying the discredited practices of the alarmist crowd is not a way to advance a point or the science. It is the science that is of paramount importance.


    Report this

    90

    • #
      john robertson

      Agreed, yet the issue of peer review is a wonderful distraction from the science.
      Copying your opponents ill behaviour can have spectacular results in comedy and politics.

      Pal/peer review should be done before a idea is submitted for publishing.
      Journal review, which is the “issue”, is a tool of the publisher.
      Climate journals have shown a bias,their sales have suffered, however their behaviour has not changed.
      The power of the journals is gone.
      We are arguing over the proper rituals, one must use to assuage the priests of a dead religion.

      The myth of honest journal peer review, as scientifically meaningful, is done.

      The internet, this Blog are the future of science.
      The relevance of the blog will depend on the skill of those involved, as open discussion can go all kinds of ways.
      The future is never certain.


      Report this

      70

  • #
    Richard111

    Peer review or pal review, since when did that guarantee the science?


    Report this

    100

  • #
    Radical Rodent

    As is demonstrated in this case, “peer-review” does not necessarily mean that it has anything to do with reality. All you need to do is read the caption under the photo: “…published fabricated data in 30 peer-reviewed papers.”.


    Report this

    60

  • #

    [...] Anthony’s highly critical post here.  Jo Nova has a couple of posts up, the most recent here.  Roger, the fellow most of us know as Tallbloke, is in the center of the tempest, post [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #
    john robertson

    On further thought, we are being snowed again.
    The IPCC cliche the FAR 2500 experts, the citing of only “peer reviewed papers”.
    As Donna LaFramboise demonstrated,what strange scientific peers WWF, Greenpeace and the PR agencies are.
    The CRU emails and Wegmans work demonstrated the IPCC numeric dyslexia 2500=0052 “Experts”.(An incestuous little group)
    Good enough for government?
    The entire “science of the IPCC” is a deliberately unserious facade.
    The magic gas scenarios are illusions of science, designed to set critics arguing and cover what is a naked power grab, by bureaucrats, coordinated through the UN.
    All the orchestrated claims of science are a cloak, an illusion, the insistence journal peer review has value is clear political nonsense.
    Science as an institution has civic respect and authority, or had these before the bandits cloaked themselves in the “authority”.
    Arguing over this corrupted institution of dying journals, is the equivalent of being distracted from a crisis by; Look .Over there. A squirrel.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    Steven Mosher

    Joanna.

    What is your position on Scaffetta refusal to release code ( one of his co authors has distanced himseld from this Mannian position) and what is your opinion on the rest of the authors in the journal?

    none archived their data as USED. none supplied code aor anything remotely resembling a SI.

    before you decide, consider your prior remarks on those who refuse to release data and codes.

    ‘The House of Commons committee was surely supposed to be protecting the citizens of the UK from being deceived and defrauded, so what did they say when faced with obvious malpractice? Did they draw their swords and declare that honest taxpayers deserve better? Not at all. They whitewashed it.

    “On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.”

    It’s the nice way of saying that Phil Jones really did hide the data, but everyone else in climate science fails the basic tenets of science too (so that’s alright then). Sure. Those practices need to “change”, not now, not tomorrow, but at some indeterminate time in the future. No rush boys. Yes, Jones should have his job back.

    This is simple playground politics, not rocket science. Even preschoolers can come up with the Phil Jones defence: “But Mum. Everyone else does it.” The committee tries to defend Jones, and inadvertently damns the whole field of climate “science”.

    From the mouth of Jones himself: “no reviewer has ever asked to see the data”. What exactly does the haloed peer review mean if you can just get a friend to “tick the box” without investigating the codes, data, adjustments and reasons? Remember that the next time you are unfortunate enough to read an IPCC report – they may have 2500 scientists on their books, but not one of them checked the original calculations for something as basic as global temperatures.”

    [Obviously Jo needs to see this before it is released. But regardless, the issue being raised wasn't a point raised regarding closing the journal. But if it were a valid reason then how many other journals would need to close including Psychological Science? - Mod}


    Report this

    24

    • #

      Steven,

      Since you’ve changed the topic I take it you agree with my post — terminating a journal because it doubts the IPCC is a grave and ridiculous outcome that shines a light on how fickle, political and pathetic “peer review” is?

      If there are other problems with those papers, apparently the publishers are only looking now because politically they need to find something. And perhaps there are problems, but would papers promoting the IPCC get this kind of scrutiny? Don’t they deserve the same attention?

      1. On Scafetta’s code: I don’t know the story. But if it can’t be replicated, it shouldn’t be published.
      2. Have you asked the other authors for their code and data?

      Thanks for the quote, but I don’t see how it’s relevant. I have not said that hiding data is ok, and nor did I say that pal-review is OK for skeptics because climate scientists do pal-review. Instead I said peer review of any kind is often poor and doesn’t mean much. it’s a waste of time trying to judge whether the review “worked” unless we look at the papers.

      It is as if people are studying and arguing over different shades of mud. Who has got a pal-o-meter to say whether a reviewer is 100% peer or 100% pal? Who can tell whether a pal-reviewer has the intent of a rubber stamp or a real review? All these are unknowable, and skeptical scientists should see through the game where an unscientific bureaucracy “pretends” that any of this mud is definable, useful or matters, and then judges skeptics by a different standard to believers.

      My point is that peer review is broken. It is a political-game not a law of science.


      Report this

      180

      • #
        Graeme No.3

        It is a publisher’s right to determine the content of his journal(s), but to close a journal down on the grounds that the authors have behaved exactly like authors he is happy to accept looks not only like prejudice, failure at censorship and above all stupidity. With the publicity received that journal would have generated article after article from both sides, controversy leading to increased readership and profits. If I were a shareholder I wouldn’t be patting him on the back, but aiming lower, with a boot.


        Report this

        41

      • #
        Steven Mosher

        Since you’ve changed the topic I take it you agree with my post — terminating a journal because it doubts the IPCC is a grave and ridiculous outcome that shines a light on how fickle, political and pathetic “peer review” is?
        #####################
        1. I did not change the topic. You specifically raised the issue of double standards and whether you exhibited them or not.
        My question asks you for clarification. Do you or do you not support open data and do you or do you not support my request
        for the code behind the papers presented?
        Second, your argument is that the science should be judged on its own merits. When I went to look for the code and the data
        for these papers, there was none. A simple example would be tallblokes Hum paper where he references PSD work but does not
        describe it in any detail or show his work. Before I made my comments on the 18th of decemeber I did in fact read the papers
        That is how I found the cases of one paper relying on another that hadnt been publsihed. Further you will find
        grey literature used as sources. have you any opinion about that that is not inconsistent with your prior views.

        2. I do not agree with your post. Long ago before tallbloke even submitted his papers ( sept 1 and oct 30) he talked about
        the papers he had written that would be published. ESP I suppose. In any case, they made an agreement with a publisher
        they broke that agreement. If I agreed to start a journal that said nothing about open source, and then wrote about
        open source, I would consider the other party within their rights to cancel me. Next, The reasons the journal were cancelled
        went beyond this as they apparently found the same things I did. It took me 30 seconds, but then I am a trained expert in detecting slimy crap as Mann and Jones now know.

        ########################################

        If there are other problems with those papers, apparently the publishers are only looking now because politically they need to find something. And perhaps there are problems, but would papers promoting the IPCC get this kind of scrutiny? Don’t they deserve the same attention?

        1. This is pretty simple so I will write short words. Tom and I wrote a book. We criticized mann and Jones for the same
        crap that these guys tried to pull. Now of course I got some emails that tried to play on my friendship with these guys
        but friends some and go, my principles do not.

        #################################################

        1. On Scafetta’s code: I don’t know the story. But if it can’t be replicated, it shouldn’t be published.

        ########################################

        Then you are not very well read. McIntyre tried to replicate his work and could not. Scafetta went on climate
        audit and refused to share code and mocked steve. I’ve asked him and his co author ( craig loehle) for code.
        Scaffetta said no. And craig has distanced himself.

        2. Have you asked the other authors for their code and data?

        Yup and I do here again. None of these papers have an SI. None of them provide the data as used and code as run.
        Some dont even describe the math they did with any kind of detail. Phrases like “good correlation” with no FIGURES
        cannot be replicated.. is .5 good? mann thought .4 was good?

        #############################################################################

        Thanks for the quote, but I don’t see how it’s relevant. I have not said that hiding data is ok, and nor did I say that pal-review is OK for skeptics because climate scientists do pal-review. Instead I said peer review of any kind is often poor and doesn’t mean much. it’s a waste of time trying to judge whether the review “worked” unless we look at the papers.
        #############################################################################################

        You raised the issue of jones and mann hiding data and code. you commented negatively on that. HERE you ask us to believe that you have no double standard. This is simple: Join me in asking that all the authors produce their data and code so that we can do a REAL REVIEW AND AUDIT. the papers will stand or fall on their own. Imagine that. Their journal gets shut down, they respond by publishing all their data and code and when nobody finds any problems they will be vindicated. What’s not to like?

        Will you or will you not join me in ask that all the code and data be posted.. just as we demanded code from Hansen and Jones?
        eventually they caved in.. will you stand for stonewalling from these guys?

        ###############################

        #########################################################################

        It is as if people are studying and arguing over different shades of mud. Who has got a pal-o-meter to say whether a reviewer is 100% peer or 100% pal? Who can tell whether a pal-reviewer has the intent of a rubber stamp or a real review?

        My case does not rest on pal review. My case rests on: mispresenting their intent. publishing papers that refer to unpublished papers ( a casper amman trick ) An utterly incestuous relationship between all the writers and editors ( Wegman would go to town on this ) Incompetent review, some of the papers make claims for which there is no support, not even in words.
        I could go on.

        ####################################################

        All these are unknowable, and skeptical scientists should see through the game where an unscientific bureaucracy “pretends” that any of this mud is definable, useful or matters, and then judges skeptics by a different standard to believers.

        ##################

        I judge both by the same standard. If your journal as a code, it should stick by it. for example the appearence of impropriety
        I find both wanting. I hold both to the same standard of posting their code and data. If they dont, the paper is junk. Im under no obligation to find the errors or even read the shit. You either show your work or I dont have time to reverse engineer your shitty writing into a replication.
        #############################################
        My point is that peer review is broken. It is a political-game not a law of science.

        yes, that is why you will join me in demanding full disclosure of code and data so that a proper review and audit can be performed.


        Report this

        17

        • #

          1. You did change the topic. The topic here is of pal and peer review, not withholding data. I’ll take it as tacit agreement with my post. Now you are accusing me of double standards, assuming I am at fault, regarding a point I did not raise here and before I made any statement to the contrary. Ill mannered eh? Perhaps next time you’ll ask politely first?

          2. Even though you were rude, I answered your question. What part of “if it can’t be replicated, it shouldn’t be published” don’t you understand?

          3. Forgive me, I did not know of your psychic powers. You may know what the intent of Nils was, but I merely have to go on his words. I suggest that you may find it difficult to prove in a court that he was intentionally misrepresenting his intent. Having conversed with Nils I shall assume his intent was to publish high quality ground breaking research. Perhaps he didn’t achieve that, but that was not my point, nor “copernicus’s”.

          4. Wegman may go to town on this. Let me know when Nature is terminated.

          5. If this is your way to ask me to email the authors to request their data be made public, then I’m happy to oblige, but next time I’d rather (in your words) not have to read so much s***.


          Report this

          140

        • #

          Mosher says: “Long ago before tallbloke even submitted his papers ( sept 1 and oct 30) he talked about the papers he had written that would be published. ESP I suppose”

          Got a link for that Steven?


          Report this

          60

      • #
        Willis Eschenbach

        Joanne Nova
        January 21, 2014 at 1:15 pm

        I’m not Steven Mosher … obviously … but here are my comments on some of your responses to him.

        … If there are other problems with those papers, apparently the publishers are only looking now because politically they need to find something. And perhaps there are problems, but would papers promoting the IPCC get this kind of scrutiny? Don’t they deserve the same attention?

        Of course they do deserve the same attention, as I have argued numerous times… but yours is a bog-standard “tu quoque” logical fallacy. I don’t care if they do it as well, or even if they do it better—that’s no reason for us to do it.

        1. On Scafetta’s code: I don’t know the story. But if it can’t be replicated, it shouldn’t be published.

        How can it be replicated when he’s refused to share it? And since we know for a fact that it can’t be replicated, and since we agree that in your own words it thus “shouldn’t be published” … then why are you vigorously defending its publication?

        2. Have you asked the other authors for their code and data?

        Why on earth should we have to? There are several points regarding public archiving of code and data:

        .

        1. Public archiving takes the personal likes and dislikes of the scientists out of the equation. The path you advocate, that of people having to beg researchers for what should already be public, gives each researcher the option to say “Why should I share my data with you when you’ll only try to find fault with it?”

        2. Public archiving allows the use of the code and data by people who may not have the command of the language of the research, or who are not comfortable in that language, and thus are unable or unwilling to “ask the other authors”.

        3. Public archiving prevents the changing of the code or data, either deliberately or by accident, giving a single consistent unchanging dataset to work with.

        4. Public archiving prevents what I call the “Jones Effect”, where the data is assiduously and conscientiously kept by the individual researcher … who then loses it.

        As a result, I fear that your proposal that we should just go beg them for their data and data is a non-starter. There are real and pressing reasons for public archiving which are not in any way addressed by private holding of data and code.
        .

        Jo, I agree with you that the AGW activists have done things much worse than this … but so what? Are you seriously arguing that because Mann refuses to share his code and data, that means that we should afford Nicola Scafetta the same opportunity.

        Because that is assuredly what it sounds like you are saying.
        .

        w.


        Report this

        33

        • #

          Dearest Willis,
          Just to clarify:

          1. I don’t make a “tu quoque” logical fallacy. Not the bog-standard nor blue ribbon kind. I repeat #45.1 “I have not argued that it is OK for skeptics to use pal review because others do.” I argue that the most important issue is the rampant and intimidating political bias of a major science publisher, not the whether skeptics did not do enough to avoid the “appearance” of complying with the fine print in a sandbox.
          2. Not only am I on your side wholly about hiding data, but I said so, and have never said otherwise. Again I repeat, for the third time: “if it can’t be replicated, it shouldn’t be published”. I told Mosher I’m happy to ask for data. Since then I’ve emailed 6 of the authors. (Do I get a gold star or do I need another lecture? ;-) )

          The post above was not about data-hiding. Shall we talk about the post?

          My points (again):
          1. Peer review is broken. It should not be glorified.
          2. Peer review is not essential to the scientific method.
          3. Sometimes pal review is better and sometimes it’s worse than peer review. It is impossible to know which by analyzing the reviewers. That is a pointless task.
          4. It is not even possible to assess the percent of peer vs pal. It is shades of grey based on intentions and is unknowable. Only the reviewer themselves knows, and possibly not even them.
          5. There are alternatives to “peer review”. We don’t have to play that game.
          6. Copernicus publishers axed an entire journal for a political reason and openly said so.

          Therefore given the above, I ask why skeptics with so little media time, money or other resources are using most of them to publicly distract from the grave and obvious and unarguable hypocrisy of a major publishing house and turn their lazer like focus upon other skeptics instead?

          The answers I get seem to be that we have to play this crooked game and we have to do it better than everyone else playing it. I say walk away from the game and expose the loaded dice to the world.

          Have we achieved anything if we win a minor battle but burn off independent scientists who get little help but face great obstacles. Even if they are flawed, could we at least treat them with goodwill and good manners?

          Nils does not deserve this.


          Report this

          51

          • #
            Willis Eschenbach

            Many thanks as always for your detailed reply, Joanne.

            In regards to your points:

            1. You say you are not making a “tu quoque” argument. The example I gave was your statement that:

            And perhaps there are problems, but would papers promoting the IPCC get this kind of scrutiny? Don’t they deserve the same attention?

            A “tu quoque” argument, for the folks in mystery, is when your mom says “You hit your brother,” and you say “but he did it too, and he wasn’t punished”. It is arguing that because the other guy is doing it as well and is not being punished, you should not be punished either. I leave it to the reader to decide if your quote qualifies.

            2. You also say:

            I told Mosher I’m happy to ask for data. Since then I’ve emailed 6 of the authors. (Do I get a gold star or do I need another lecture?

            Lecture. You appear to miss the point entirely. The issue is not whether you can winkle the data out of the authors or not. It is whether the data is publicly archived. Here’s Copernicus’s take on the matter:

            A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to public sources of information to permit the author’s peers to repeat the work.

            Note that it says that the paper itself plus the public archive needs to contain enough detail and references to PUBLIC sources of information … which means that there should be absolutely no need to email the author as you are doing.

            So no, unless the gold stars are for enabling the avoidance of public archiving of data and code, you don’t get a gold star for claiming that it makes a difference that you might be able to email the authors and (if you’re lucky) convince them to reveal their data. So what?

            What does that mean to the teenage kid in Benin who reads a translated copy of their work and wants to replicate it? Sure, you might get the data, you’re Jo Nova, you’re well known and deservedly so, they might give the data and code to you … but would the girl in Benin who doesn’t speak English and isn’t famous be able to get the data and code? Heck, Steven McIntyre, Mosh, and myself have all asked Scafetta for his code without success, so good luck with that one.

            If you’d be so kind, however, please do tell us:

            a) Which ones of the authors answer, and

            b) Which ones of them provide full data, and

            c) Which ones of them provide full computer code.

            I’m very interested to see the responses …

            The post above was not about data-hiding. Shall we talk about the post?

            This is the same accusation that you leveled at Mosher, and that he reasonably disagreed with. Your post was about the reasons that you think Copernicus shut down the journal. The authors/editors failure to follow the stated rules is listed by Copernicus among the reasons. In other words, the Editors didn’t do their job, and that includes requiring that the papers contain enough data and code to permit replication. Why is that not discussable in a post about why the journal was shut down?

            However, you appear to want to rule that off-limits … not sure why, but I’ll roll with it.

            My points (again):

            1. Peer review is broken. It should not be glorified.
            2. Peer review is not essential to the scientific method.
            3. Sometimes pal review is better and sometimes it’s worse than peer review. It is impossible to know which by analyzing the reviewers. That is a pointless task.
            4. It is not even possible to assess the percent of peer vs pal. It is shades of grey based on intentions and is unknowable. Only the reviewer themselves knows, and possibly not even them.
            5. There are alternatives to “peer review”. We don’t have to play that game.

            I am not “glorifying” peer review. I agree that it is broken. And I agree with all that you say above, except the part about “shades of gray”. Here’s an example

            If someone takes over as the editor of a journal, and there are clear rules about the reviewing process, and they break those rules … surely they aren’t entitled to complain about value of the whole the whole peer review system. While you are right in all aspects in what you say above, that has nothing to do with the fact that they broke the rules.

            6. Copernicus publishers axed an entire journal for a political reason and openly said so.

            I disagree entirely. I would have shut down the journal myself, for purely scientific and commercial reasons. The paper that they published were a joke. They obviously and clearly flouted the rules that THEY HAD AGREED TO WORK UNDER, like these:

            Editorial responsibility and authority for any manuscript authored by an editor and submitted to the editor’s journal should be delegated to some other qualified person, such as another editor or an associate editor of that journal. Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest. If an editor chooses to participate in an ongoing scientific debate within his journal, the editor should arrange for some other qualified person to take editorial responsibility.

            Editors should avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest if the relationship would bias judgement of the manuscript. Such conflicts may include, but are not limited to, handling papers from present and former students, from colleagues with whom the editor has recently collaborated, and from those in the same institution.

            There was no “shades of gray” in their actions, Joanne. Those rules were not just broken, they were stomped flat. I’d have fired the lot of them for that alone, whether they were skeptics or AGW alarmists. The reasons are not just scientific, there are strong business reasons as well. Copernicus as a publisher can’t afford to become known as a place where editors can brazenly flout the stated rules with no consequences, no matter which side is doing the flouting.

            But it wasn’t that alone. The papers I’ve read didn’t even begin to have enough data or code to be replicated. The ones that I’ve read are all about how there is a cycle in the solar activity that is kinda sorta the same length as say the inferior conjunction of Mercury and Uranus, if you stare at them in the right way for long enough, e.g.:

            The perturbations described by the VEJ and Jovian frequencies are in the Sun, and therefore it is plausible that solar acceleration reasons could cause modulations to these frequencies (see Cionco and Campagnucci, 2012). This provided the idea that perhaps the Jovian 19.858 and 21.005 and the VEJ 22.14 frequencies and phases are changing over time to the barycenter rotation of 178.8.

            During this work it was also found that the 19.528 VEJ frequency is changing to the slower 1253 frequency. Likewise there is a possible explanation for this in the time it takes for the orbital realignment of Venus, the Earth and Jupiter to return to the same position against the stars.

            Joanne, does “It is plausible that solar acceleration reasons could cause modulations” and “perhaps the Jovian 19.858 and 21.005 and the VEJ 22.14 frequencies and phases are changing over time” pass for science in your world? Because I prefer my science to be a whole lot more sciencey, with extra helpings of logic, data, observations, math, code, and the like … their kind of handwaving about the vaguest of connections all reminded me of the old song line, “She could easily pass for forty-three, in the dusk with the light behind her.”

            Finally, to me, the main problem for me with their iconic statement about how their work casts doubts on the IPCC was not the politics. It was the science, or more accurately the lack thereof. Their statement was as follows:

            Implication 2

            Several papers have addressed the question about the evolution
            of climate during the 21st century. Obviously, we are on
            our way into a new grand solar minimum. This sheds serious
            doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming
            as claimed by the IPCC project.

            I have railed before against an ugly habit of AGW alarmists, which is that they cite the entire IPCC 5th Assessment Report as support for their claims. It’s like the tent revival preachers of my youth holding up the Bible and shouting “All the answers to that question are in this book!” Well … perhaps so, but we need a citation as to chapter and verse to see if that is true.

            What the authors have done is the same thing in reverse, shouting “Our research shows that this book is wrong!” … again perhaps, but we’ll never know because like the AGW alarmists, they haven’t specified chapter and verse—they don’t say one word about what exact claims of the IPCC they are saying they have cast doubts on.

            Not only that, but did you chance to look at their citations and support for their claim that solar research makes the (unspecified) IPCC claims doubtful?

            Turns out, they cite absolutely nothing but their own work … and not only just their own work, but an even smaller subset of that, just their own work that was in the special edition.

            Pathetic.

            So if I were a reviewer, I’d have insisted that they cut that specific claim out of their paper before publication for two reasons:

            1. It’s far too vague, with no specification of what they might be claiming to cast doubt on, and

            2. They haven’t come near casting doubt on anything. That is to say, their statement about the IPCC doesn’t have anything solid backing it up—no citations, no reference to support their claims, no discussion of the exact nature of the claim that they say they are shedding doubt on, nothing. They just airily wave their hand at their own special edition and say there’s all the proof you need …

            Actually, there is a third reason I’d have advised them to omit the statement, again from a song … “you don’t tug on Superman’s cape, you don’t spit into the wind, you don’t pull the mask off of the old Lone Ranger” … their statement adds nothing to the scientific quality of their claims, and (as they found out) it opens them to attack. They would have been wiser to let their work speak for itself, rather than try to puff it up with vague predictions and claims.

            So yes, Joanne, I agree with pretty much all that you say about the peer-review process … and I still would have shut the journal down myself, for the scientific and business reasons I stated above.

            Now, was Copernicus also glad to see them go for political reasons? Undoubtedly … but unfortunately, having been given the keys to the kingdom, the authors ended up handing Copernicus a half-dozen solid scientific and business reasons to take the keys back and boot them out. I have no sympathy for them at all. They were offered a magnificent chance and pissed it away through a combination of arrogance, foolishness, bad science, and ignoring the optics.

            I see it as a tragedy on the part of the authors, not a crime on the part of Copernicus. The only good news is that all of their work that I’ve examined so far was junk, so no actual science was harmed in the making of this horror movie …

            And finally, to close, as I’ve said before your blog is a gem, it’s essential that these discussions be held and this is a great place to do so. Thanks for all you’ve done and continue to do.

            Best regards,

            w.


            Report this

            21

            • #

              Jo replies, sigh… not tu quoque, given that I said “don’t they deserve the same attention?”. that comment didn’t argue the publishers should ignore faults, I was arguing that their hypocrisy is more important.

              Thanks for the lecture on hiding data, though it isn’t the topic here, and I’ve always agreed with it (as I said x 3 already). I’m sure some readers need to hear it again.

              I beg to differ about “missing the point”. I fear I have been too diplomatic and instead you have missed my point entirely. My post was not “about why” the journal was shut down (which is self-evidently obvious from what the publisher naively said in both their emails and their first public announcement). My post was squarely aimed at skeptics who were fighting with skeptics. I wanted them to see the bigger picture, that peer or pal review is not the most important issue, but a major publishing house with a political culture is. The crooked peer review process is what we need to draw media attention too, not the flaws of some independent scientists. But I didn’t want to add to the pointless flames.

              As far as flaws or faults with the papers go, it’s an open question, one I did not even discuss. Take it as a given that I think Willis Eschenbach would make a far better publisher than Copernicus.

              Clearly I failed to say things plainly. I can see some skeptics throwing other skeptics under a bus and helping to find reasons to excuse a publisher that admitted the articles were wrong because they “doubted the IPCC”.

              It is as if a government-run casino uses loaded dice, and I want tell the world the casino is cheating. Other skeptics want to cast aspersions on a few players instead — people I consider to be some of the longest serving dedicated and honest players. They may have flaws, but skeptics don’t need to spend their time publicly pinning down the flaws in order to pander to a crooked system.

              It’s not a question of skeptics not criticizing skeptics, it’s a question of priorities and resources.

              Really all I wanted was some good will and manners back in the game and to turn some high-caliber canons back toward the enemy. I want skeptics to email other skeptics privately before they post their disagreements, but since it went public, I’ve reluctantly slowly tried to tread this delicate path and clearly failed miserably.


              Report this

              50

              • #

                Clearly I failed to say things plainly. I can see some skeptics throwing other skeptics under a bus and helping to find reasons to excuse a publisher that admitted the articles were wrong because they “doubted the IPCC”.

                Only because the IPCC phrase is being cherry picked out of context to what the publishers meant. PRP was created with the agreement that it was not a climate science journal despite reservations from them about the editors being climate skeptics. If they wanted to discuss climate change, they should of created a journal to do so. Instead as Willis points out the “IPCC” phrase appears inserted in the summary with very weak to non-existent support and has nothing to do with the journal’s mission statement. What makes it worse is not that it is in a specific paper but rather in the ‘special edition conclusion article’ – summarizing the papers. The publishers were told they would not focus on climate related topics and PRP produces a summary that does just that. Roger further confirms it here by saying,

                “(1) We were alarmed by the authors’ second implication stating:
                “This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”

                So what? This is the direct inference of the 12 research papers (especially Papers 1,4,5,7,9,11,12).”

                The skeptics who keep making ridiculous arguments defending the indefensible are throwing themselves farther under the bus by creating an skeptic turkey shoot. They are full of bullet holes and bleeding out, while we have a band of zealots going around telling everyone they have not been shot. So instead of admitting they should not have stepped in front of a loaded gun, they keep telling us it is just a flesh wound!


                Report this

                01

            • #
              Hans Jelbring

              A major contribution to science is made by Willis a couple of years ago at WUWT.
              I would like to term it “Willis Theorem” also known as “an elevator speach”.
              It claims that: If you cannot explain what you mean when going from the the basement to the third floor in an elevator your statements are worthless”. Please, correct me if I quote you wrong. Anyway your comment above is far too long for even to start reading it. Evidently Willis Theorem is not valid for himself.


              Report this

              10

            • #

              What the authors have done is the same thing in reverse, shouting “Our research shows that this book is wrong!” … again perhaps, but we’ll never know because like the AGW alarmists, they haven’t specified chapter and verse—they don’t say one word about what exact claims of the IPCC they are saying they have cast doubts on.

              Not only that, but did you chance to look at their citations and support for their claim that solar research makes the (unspecified) IPCC claims doubtful?

              Turns out, they cite absolutely nothing but their own work … and not only just their own work, but an even smaller subset of that, just their own work that was in the special edition.

              Pathetic.

              So if I were a reviewer, I’d have insisted that they cut that specific claim out of their paper before publication for two reasons:

              1. It’s far too vague, with no specification of what they might be claiming to cast doubt on, and

              2. They haven’t come near casting doubt on anything. That is to say, their statement about the IPCC doesn’t have anything solid backing it up—no citations, no reference to support their claims, no discussion of the exact nature of the claim that they say they are shedding doubt on, nothing. They just airily wave their hand at their own special edition and say there’s all the proof you need …

              Actually, there is a third reason I’d have advised them to omit the statement, again from a song … “you don’t tug on Superman’s cape, you don’t spit into the wind, you don’t pull the mask off of the old Lone Ranger” … their statement adds nothing to the scientific quality of their claims, and (as they found out) it opens them to attack. They would have been wiser to let their work speak for itself, rather than try to puff it up with vague predictions and claims.

              Exactly, it was pure amateur hour not being able to see even one move ahead. These things are blatantly obvious to everyone but them and this new small band of delusional zealots.

              The reason I am beating on this, is they still think everything is A-OK in blissful ignorance of how they are being perceived.

              …I am impressed Willis and I came to the exact same conclusion about the “IPCC phrase”.


              Report this

              01

          • #
            Ian H

            I agree with you about the axing of the Journal being political and unfair. The publishers admitted as much. And I also think it was useful to bring this to peoples attention and point out the hypocrisy.

            However I believe it is very important to choose your battlegrounds. And having looked over the terrain, this looks to me like a really lousy place to choose to fight. I’m just not prepared to die in the trenches in defence of this Journal.

            The problem is that in my opinion this is a very low quality journal. Over half the papers were written by the editors themselves, which is incestuous to an unusual degree. And it seems severely afflicted — more afflicted than most journals — by problems of pal review. The qualifications of the editors are also really difficult to defend. I’m not being personal here. The simple fact is that editors of quality scientific research journals usually have PhDs and substantial research records. These editors do not. Finally the special edition that seems to have pushed things to a head is focussed on pushing a rather fringe theory of astronomical resonance with which I strongly disagree.

            I agree with you that the axing of the Journal seems to have been motivated by unfair politics. But choosing to defend this Journal puts you in the position of defending a 4th rate journal, pal review, and a rather weird theory of solar resonance which you might not otherwise have chosen to support.

            I don’t know what Anthony’s thinking is here, but I suspect this may be part of it. This just isn’t a good place to make a stand. The tactics of the situation are lousy. Much better to let this journal go quietly under the bus where most 4th rate journals like this end up anyway, and choose to fight on some other issue where we wouldn’t be placed in the position of having to defend the indefensible.

            The good news in this case is that it looks like the editors may be able to reconstitute the journal in some kind of open access format. I’m happy for them. They can continue to publish their ideas and I can continue not reading them. A happy ending for all.


            Report this

            30

            • #
              Hans Jelbring

              Ian, your statement about what written in the Special Issue is a generalisation. Which articles have you read? In your opinion PRP is a 4th rate journal. You are free to tell your opinion but there should be some reasons. Some article might be of a lower quality than others but it is your duty to explicitly tell which on or if all articles are 4th rate or worse before you are trashing PRP. Otherwise you are no more than at a 5th rate jerk. You are spreading label and slander.

              Supply evidence that support your defaming statements, please. It is too late now to “let this journal go quietly under the bus where most 4th rate journals….” Is your advice that the authors deserve to meet the same destiny? I request an honest answer.


              Report this

              10

        • #
          Vic G Gallus

          Of course they do deserve the same attention, as I have argued numerous times… but yours is a bog-standard “tu quoque” logical fallacy. I don’t care if they do it as well, or even if they do it better—that’s no reason for us to do it.

          Every paper has a flaw. Its highly unlikely that peers are not also acquaintances in many small fields of science covered by a journal, so accusations of pal review can be thrown at almost any example. I think that Jo is just pointing out the bitchiness of only bringing these things up if you dislike the conclusion.


          Report this

          00

  • #
    Bob

    William Connelley, ” You’re making the common outsiders mistake of thinking “the establishment” is far more unified than it is.”

    Not true, have you seen the email campaign led by James Annan. Also, look at you – with your association with censorship, you’d be wise to stay away from this controversy.


    Report this

    160

  • #
    Peter

    Colosseums of scientific debate such as this, where life and death are at stake for populations unaware of the contests being fought on their behalf and if they knew would barely understand the facts. Keep punching back the lies. The Warmist Emperors vote, thumbs up , thumbs down, like tired men look at flies.

    English Aborigine


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Ulric Lyons

    “On the one hand if-you-pat-my-back then I’ll-pat-yours is a real phenomenon and definitely a temptation, and virtually impossible to police. But, in a Special Edition, if I allow your junk paper to be published next to my good one, I’m hardly doing myself a favour.”

    I have been researching solar-planetary phenomena for 14yrs and have had many discussions with Scafetta and Wilson on their ideas, I found them all to be junk. And funnily enough I shared privately with tallbloke a rock solid solar cycle theory which definitely rubbishes Scafetta and Wilson’s Jupiter/Saturn based models. Which leaves me with the question as to whether tallbloke can understand what is good science or not, or whether he even cares.

    Birds of a feather flock together.


    Report this

    119

  • #
    Ian Wilson

    That’s the difference between you and me Ulric – You think that you are 100 % correct
    while I have many doubts about my own work.


    Report this

    151

    • #

      Personally, I look forward to Ulric submitting his ideas to peer review. I advised him that without any kind of quantification to back up the anecdotal observations he would probably get a note saying “more work needed”.


      Report this

      41

      • #
        Ulric Lyons

        Actually what you said was:

        “Ulric believes he can sufficiently intuit them from anecdotal historical weather reports to be able to dispense with physics and declare the triumph of his heuristics.”

        As told you, I do most of my research with instrumental temperature series. In all my research I conduct exhaustive searches, it’s your team that play the heuristic games. As for physics, it seems like you prefer to invent your own pseudo physics merely for political control, as in were you said…

        “I’m busy setting up the Phi-inverse square law solar system framework everyone else’s gravitational, classical mechanical and electro-magnetic planetary hypotheses can have a potentially legitimate physical causal basis inside of. That’s my job, I’m the groundsman. I keep the venue smart and paint lines on the playing field. You guys are the players.”


        Report this

        12

        • #

          “Pseudo-physics”

          The phi/Fibonacci ratios are at harmonic resonant ratios such as 2:3, 2:5, 3:5, 5:8. There is an established branch of astrophysics studying the energy exchanges that occur which affect the evolution of stellar planetary systems and TNO’s. A couple are referenced by my paper. You’re a jerk, goodbye.


          Report this

          00

          • #
            Ulric Lyons

            Rog, a bunch of Fibonacci numbers say diddly squat about how the planets modulate solar activity, or which periods matter. It’s a fish out of water that leads nowhere. Plus you have a number of errors in your planetary periods and other mathematical errors that should have not got past the review.


            Report this

            20

  • #
    Ulric Lyons

    Ian Wilson
    January 21, 2014 at 6:11 am · Reply

    That’s the difference between you and me Ulric – You think that you are 100 % correct
    while I have many doubts about my own work.
    ============================================

    The difference is that I spend most of my efforts investigating the real behaviour, while you theorise about how you think it may behave.


    Report this

    19

  • #
    Ulric Lyons

    Ian Wilson writes:

    “while I have many doubts about my own work.”

    Well thanks for your honesty, how does Scafetta feel about his own work? I did ask him this question over at WUWT, but it went without reply.


    Report this

    08

  • #
    • #
      Joe V.

      Naturally when you peer at history through the lense of AGW activism it can only appear colder & colder.


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      An Englishman, travelling through Ireland, stopped to ask a yokel, how best he should proceed to Dublin.

      The yokel thought for a bit, and then took off his hat, scratched his head, and then rubbed his chin, and said,

      “To be sure, if I was to be going to Dublin, I would not be starting from here”.

      If Dublin represents the current average global temperature, then I will leave it to you, to figure out the rest of the parable.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    Willis Eschenbach

    Jo, let me start by thanking you for your continued efforts to better science. They are assuredly noted and much appreciated.

    Next let me say that I agree with you that science is not done by peer review. The real science occurs after peer review. Having said that, however, if one decides to become the editor of a Copernicus publication, there are rules about peer review that need to be followed. You’re right, that has nothing to do with the science … but you still have to follow the rules if you want to play the game.

    And in fact, you, I, and others have rightly excoriated the AGW alarmists for breaking those exact rules, for trying to pack the peer review panels with people favorable to the author in question and willing to give them a free pass. Having done so, we can ill afford to suddenly ignore the issue of improper peer review simply because skeptics are doing it.

    Next, regarding the question at hand, you reply to Anthony:

    1. The media are going to one-sidedly cherry pick a belated unsubstantiated excuse anyway. They always falsely try to pin any flaw to “all skeptics”. Why amplify that or accept it? I would point out their hypocrisy, rather than join the chorus.

    Unsubstantiated excuse? The Copernicus folks listed what I saw as the real issue, viz:

    In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.

    If Copernicus wishes to be taken seriously, it can afford the occasional heresies like questioning the IPCC. What it can’t afford is to have its peer review process seen as a joke. Now it may in fact be a joke … but they can’t afford to have it SEEN to be a joke. And that is assuredly what happened in the Special Issue.

    The Copernicus reaction makes more sense when you remember that the entire edifice of peer review is under attack, for the good reasons you point out in your head post. This makes them sensitive to anything that affects the public’s perception of their peer review process.

    2. The real priorities are logic and reason, evidence and free speech. In the peer-pal debate there is no win worth achieving. Peer review is a weak system anyway. And current journal editors are only going to send alarmist papers to independent skeptics as a matter of course when everybody realizes the real debate occurred online, and some bloggers were closer to the truth than Nature. Let’s help independent scientists continue to push the bounds of knowledge.

    I agree with all of that 100%, no issues at all … but turning a blind eye to pal review doesn’t “help independent scientists continue to push the bounds of knowledge”. Instead, it just makes us as bad as the majority of mainstream climate scientists who turned a blind eye when Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and the un-indicted Climategate co-conspirators did exactly the same thing.

    3. As far as dashing “…any chance of any sort of climate skeptic or citizen science based journal coming into existence…”. I would say, No. Not at all.

    Mmmm … well, it certainly hasn’t improved the chances. Look, when you sign up to play any given game, from poker to business, there are rules that you agree to. Here’s one of Copernicus’s rules, emphasis mine:

    4. A referee should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the referee’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the referee should return the manuscript promptly without review, advising the editor of the conflict of interest or bias.

    This rule was not only broken, it was smashed to bits. Clearly the editor had no problem at all with using co-authors and and friends as referees. When the AGW people do that, we rightly object. You do the math.

    4. Until Copernicus shows that the papers contained flaws worse than MBH98, which was not even retracted, terminating a journal for no named error at all is a scandal. When will Copernicus be closing the other journals?

    The journal was not closed because of flaws in the papers. Copernicus is fighting for perceived scientific legitimacy in a crowded journal marketplace. If it allows this gross violation of the rules, its entire brand would be tainted by the accusation that Copernicus papers were being given a free pass …

    And rightly so. If they allowed that gross violation of the norms, whether from Michael Mann or Nicola Scafetta, they’d deserve to lose both scientific respect and market share.

    Jo, to borrow an example, suppose you ran Copernicus, and you found out that your brand new journal with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt as co-editors had invited Bradley, Hughes, Caspar Annan, and the whole Climategate crowd to write papers. Then they had all reviewed each others papers, written a joint paper agreeing with each other that the Hockeystick was da bomb, and published the whole farrago …

    If you ran Copernicus, would you shut that journal down?

    Because I would, in a hot second. Copernicus couldn’t afford the damage to its reputation, no matter which side of the climate fence they might be on.

    Finally, have you read the papers in the special issue? I ask because if I were a referee, I wouldn’t have recommended publishing the only two that I’ve read, Jelbring’s and Tallbloke’s. No way. Lots of handwaving and vague supposition, little data, no code. Me, I prefer my science all sciencey, you know, with citations and logic and inferred mechanisms and data and such. Instead we get things like Jelbring waving his hands and claiming that his ideas are “not far-fetched” … sorry, not impressed in the slightest.

    In closing, let me say that I agree with you totally about the value of peer review. However, if you want to play in the peer-reviewed universe and you agree to the rules, you’ve got to follow them. We strongly demanded that of Phil Jones and Michael Mann. We must equally strongly demand it of Hans Jelbring and Rog Tallbloke, or lose all credibility.

    And again, my thanks for the continued existence of your blog. Although I don’t comment here much, being pretty occupied defending and explaining my own scientific ideas at WUWT, JoNova is on my regular reading list, and your exploits are legendary.

    w.


    Report this

    118

    • #

      well written Willis. I’m afraid Jo’s post is straw clutching and cloyingly apologist. It is sad given that she had the chance to change her stance after the last post without losing face. Too late now I think.

      Despite this, I think Tallbloke’s cure for the journal’s ills, a relaunch with name change*, has merit.

      *”Pattern recognition” is behavioral science jargon for a cognitive process in humans and other animals. Also “in physics” has little meaning either. Not that I have any sway on such things, but I think it is a poor title and should be changed. Is the journal about matching patterns in physical data with other data sets (either observed or generated by algorithms? I think a four word title could be found that is far superior to the one chosen.


      Report this

      218

    • #

      Finally, have you read the papers in the special issue? I ask because if I were a referee, I wouldn’t have recommended publishing the only two that I’ve read, Jelbring’s and Tallbloke’s. No way. Lots of handwaving and vague supposition, little data, no code. Me, I prefer my science all sciencey, you know, with citations and logic and inferred mechanisms and data and such. Instead we get things like Jelbring waving his hands and claiming that his ideas are “not far-fetched” … sorry, not impressed in the slightest.

      I’ve read Jelbring’s and found that it does no more than what it says it does.

      One aim of this article is to show that there is a severe lack of understanding related to energy transfer in our solar system when looking beyond electromagnetic energy transfer. Presented observational evidence and theoretical reasoning are intended to demonstrate that most generally accepted theories relating to the evolution of the solar system and energy transfer between celestial bodies have severe shortcomings. There is a vast pool of observations from a number of sources where the results often seem to be contradictive. Hopefully this article will stimulate to deeper thoughts about such evidence, making it possible to identify dominating subsystems in the solar system and to increase our understanding how celestial bodies interact with each other. Therefore, the present paper is focused on the basic energy transfer processes between celestial bodies. Some statements are made by the author more to stimulate other scientists than to claim them as truths. A controversial hypothesis is formulated (Sect. 8) with the hope that it will be disproved or confirmed by other scientists in the near future.

      As an encompassing treatise, it references a great deal of external materials. Not “all” science is about grand new discoveries.

      Perhaps you failed to grasp that the formulae which you seek are far from being known well enough. (“contradictive”) Measurements and observations are scarce in the real world where the funds and resources necessary to make those observations and measurements have been allocated to the persecution of a trace gas. The formulae would be derived using the despised (by some) “wiggle-matching” by adjusting the parameters of the equations describing the physical behaviour, as hypothecised and later seemingly observed.

      As to the language employed by Jelbring, it’s characteristic of the bulk of that used in all science journals. Science authors are encouraged to “hedge”; to play on doubts and be humble with their certainties. It is unsafe to assume that they are more certain than what they write or that the results are more definitive.


      Report this

      50

    • #

      Willis, thanks, and your contribution is legendary too, of course. What I most want to avoid in this, is for good people to attack good people while cheats get away with cheating.

      The bald fact is that the editors said they closed the journal because of its “IPCC” sentence. If skeptics cannot express pure outrage at this as one, then we are truly pathetically unfocused and divided. That the journal then as an after thought hyped up pal-review to be “nepotistic malpractise” exposes yet again how hopelessly political this is. They never use those terms against pal review with alarmists, they don’t terminate any journals because “they support the IPCC”. The publishers hypocrisy is abjectly on display, yet skeptics are attacking skeptics instead.

      You say it was a gross violation of the norms, but many reviewers are listed as anon, so how do we know this is not the norm? We give alarmists the benefit of the doubt?

      Perhaps the papers are flawed, I’ve said nothing about their quality, but neither has the journal. I’m saying there is a free kick going here against the publishers, instead skeptics attack other skeptics for not keeping up the “appearance” of kowtowing to rules that are not essential to the Scientific Method, (nor as it happens, followed by others).

      You, to your credit are one of the very few commenters on any site who seems to have a scientific comment on the papers. That earns my respect.

      In the end, does Copernicus’s one sided overreaction make peer review stronger, or does it just make it more one-sided? The answer is obvious. There is not even the pretense of the publisher to apply the same standard to all their contributors.

      The publisher has proved that it is unscientific. Even if they find errors in the papers now, that does not change the fact that they terminated a journal when none were known.

      As for breaches of the “appearance” of things. How do you assess a “conflict” of interest? There is no meter to measure it, it is in the eye of the beholder, because intentions are unknowable. If any paper reviewed by a “known skeptic” would appear to have a conflict of interest, then the problem is not with people being “seen” to break the editorial guidelines, it’s with the culture that says an alarmist approving an alarmist is not a conflict but a skeptic approving a skeptic is.

      I have asked Nils and he is passionately convinced “The quality of the reviews was outstanding.” Which doesn’t mean they were, but that after all these decades in the debate and hundreds of papers in contribution Nils deserves the the presumption of goodwill, not crass accusations made by some that it was a conniving “circle-jerk”. (Those were not your words, I know). He is owed an apology by one or two people.

      As editor he ought be criticized for any flaws in the science allowed through. But if his flaw is only in playing in their sandbox and not keep up “appearances” isn’t it fair to say that then his mistake was not to have pandered to an unmeasurable and non-scientifically essential construct with a statement about trying to get outside reviewers, or for not being so naive as to name the reviewers? These are “game-playing” and unscientific rules which I would not attack a skeptic publicly for.

      Some skeptics are overly sensitive to choices other skeptics make, as if the whole unconnected community ought be judged as one. This plays right into the hands of those who push that falsity. I see no reason to help those people one iota.

      You say: “And in fact, you, I, and others have rightly excoriated the AGW alarmists for breaking those exact rules,”. But see my point “No double standards” in the post. I cannot recall any time I ever excoriated anyone merely for pal review. I excoriate them for logical errors or poor arguments. If a pro AGW paper had evidence and reason and was pal reviewed, I’m not concerned about the official form of review. Bad pal review is the reason so much alarmist trash is published, but pal review can be good or bad, it is not evil in itself.

      So if Mann Bradley Hughes was approved by Caspar, Schmidt, and Jones, but the paper was a useful contribution to science I would publish it and not terminate the journal afterwards. Is that so bad?

      “The Copernicus reaction makes more sense when you remember that the entire edifice of peer review is under attack, for the good reasons you point out in your head post.”

      And the answer for Copernicus is to start applying the same principles to all their journals, not to cave in to a political ideology. The biggest problem here is not pal review but political correctness in science. I am trying to stay focused on the target.


      Report this

      151

      • #
        Ian H

        Well said Jo. I see totally where you are coming from. As I said elsewhere I think you were quite right to bring this up. Clearly the Journal publishers used a double standard and closed this journal at least in part for political reasons. They did not behave in a fair and neutral fashion and they deserved to be called out over it.

        However the world isn’t fair. It especially isn’t fair to skeptics. You of all people know this. I watched that documentary interview you did and the way in which it was absolutely butchered when they edited it. Well argued and very bravely done; My hat goes off to you over that. You know just how far the playing field is tilted against skeptics. And yes we should protest every time they pull a dirty trick.

        But after that initial protest we have to stop and think and decide how far to take it and what we hope to gain. I do feel sympathy for Tallbloke and the rest. There is no doubt they were unfairly treated just as you were unfairly treated by that documentary crew. However given what I see as the flawed nature of this journal, I don’t see there is much to be gained by pushing for its reinstatement.


        Report this

        00

    • #

      Willis opines: “Thejournal was not closed because of flaws in the papers. Copernicus is fighting for perceived scientific legitimacy”

      The original and primary reason for axing the journal given to the editors by email by Martin Rasmussen was that one of the implications of our general conclusions was that continued or even accelerated warming was in doubt.

      Subsiduary to that was a vague allusion to anonymous reports of “potential problems” with review.

      Only later was this amplified to an undefendable vague smear about ‘nepotism’


      Report this

      50

    • #

      Willis says: “I wouldn’t have recommended publishing the only two that I’ve read, Jelbring’s and Tallbloke’s. No way. Lots of handwaving and vague supposition, little data, no code. Me, I prefer my science all sciencey, you know, with citations and logic and inferred mechanisms and data and such.”

      Having demonstrated the spin-orbit couplings through the inter-relations found in the empirical observations, I expressed the hope that those with access to better data and with stronger analytic capability would be able to determine mechanism.

      That won’t be Willis, because he hasn’t got the maths ability or understanding of resonant harmonics required. It might be me further diwn the line though. Since publication of my paper We have made further discoveries


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Jaymez

      This is an excellent comment Willis, but it does miss the point of Jo’s post. By all means crucify PRP if it is not meeting scientific journal standards. But the scientific community, and the climate science community in particular should not wait until they have a journal publish papers which don’t support the IPCC line before they start measuring a journal by those standards.

      What Jo Nova has done is point out the bleeding obvious; that this move by the publishers was nothing to do with concerns of scientific journalistic standards as evidenced by the primary reason initially given for the closure – the editors comment that the special edition papers place doubt on the IPCC position regarding continued and accelerated warming. A doubt which is not only unique, but also being supported by the empirical data.

      Climategate emails, the raft of papers supporting Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick (replicating the same faulty methodology and statistical errors), The selection of IPCC Lead Authors, Contributory Authors and cited papers in the IPCC Climate Reports are all glaring examples where the peer review process is hardly ‘best practice’. The Climate Science establishment has not bothered to shine the spotlight on the peer review process until now!


      Report this

      40

    • #
      Truthseeker

      Willis,

      You say “The Copernicus folks listed what I saw as the real issue,” and quote Copernicus about the selection of referees. You have chosen to pick the spurious reason to justify yours and Anthony’s hypocrisy on this matter. The real reason for the cancellation of the special publication was that the papers went against the IPCC dogma. The referee reason was an “oops” afterthought when Copernicus themselves were caught red-handed in their hypocrisy. It was a three-card trick by the alarmists and you and Anthony fell for it.


      Report this

      30

  • #
    Mark F

    William’s problem – even if he might be inclined toward self-examination to accompany his self-aggradizement, his field of view might be somewhat limited to counting polyps in the descending portion of his digestive tract. In my opinion.


    Report this

    110

  • #
    handjive

    Well, that’s one genie who is not going back in the bottle.

    What an amazing discussion.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    diogenese2

    Jo – congratulations on dragging old Bill Connolley out of the
    twilight zone and allowing him such a degree of rope with which to hang himself. I may be wrong but cannot recall any previous post by him – let alone an attempt to hi-jack a thread.
    Something is seriously faecal in the inner ring of the seventh circle (Dante reference again) for him to be deployed here. I think that they have realised that they have lost the political battle, with even the EU about to abandon renewables in the face of the overwhelming evidence that “sustainable development” is unsustainable.
    By the way, the problem with “Open Review” is that old Bill might appoint himself reviewer.
    I attach an example of how he might review the “special edition” courtesy of the late, great, Peter Cook, that is, if he had a sense of humour.
    For those not yet qualified for a bus pass the historical reference is to the trial of the leader of the UK liberal party, Jeremy Thorpe on a charge of conspiracy to murder his lover, Norman Scott, by an amateur hit man, Andrew Newton. In the event he bottled out and shot Scott’s dog “Rinka”, arguably a worse offence. Other parties were liberal party fixer, Peter Bessell MP and party financiers Jack Hayward and Nadir Dinshaw.
    Enjoy a rave from the grave when Global Warming was just pillow talk between Maurice Strong & Barbara Ward.

    http://youtu.be/Kyos-M48B8U


    Report this

    70

  • #
    Daniel G.

    Only an insinuation such as that Morner used his relatives as reviewers (the accusation of nepotism), which is actually a false claim, was added in a second time to fool the ignorant with some smoke in the eye. And Anthony fell in the trap.

    Your reading comprehension is bad. The word nepotism was used figuratively, and when understood that way, it is not a false claim at all.

    William’s problem – even if he might be inclined toward self-examination to accompany his self-aggradizement, his field of view might be somewhat limited to counting polyps in the descending portion of his digestive tract. In my opinion.

    Your comment doesn’t do anything against his post. He made his case. You didn’t. Please, no, allow myself to make my answer:

    Some people seem to have lost sight of this, and think that skeptics ought to be trying to play the Peer Review Game according to the fine print of arbitrary rules dictated by unscientists who hate skeptics and who don’t even play by the rules themselves. The game belongs to them – they set, change and break the rules, and they decide who gets an invite to the clubhouse.

    If anyone lost sight, it might just be you. You are just rambling a conspiracy theory. It is not like The Team controls every publisher. Broad ethical guidelines condemning pal-review and peer-review are from before The Team even existed. Copernicus has explicit rules against what happened. If you are going to use the peer-review avenue, you follow the standards of peer-review.

    The only way to know if the review process helped or hindered is to discuss the papers themselves, not the details of the review process. Let’s not get lost fighting in the bureaucratic maze, when what matters is the rest of the universe.

    Whether the review process helped or hindered is irrelevant. The appearance of conflict of interest is enough to see something happened.

    The Peer Review Game works as a gatekeeper to silence critics, so pandering and bowing to it is exactly what the unscientists want. Let’s put the process exactly where it belongs. It’s not science, but sometimes it’s useful despite that, and sometimes it’s fun to play anyway, so we do it for the entertainment and wins we get (despite the odds).

    Your speech doesn’t amuse me because it doesn’t tell anything about the Copernicus controversy. The climate skeptic papers were reviewed by climate skeptics reviewers. There was no gatekeeping, even if it exists elsewhere.

    But the deck is stacked, and when we play the game we should not be placing big bets, nor attacking real scientists to score points in a flawed game.

    Even if “the deck is stacked” (which I don’t completely agree), that doesn’t mean it is right to cheat your way through the game.

    People will accuse me of double standards, but quote me carefully (and in context) and you will find I have never attacked a paper purely because it was pal-reviewed, but always because I had problems with the reasoning and arguments first. When good scientists pal review good science, we can get better science.

    It is irrelevant whether you have double standards or not. But whether you are judging actions using the appropriate standards.
    The problem is using the peer-review process, and not meeting the standards of peer-reviewed science, and explicitily breaking the rules of your publisher. It is dishonesty. Expecting wonderful science and great scientific debates, from people who don’t care about honesty is wishful thinking.

    But in the end, the review game is a sideshow, and it is usually used to lock out those who question a consensus.

    Not really. The “review game” is the controversy. The paper itself is somewhat obscure, not many people are interested in that. What matters is that reviewers engaged (or appeared to engage) pal-review which is explicitly against Copernicus’s norms.

    1. The media are going to one-sidedly cherry pick a belated unsubstantiated excuse anyway. They always falsely try to pin any flaw to “all skeptics”. Why amplify that or accept it? I would point out their hypocrisy, rather than join the chorus.

    Missing the Watt’s logic line and insinuating that Watts’ is creating a mess. He is pointing out one, not creating one himself. Watts’ is neither amplifying or accepting anything. His observations still stand on. “all skeptics” are the only ones to lose, and the fiasco could have been avoided.

    2. The real priorities are logic and reason, evidence and free speech. In the peer-pal debate there is no win worth achieving. Peer review is a weak system anyway. And current journal editors are only going to send alarmist papers to independent skeptics as a matter of course when everybody realizes the real debate occurred online, and some bloggers were closer to the truth than Nature. Let’s help independent scientists continue to push the bounds of knowledge.

    Sure, but if you decide to use the peer-review process, you have to follow the house’s rules.
    They didn’t.

    Now we have an unfortunate controversy where “all skeptics” will be blamed. Watts’ is still right.

    3. As far as dashing “…any chance of any sort of climate skeptic or citizen science based journal coming into existence…”. I would say, No. Not at all.

    I would say that the balance of evidence is against your hopes. I disagree with Watts’ on that point, but he would be right if he said the chances of such event happened have decreased.

    4. Until Copernicus shows that the papers contained flaws worse than MBH98, which was not even retracted, terminating a journal for no named error at all is a scandal. When will Copernicus be closing the other journals?

    Copernicus is trying to maintain its reputation, termination a journal is harsh, but considering what the editors and reviewers did, it’s no scandal, let alone overkill as Watts’ though previously.


    Report this

    011

    • #
      Vic G Gallus

      Your reading comprehension is bad. The word nepotism was used figuratively, and when understood that way, it is not a false claim at all.

      The word is used where a position is given to someone related to or close to you ie making your nephew the editor. Having your work reviewed by someone you know or is thinking along the same lines doesn’t come close to being nepotism.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    manalive

    Peer review is apparently relatively recent.
    Publication of the structure of DNA in 1953 by Watson and Crick in Nature was not peer reviewed because the journal didn’t have a system of formal peer review in the 50s. (source).


    Report this

    70

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Add Newton, Darwin and Einstein to the list of those not peer reviewed.

      Although Darwin did talk about his ideas with several colleagues over the years.

      And Dawson, originator of The Piltdown Man, was peer reviewed.


      Report this

      70

      • #
        ROM

        Manalive & Graeme No3
        You are both correct.

        Back not so very long ago the warmists zealots were very fond of claiming that the CAGW science “was settled” because it was all peer reviewed.
        [ Had this thrown at us skeptics constantly by the CAGW zealot trolls on the now closed Weather Zone climate forum.]

        As is usual with the narrow minded warmist zealot hypocrisy such unchallengeable faith in peer reviewed papers only applied to papers supporting their particular catastrophic climate theology and did not apply to the peer reviewed skeptical papers that challenged the warmist creed in so many ways, which is how science is supposed to work.
        Now the wheel of history and the affairs of men are turning once again to a new era and the posturings of the climate catastrophe ideologists are becoming muted and the claims of unchallengeable correctness for the peer reviewed papers still supporting the now increasingly still borne climate warming catastrophe are becoming ever more muted as their cult like meme of a sad, futureless, destroyed and barren world of ever greater suffering and catastrophe collapses around them.untold.

        You really have to feel for those poor unfortunate zealots of the global warming faith as they see their cozy little world of anguish and suffering in which they take so much pleasure in promoting to the masses, descending into an abyss of ordinariness and business as usual in a world where Nature just keeps right on doing what Nature does regardless of the desires and wishes of men.[ /sarc]

        A very good article on peer review comes from Michael Nielsen who along with Chuang of MIT wrote the standard text on quantum computing.
        [ This is one of the ten most highly cited physics books of all time (Source: Google Scholar, ]

        If you want to get a handle on the pitfalls and the corruption or just plain “ got better things to do than read this rubbish so I’ll just tick it ” often associated with the Peer Review process this article is probably as good a place to start as anywhere.

        Three myths about scientific peer review


        Report this

        80

        • #
          Yonniestone

          Thanks for the link ROM, someone here posted this last year and I couldn’t find it (maybe you) and I was almost going to ask but bingo there you have it.
          It’s a very interesting read and put peer review into a different perspective for me, I’m finding this thread has an amazing difference in ideas from commenters but the subject always seems to come back to a call to stick to scientific basics, problem is everyone has a different idea of what basics are.
          If all scientists agree on where to start from does this fall into a false consensus ideal? just saying. ;)


          Report this

          10

  • #
    Lars P.

    “Nothing like this happens to unskeptical scientists, ever. It’s a telling spectacle.”
    - exactly!

    “1. The media are going to one-sidedly cherry pick a belated unsubstantiated excuse anyway. They always falsely try to pin any flaw to “all skeptics”. Why amplify that or accept it? I would point out their hypocrisy, rather than join the chorus.”

    You are so right!

    The late post-mortem addendum is very suspect:
    “In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.”

    If this would have been the reason, Copernicus should have had a record of checking, approaching and warning that this (closure) will happen if the proper process is not followed. Do they have such? I bet not.

    After the fact they found an excuse. What they did was unnacceptable.

    Referring the papers in cause, I have not read them yet and also no reviews, so I do not have an idea and do not know the value of the papers published in the PRP edition, but I trust we will get soon pertinent posts referring to them – which will probably kill some of them, but also some may succeed the test.

    And maybe Tallbloke succeeds in putting up a proper journal and a proper internet review? Wish him all the best!
    Well, dreaming is allowed.


    Report this

    40

  • #

    [...] prior art. You’d think that problems with PR had only just been discovered. I did try to point that out but as you’d expect, it fell on stony [...]


    Report this

    00

  • #

    We already have a kind of free-for-all publishing system, called blogs. The trouble is, the quality on average is poor, and its pretty hard to get people to read what is written. In the course of writing up some of my own thoughts on peer review (now at http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/01/20/peer-review/, you’ll notice I’ve commented on some of the ideas presented here) I’ve realised that our host’s original idea, “Let the free market review the papers”, suffers from this. Its not desperately well thought out, but perhaps it could be improved by helpful and constructive criticism. But! Hardly any of the commenters here have addressed it; people veer so rapidly off to their own concerns.


    Report this

    421

    • #

      Hardly any of the commenters here have addressed it; people veer so rapidly off to their own concerns.

      Not really. It’s because, as you say:

      The trouble is, the quality on average is poor

      and given your habit of writing as you please, no matter how far it deviates from reality; even attempting to muzzle those with a better grip on reality; those in the know give your blog a wide berth.


      Report this

      80

    • #
      AndyG55

      “The trouble is, the quality on average is poor”

      Well close yours, its dragging that average down considerably. A base level outliar!!


      Report this

      50

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      That you and the rest of the “team” have gamed so it is no longer a free for all, unless you are promoting a hoax.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    This is one of the best ever skeptic articles.

    Anthony wobbled. Joanne took the opportunity to rip the peer/pal/review red herring apart. I don’t believe Darwin because he was peer-reviewed. I don’t care if his best mate said he was right. I agree because it’s the simplest explanation of the facts. AGW, not.


    Report this

    281

    • #
      Safetyguy66

      Spot on. No hypothesis has ever been proven by a method involving counting up the number of people who claim to believe in it.

      If you surveyed 100,000 prehistoric tribes people and asked them “does the sun revolve around the earth?”. One would expect to see an overwhelming majority of believers. After all you can get up early and watch the sun traverse the sky right in front of your eyes. You would need to be a lunatic (or a skeptic) to think the system worked any other way. But what will prove the theory is not 999,998 believers, its new evidence provided by new ways of thinking about and exploring the problem by the 2 people that thought “hang on a minute”….


      Report this

      70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Margaret Thatcher, on announcing that the UK would take on Argentina, over the Falkland Islands, used the phrase, “Now is not the time to be wobbly”.

      But “Anthony wobbled” – great comment Rod. :-)


      Report this

      40

    • #

      At “Watt’s Up With That“, Willis Eschenbach tells us what’s up with one of the papers in the notorious ‘Pattern Recognition in Physics’ journal.

      But whether this paper is as bad as he says, or the best thing since Heisenberg, must be evaluated completely independently of the question of whether the journal was guilty of pal review instead of peer review.


      Report this

      00

  • #

    [...] journal ‘Copernicus’ and ‘peer review’, with both Watts Up With That and Jo Nova’s site hard at it, and occasionally lobbing a couple of bits of ordnance into each other’s trenches [...]


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Hans Jelbring

      Hi Louis,

      It was along time ago since we communicated. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
      “So sciences that can’t be tested experimentally either in situ or in the here and now tend to rely on peer review and the consensus process when publishing their results in the scientific jounrals.”
      My simple opinion is that any hypothesy that cannot be tested (verified) is unscientific. Still, many scientists make a good living in suggesting such hypotheses”. You could even believe that it is a strategy to do so.


      Report this

      10

  • #
    Hans Jelbring

    Hans Jelbring
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 21, 2014 at 7:24 am · Reply
    If you decide this is going to pass, here is an edited version (I am not native English speaking)

    Poor Willis,

    He seems obsessed with Jelbring. It is very close to hatred or it is pure hatred. I got smeared and had to take about 100 ad hominems from him a couple of years ago on a single thread run by this cowboy from the Pacific or whatever disguise he is choosing to wear. Then I decided that WUTW was no option for a scientific mind. I can guess the reason for his animosity.
    When I objected to Anthony and told that he was responsible for his site and to make w. behave decently I got no response and no apology from Anthony. Tallbloke is my witness. I still have my formal complaint to Anthony in my archive and I notice that w. is still the major clown at WUWT.


    Report this

    61

  • #
    J Martin

    The future is internet review, by not just well known scientist peers, but also other people of mixed expertise. Print publications such as Nature will go the way of the dodo, and peer review with it. Its the content that counts and it should be made accessible to a wider audience than a few peers and a publication made from processed trees.

    Wonderful assessment by Jo.

    PS. you’d make good solicitor.


    Report this

    60

  • #
    john

    One thing that I find clear, is that the mainstream media appears to be promoting bad science and /or public policy based on provable bad science. Where are the stories about medical, financial and environmental science that was done with provable fraud or found significantly erroneous? Where are the voices of others who are equal to or better than qualified to challenge those findings and be made public? I suspect it is places like this as the media has financial stakes in what is going on. Bloomberg (renewables), Reuters (point carbon) and others have departments that do analysis for those industries (and also report the news), have a financial interest in those industries.

    It seems that small scale blogs/news outlets who have no financial or other interests are in the forefront of reporting many of these misgivings and for that I am thankful, having been a participant myself although I never wanted to be in this mess anyway, but it is the right (and costly thing) to do. I have no regrets (white lie), but tough times do make one stronger and builds character so I’ve been told).

    That said, Professor Lindzen of MIT was interviewed by a small news outlet and this was spot on.

    MIT PROFESSOR EXPOSES CLIMATE CHANGE HYSTERIA

    http://www.storyleak.com/mit-professor-climate-change/

    Speaking in regards to Massachusetts’ new $50 million climate change proposal, MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a leading figure in the climate change movement, pointed out the absurdity of blaming every weather event on global warming and climate change.

    “The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,” Lindzen told WBZ-TV. “It has nothing to do with global warming, it has to do with where we live.”

    Although supporting the theory of man-made global warming, Lindzen admitted that rhetoric from the political class and green movement has been nothing more than over-the-top “catastrophism.”

    “Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm, back off from catastrophism,” Lindzen said. “It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”

    Even more surprising, Lindzen goes on to point out the government’s obvious use of climate change alarmism to push greater state control, even warning over politicians’ use of “crony capitalism.”

    “Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,” Lindzen said.

    Lindzen has frequently been attacked by climate alarmists for refusing to give into political pressures regarding climate sThe growing number of failed predictions from the global warming crowd has only cooled the public’s belief in recent years.

    From 2007 to 2009, Al Gore hysterically warned that the North Pole would be completely “ice-free” by 2013. Instead, 2013 experienced record breaking cold and major growth in Arctic ice.

    ———

    I have a background in energy/engineering/media and for those who would like, here is some of what I have written (aggregated). At the end of each article you will find a clickable link to the last weeks story. Many updates are in the comments and contain a wealth of information. Now that the webmaster has apparently retired, I no longer write there but update stories in the comments.

    Thanks again Joanne and everyone else who has worked so tirelessly to bring forth real science and debate.

    john


    Report this

    90

  • #
    David Cooke

    The traditional practice of peer review is problematical, but I can’t suggest any better alternative. Without supposedly independent reviewers, the decision to publish a paper would be left entirely to the editor(s) of the journal, and this might not produce better outcomes than the old system.

    IMHO, the worst aspect of peer review is that authors often have to negotiate publication in the face of reports from reviewers who did not read the paper, who have their own agenda to push, or who have no knowledge of the subject. The last is common if the work is original in a new area, or if it deals with a narrow speciality – in which case the only people competent to review will be known to the author, either as pals or as rivals.


    Report this

    50

    • #

      all too true. All scientists great and small have received the mysterious rejection that lacks detail but carries the whiff of prejudice or misunderstanding.


      Report this

      10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      That is why the concept of publishing the actual review process and comments, along with original material, has some appeal. If all is laid bare, for all to see, reviewers may be a little more circumspect.

      And let us not forget, that the review process has more to do with the “reputation” of the publication, than the actual science. A publication that does not require a level of decent behaviour from its reviewers will tend to be shunned by contributors.

      If a reviewer disagrees with the material findings in the original paper, then they always have the opportunity to publish their own findings in rebuttal, which will also be peer reviewed.

      Isn’t that the way that it used to be done?


      Report this

      80

      • #
        Safetyguy66

        Im with you Rereke, surely publishing itself is part of the review process. If there is another practitioner out there with complimentary or contradictory data, they will no doubt speak up (unless it conflicts with the IPCC of course) and further movements toward the truth will emerge.

        Frankly this was what I believed to the norm of development for a hypothesis until climate science came along, then it all got weird.


        Report this

        50

      • #

        While it may be advantageous for reviewers (and authors) to remain anonymous up to publication, anonymity should not persist through publication.

        The prospect of authors being “unknown” to reviewers also has some potential holes in that the reviewer may be contacting colleagues to explain certain details to the reviewer. One or more of those colleagues may be an author. It’s hard to phrase questions vaguely and then to expect specific answers.

        OTOH if the authors are know to the reviewers, then the human potential for prejudice creeps in.

        Publication of the names of reviewers along with the papers may rein in some wild reviewers, but can also taint relationships and publication practice apart from the specific paper.

        Review can never be perfect. If you want to know if it’ll be good enough, then you have to set metrics based on the purpose/objective of review. Defining the purpose may reveal that it’s substantially obsolete, especially with “journal shopping” and independent publication via the Internet being so easy.

        Outside of government-funded areas, research is cost-sensitive, so the free papers on the Internet get perused first: Peer-reviewed and otherwise.


        Report this

        40

  • #
    pat

    how strange to see CAGW sceptics caught up in this fight, at the very moment we should be celebrating the unravelling of political CAGW:

    15 Jan: Der Spiegel: Green Fade-Out: Europe to Ditch Climate Protection Goals
    By Gregor Peter Schmitz in Brussels
    The European Commission wants to forgo ambitious climate protection goals and pave the way for fracking — jeopardizing Germany’s touted energy revolution in the process.
    With such a policy, the European Union is seriously jeopardizing its global climate leadership role…
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/european-commission-move-away-from-climate-protection-goals-a-943664.html

    Industry realism curtails EU’s long-term climate ambitions
    BRUSSELS, Jan 20 (Reuters) – Seven years after it set some of the world’s most stringent environmental targets, the European Union is about to revise its long-term goals to take more account of industry and changed economic circumstances…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3782182?&ref=searchlist

    Group of MEPs to object to CO2 backloading proposal – lawmaker
    LONDON, Jan 20 (Reuters) – LONDON, Jan 20 (Reuters) – Seven members of the European Parliament (MEPs) plan to object to a plan to fast-track a bill to prop up carbon prices in the EU’s Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), a senior MEP said on Monday in a move analysts said is likely to reduce the impact of the measure this year…
    http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/reutersnews/1.3783136


    Report this

    10

  • #
    pat

    (2 pages) 1 Aug 2014: Forbes: The Trouble With ‘Scientific’ Research Today: A Lot That’s Published Is Junk
    By Henry I. Miller and S. Stanley Young
    Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is the Robert Wesson Fellow in Scientific Philosophy and Public Policy at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution; he was the founding director of the FDA’s Office of Biotechnology. Dr. S. Stanley Young is the Assistant Director for Bioinformatics at the National Institute of Statistical Sciences (NISS) in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina and an adjunct professor of statistics at North Carolina State University, the University of Waterloo and the University of British Columbia.
    Another worrisome trend is the increasing publication of the results of flawed “advocacy research” that is actually designed to give a false result that provides propaganda value for activists and can be cited long after the findings have been discredited…
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/henrymiller/2014/01/08/the-trouble-with-scientific-research-today-a-lot-thats-published-is-junk/


    Report this

    20

  • #
    pat

    oops…Forbes article should be dated 8 January, 2014.

    the reverse US dating system confused me! LOL.


    Report this

    10

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I am glad that I am not the only one … :-)


      Report this

      20

    • #
      J Martin

      Confusing and illogical US dating system, medium, small, big. Doesn’t make sense. Should be day, month, year, ie. small, medium, big.

      But when people in the US use dates starting with the year they use the same system as the rest of us, year, month, day. Inconsistent and confusing. The US should dump their date system and weights and measures and join with most of the rest of the world in using day, month, year, and the metric weights and measures system.


      Report this

      00

  • #
    RoHa

    “Curve fitting is not a crime”

    Maybe not, but depending on whose curves they are, and what you try to fit to them, you can get into all sorts of trouble.


    Report this

    40

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Well remunerated model fiddlers agree…. We are screwed.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/extreme-el-nino-weather-to-double-in-frequency-study-says-1.2503897

    A doubling of El Nino La Nina events? Not a 24% increase or a 76% increase, just good old doubling.

    Sounds a lot like guesswork.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Adrian O

    Practically, the way out is for Curry, Pielke Jr., Scafetta and a few other to start a new journal.
    Being able to move the whole “Pattern …” would be a plus.

    The journal would be savagely attacked, as would be expected form the part of participants in a trillion dollar scam in the process of being taken down.

    On the other hand stressing the fact that the climate models get further away from reality, while the stuff in the journal matches measurements might just be enough.


    Report this

    50

  • #
    Willis Eschenbach

    Hans Jelbring
    January 21, 2014 at 7:24 am · Reply

    Poor Willis,

    He seems obsessed with Jelbring. It is very close to hatred or it is pure hatred. I got smeared and had to take about 100 ad hominems from him a couple of years ago on a single thread run by this cowboy from the Pacific or whatever disguise he is choosing to wear. Then I decided that WUTW was no option for a scientific mind. I can guess the reason for his animosity.
    When I objected to Anthony and told that he was responsible for his site and to make w. behave decently I got no response and no apology from Anthony. Tallbloke is my witness. I still have my formal complaint to Anthony in my archive and I notice that w. is still the major clown at WUWT.

    Dang … obsessed with you? I spend ~ zero time thinking about you, Hans, and I only read your posts by chance when they mention my ideas.

    On the other hand, that’s a lot of abuse from a man who hasn’t provided a single link. Ust who is obsessed here?

    For those who are interested in the actual occurrence rather than Han’s or my take on it, see the discussions regarding the Jelbring hypothesis on Dr. Robert Brown’s post here, and on my post here.

    I’m more than happy to leave it to the readers, after contemplating both posts and the comments, to judge the value of the hypothesis that Jelbring published in E&E. Yes, I fear I was hard on Han’s hypothesis … because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

    w.


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Hans Jelbring

      Willis states and he is as cock sure as always and mostly wrong because of ignorance:

      “Yes, I fear I was hard on Han’s hypothesis … because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics.”

      The First and Second Law of Thermodynamics actually deals with energi. The first states that energy is indestructable och the second states that any energy quantity which is left in a diabatic closed system will SPONTANOUSLY dissipate until an equal quantity of energy is hold by any equal mass. An equilibrium has then been reached. The second law doesn´t state that the equilibrium process has to be caused by a SINGLE physical process.

      Most applications where energy/mass unit is considered on earth has been substituted to equal temperature and it mostly works well. However it does NOT work when gravity is involved. In the atmosphere it is the sum of gravitational potential energy and thermal energy that is constant(kinetic energy = zero)in an equilibrium situation. This little fact is ignored by Willis, his companionions and many scientists much better educated than Willis.

      It is a benefit to by aquanted by the formal derivation of the temperature lapse rate showing that it can be
      expected to be dz/dh = -g/Cp, an amazingly simple equation containing gravity of a planet as well as specific heat for an ideal gas Cp. In this case a mixture of ideal gases. (See Holton, Introduction to Dynamic Meteorology, 1979, page 47-49) Holton concludes after finishing the derivation “Hence, the dry adiabatic temperature lapse rate is approximately constant throughout the LOWER atmosphere. Holton knew that absorbtion of EM radiation in the tropopaus and stratosphere is dominated by the direct absorbtion of EM radiation. This is not the case in the lower tropsphere theoretical and observed temperature are approxiomately equal especiall over land areas on sunny afternnons.
      Anybody that have watch the temperature decline by altitude when flying knows this to be a fact.

      The above situation indicates that there has to exist a negative temperature lapse rate in any planetary atmopshere (lower troposphere) that is – g/Cp which is confirmed by observational evidence, especially on Venus and Titan. Of course this also implies that any temperature lapse rate stated to be a function of radiation processes have to be wrong or at least not dominating the temeprature decrease which has been termed “The Greenhpuse Effect” by IPCC (The difference between the average temperature of earth +15C and the average temperature of earth as seen from space -18C = 33C)

      My peer reviewed article can be found here http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf and another approach can be found here http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/hans-jelbring-an-alternative-derivation-of-the-static-dry-adiabatic-temperature-lapse-rate/ for they who love mathematical formulas.

      Since no Swedish main stream scidntist has ackknowledged or falsified these both articles I am very interested if any serious scientist can falsify any of them. If there is no falsification it is time to accept them as correct which directly disprove the radiation based models used by IPCC. My peer reviewed article was published 11 years ago. It deserves a better fate than being slaughtered on WUWT with or without massive ad hominem attacks.
      Thanks Tallbloke for a correct take on this special case.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        AndyG55

        Hans, You are essentially saying what I have said many times before.

        All energy transfers within the Earth’s atmosphere are a function of DIFFERENCES on temperature, pressure and concentrations (of basically any gas).

        Temperature differences drive radiative and conductive transfers.

        Pressure differences drive convective and lateral (wind) transfers.

        And concentrations.. well they are always trying to equalise themselves, and take energy with them.

        The atmospheric pressure ALLOWS the lower atmosphere to retain energy compared to higher altitudes, via the ideal gas laws.

        The ideal gas laws work pretty well wrt to lapse rate, as they should in a totally dry atmosphere, but the presence of H2O and its 3 possible phases really stuffs around the ideal gas calculations, particularly once latent heat changes are taken into account.

        I have saved your pdf and link and will hopefully get to read them some time this week, but a quick semi-inebriated ( Semillon Sav-Blanc :-) ) glimpse indicates to me that they are very much on the right track.


        Report this

        10

        • #
          Hans Jelbring

          Many thanks for your interest Andy.

          There migt be a need for clarification reading your comment.
          It took me several years to find the dominating physical process producing a “Greenhouse Effect” on any atmosphere bearing planet, at least in the lower troposphere. It is hard to understand what is the happening but a deegree in meteorology would sometimes help since then the derivation of the temperature lapse rate based on first principle would be known for a dynamic case (Holton and others)

          The meteorological (English) word for “equal energy per mass unit” is “Potential temperature” which is a semantic oxymoron. It destracts a clear thinking of the problem. Still it is used in temperature charts on daily bases at any meteorological stations.

          The average surface temperate on earth is a model value. It is result of a “steady state” process averaged over all area of earth and over a year. An energy flux is moving out and into the system but no mass. If you also prevent all energy fluxes to enter or leave the system the total amount of energy that is captured in the inclosed system has a value. The question then arises “How will this energy be distributed in space?”

          The answer is simply it will be distributed equally per mass unit. The answer in this this thought experiment has nothing to do with any energy fluxes going into or out of the system. Still the answer will be approximately equal to the situation in the open atmospheric system as long as a steady state situation exists. My solution is valid for a STATIC (closed) system and it is identical to the solution in a DYNAMIC steady state system and has to be so if radiation processes are of little importance for deciding the lapse rate and that hypothesis is strongly supported by observational evidens.

          This means that there will always exist a (dry adiabatic) temperature lapse rate approximately dT/dz = -g/Cp.
          This equation is rather approximate on earth (-6.5K/km instead of -9.9K/km but is far better on Venus or Titan where the atmospheres are thicker. The forumula is not a good approximation on Mars which atmosphere is too thin.

          Hope this will be of help for your understanding. The result is reached by using only first principle physics which means that it is correct or I am wrong. The latter has not been shown yet (11 years after publishing a peer reviewd article). This single article is devastating for all IPCC claims of CAGW if not ignored. Contemporary climate scientists should write peer reviewd article and tell in which way it might be wrong. Ignoring presented scidntid results does not belong to accepted scientific methods.

          Hans Jelbring


          Report this

          00

      • #
        Willis Eschenbach

        Hans, you say:

        My peer reviewed article can be found here http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/FunctionOfMass.pdf and another approach can be found here http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/hans-jelbring-an-alternative-derivation-of-the-static-dry-adiabatic-temperature-lapse-rate/ for they who love mathematical formulas.

        Since no Swedish main stream scidntist has ackknowledged or falsified these both articles I am very interested if any serious scientist can falsify any of them.

        The first one was thoroughly falsified by Dr. Robert Brown in a formal proof here … as you well know. You clearly don’t like that fact, but there it is. The reader is invited to read Dr. Brown’s proof, it’s a pretty one.

        w.


        Report this

        00

  • #
    Adrian O

    Pattern recognition and curve matching are in this context essentially the same thing.

    You see a pattern, e.g. linear + a sine (multidecadal) curve and you adjust parameters to fit. That was the whole point of the journal.

    If it gives right predictions (and matches the measured history), which is what happened in the climate case, it’s great, and you are way ahead of any bad model, which is junk.

    Afterwards you try to explain the pattern, which is what the issue is all about.

    *****

    Having the big planets perturb the very fluid Sun, which in turn changes climate on Earth by 0.30C

    is not more far fetched than having a 5% change in the shape of the orbit of the Earth give glaciations,
    idea widely accepted as true.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles


    Report this

    20

  • #
    Willis Eschenbach

    Rog Tallbloke
    January 20, 2014 at 11:32 pm

    Willis correctly claims he’s banned from my site.
    He also incorrectly claims it’s because I can’t answer his science.

    The truth is he banned himself from my site because I wouldn’t allow warmist Joel Shore to post there. And that was because Joel has the MO of posting ten comments a minute and evading fair questions. He’s too disruptive of the conversational and collaborative style at the talkshop.

    Then I confirmed the ban after he wrote a 20 page diatribe on WUWT attacking me for my ‘censorship’, telling me in comments that “my mouth had written a cheque my science couldn’t cover”. This was just after he had deleted a large number of comments from people supporting what I was telling him.

    Dang, Roger, you’re going the “all accusations, no links” route too, like Hans above?

    Lets see. You claim you banned Joel “because Joel has the MO of posting ten comments a minute and evading fair questions. He’s too disruptive of the conversational and collaborative style at the talkshop.”

    However, that’s not true, is it? In fact, here are your very own words on the subject, from your very own blog:

    [Reply] Hi Joel. Like I said, you won’t be posting here until you’ve proved Nikolov and Zeller’s theory breaks energy conservation or apologised to them for spreading misinformation around the net and leaving it uncorrected. Sorry to have to treat you differently to others here, but you behave differently to other people here, so that’s the way it is.

    What Joel had said was that N&Z’s theory broke the laws of thermodynamics. Since I was also making the same claim on various blogs, that the N&Z hypothesis violated conservation of energy, which Tallbloke said was “spreading misinformation around the net and leaving it uncorrected”, I banned myself as well. Hey, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

    In other words, Rog, your claim about Joel is falsified by your own words. He was banned for his scientific views on the Nikolov and Zeller hypothesis, you said so yourself.

    Next, you say I wrote a “20 page diatribe on WUWT” about something or other. In fact I was interested in your challenge to Joel, which as you may recall was “you won’t be posting here until you’ve proved Nikolov and Zeller’s theory breaks energy conservation”.

    So I decided to take you up on the challenge. In response, I wrote “A Matter of Some Gravity“, about 5 pages or so, my usual length. It was an interesting post, because I actually found a way to not only show that N&Z’s claim was provably false, just as Tallbloke had requested. I showed that no gravity or pressure based process could raise the temperature of an evenly heated planet with a GHG free atmosphere, it was a pretty piece of work.

    At the end of the post, I told folks to stay on topic or I’d snip their comments. Some folks, including Rog, didn’t like that. Rog wanted to take the thread in some other direction. And it got pretty heated.

    Then I wrote a post called “Thanks and Apologies”, in which I apologized to Roger … he didn’t like that any better, so he banned me himself, as I discuss here in the comments to that post.

    So, there are the links to the story as it unfolded, I’m not a man to make vague handwaving un-cited claims like Hans and Roger. As before, I leave it to the interested reader to read and decide for themselves.

    And really, Jo’s blog is not the place for this, my apologies to her … but I’m not going to let Hans and Roger abuse me by distorting the record, all the while they’re not making the slightest effort to cite or link to the record in question …

    Regards to all,

    w.

    [This is O/T guys, can you finish here please? - MOD]


    Report this

    33

    • #
      Konrad

      I well remember the N&Z unpleasantness. I did find fault with their calculation, primarily as it did not consider the atmospheric cooling provided by radiative gases. There are no planets or moons in our solar system that have managed to retain an atmosphere without radiative gases. Conduction back to the surface is simply ineffective at cooling a moving atmosphere in a gravity field. (no, not “Maxwells demon” as Dr. brown accused, just night inversion layer, diurnal convective stagnation and slow speed of gas conduction)

      I don’t believe you ever understood the N&Z “pressure” thing. It wasn’t about pressure or gravity raising temperature. It was about how pressure affected non-radiative transports within the atmosphere. Just simple physics commonly used in the heat sink designs for high altitude electronics. Nothing too special at all.

      What I find most strange in this debate is that all agree that energy arrives and leaves our planet only by radiation. However those welded to the idea of a net radiative greenhouse effect are willing to accept that radiative transports within the atmosphere can change the temperature profile of the atmosphere of a planet in radiative balance, but seem to refuse to accept that non-radiative transports can do the same.


      Report this

      50

  • #
    graphicconception

    According to rumours, when the IPCC is short of a few papers it gets a journal to run a special edition with all the “missing” papers in it. This way they manage to get some last minute information into the assessment report without any fear of prior rebuttal.

    Who carries out the peer reviews?


    Report this

    40

  • #
  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Jo,
    You got it right 100% in your headline “Science is not done by peer or pal review, but by evidence and reason“.
    There’s not much need to read more once you understand the dominance of the meaning of the headline.
    As one who has watched the growth of self-named “climate science”, I feel that much of it has yet to earn the “science” part of the descriptor.
    Such science as is done is often poor quality. It can be read quickly if you know your topic.
    We seem to spend far more time examining the communication of science, the contestation of science, the validity of what was done to the reported science afterwards (like temperature adjustments), the credentials of those discussing and the peer review process.
    So much of climate science discussion that we see is peripheral to the main science. Climate science seems forever to be blazing new trails here, inventing edifices like the monstrosity that is the IPCC then discussing the Summary for Policy Makers more that the referenced original papers. I can’t say that it’s a worthwhile trail to blaze.
    …………….
    Blogs like Jo’s are somewhat different. In the early days, mainstream climate that soon went under the IPCC umbrella had notables who spent considerable effort on shutting out disagreement. That’s anti-science. They admitted to this in Climategate. Consequently, for dissenting voices to be heard (which is good for science), alternative vehicles had to be found for expression. This was and is the role of the Jo Nova style of blog and the evidence shows that it was both needed and necessary.
    But the dominant climate scientists brought it on themselves through suppression of opposing thought.
    As the blogs grew, the climate science ring leaders desperately sought to discredit them. Claiming they were sub-standard because they lacked peer review was an obvious ploy. It’s now in the process of failing, as it should. Peer review was also corrupted by some climate scientists, see Climategate again and the Wegman Reports.
    …………….
    When Steve McIntyre started up Climate Audit, his main motivation was the withholding of data by authors who seemed not to want their work audited. Withholding is anti-science.
    At first, I could not comprehend why he felt to strongly about sharing data openly and routinely. It did not take long to learn why he was concerned. His prescience has been valuable as has been the contribution from similar blog owners like Jo. So much is interwoven with it, such as the present attention on pal review with its skirmishes. These blogs and others are settling in place to replace part or all of peer review, which by many examples has failed. I tips me lid to those blog pioneers – may they keep the focus on “Science is not done by peer or pal review, but by evidence and reason’.
    ……………
    There is a lot of ground for good science to claw back. The propaganda has been strong.
    Our nearly 3-yr grandson watching cartoons the other day was fed “Electricity comes from great big windmills”.
    Sometimes I cry (in metaphor) at the degradation of science caused by “climate science”.


    Report this

    190

  • #
    AndyG55

    Can I say at this point that I have a MAJOR piece of work currently under peer-review.

    I happen to know who one of the two reviewers is (even though I shouldn’t. Its a pretty restricted field, not many people available)

    I have had coffee, meals etc at group tables with him at conferences, and have even worked directly with him at times.

    But I know that this guy WILL NOT PULL ANY PUNCHES.

    I’m quite anxious about him being a reviewer, actually. !!


    Report this

    40

    • #
      Yonniestone

      Andy for suffering all those slings and arrows you’ll be a better man for it.
      Years ago when training for strength I came across a bloke at a gym who was average size but one of the strongest there, I asked him why this was and he said he did exercises that most don’t do simply because they are hard to do, so he did them with good form and no shortcuts and ended up with great results.
      Life’s hard and mother nature is one hard bitch.


      Report this

      10

    • #

      Good luck with the reviews.
      As I pointed out on WUWT, since they tried to make an example of allgedly egregious pal review by picking on the fact that one of my reviewers was Dr Hans Jelbring:

      Hans’ 12 page review began with the words:
      “I’m sorry this is really going to piss you off, but….”

      I’m immensely grateful to him for his thorough, time consuming effort.

      I needed to re-write a lot of the paper.


      Report this

      50

      • #
        AndyG55

        There is a BIG difference between quality peer-review by fellow peers,

        and climate science “yeah, that says what we need it to say” pal-review.


        Report this

        30

  • #
    Lank wont be there

    Maybe awards should be given by peer review as well. I think our ‘ship of fools’ leader may have had ‘pear’ review on this one…
    http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/and_the_award_for_best_global_warming_prediction_goes_to/


    Report this

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Let’s not bicker and argue over who banned who and who slept with who.
    (I’ll try to keep this short, honestly.)

    There can be no productive discussion without common ground. Please take a chill pill and remind yourselves of what this is all about. Logic itself is a commitment to deciding the validity of a proposition based on the process which produced it. We are trying to understand nature, the natural forces and systems, our artificial systems, and tie it all together with theories which have as much useful predictive power as we possibly can. But Science for us will be a human activity, so it will be carried out by imperfect beings. To achieve a reliable understanding many new ideas must be generated and communicated without fear of reprisal and the evidential and procedural basis of their validity must be tested for error without bias to the particular result implied.

    Only when you have all reset your frame to that shared goal can there be any useful dialogue about precisely what process will best achieve it.

    My opinion:
    No process is 100% secure, they can all be gamed and “socially engineered” for as long as there are at least two people in the loop. Instead of a Central Planning approach can we not just admit that the present peer review process as practised across the majority of sciences is already the best grassroots process which they as practitioners could devise? If the Internet and cryptography give us new systems to implement that same process, and do it better than feudalist dead tree corporations, that’s good but the peer review process itself is okay. For as long as humans are in the loop how can you prevent cliques and factions? As long as factions exist, how can the standard double-blind peer review process be more robust to biases?
    More pointedly, we can’t all be Descartes. You cannot reacquire all knowledge of the environment surrounding your hypothesis from first principles. Some parameters and procedures not under test have to be assumed for experimental design and analysis, ie taken on faith. Even if scientists themselves base their conclusions on others’ reported measurable results, consensus is built each time that citation occurs. Consensus is a waste product of Science but a valuable resource by non-scientists at large. That’s because trust saves time. You can’t get rid of consensus and neither would you want to considering the efficiency and quality advantages of our society’s twin strategy of specialisation and collaboration.


    Report this

    31

  • #
  • #
    John Brookes

    Wow! The heavy hitters are in town. Willis, Tallbloke, Mosher, Poptech, Connelly and all the regulars.

    The arguments seem to go, “Well climate scientists indulge in pal review, so why can’t we do the same?”. “No, we shouldn’t do it, its a bad idea”.

    I’m certainly hoping that Climategate has resulted in climate scientists being more transparent with code and data. It is very easy to honestly believe you’ve done something correctly, and only to find out that you made a mistake when someone can see *exactly* what you did.


    Report this

    315

    • #

      As I told Mosher when he demanded data and code of me in mid December, all he needs to replicate my work is the online JPL ephemeris and Richard Gross’ LOD timeseries. Oh, and a copy of excel and the ability to drive it.

      At least he’s one up on Phil Jones there.


      Report this

      50

    • #
    • #

      Brooksey; Your reading comprehension is lacking. But that’s not important if you work at a university.

      The publisher promoted, if not invented the suggestion of nepotism in the review process, displacing the original condemnation for the journal publishing a view contrary to the IPCC’s. If a publisher promotes the perception of “pal review”, apparently without evidence thereof, then the publisher has deliberately poisoned their own well in order to exact “punishment” on a minor, fringe journal.

      If there was a “pal review”, then they’d have been soft on errors in the articles. Which’d make them rich pickings for those who want to tear the papers to shreds because of the flaws in the paper; not because of the relationships between authors, editors and reviewers.

      So far, the “citicisms” have been that some papers aren’t sciencey enough, don’t include formulae/code and have lots of “hand-waving”. Unsatisfying to those who were looking for other stuff, but not erroneous.


      Report this

      50

    • #
      Jaymez

      I don’t know why you got so many thumbs down on that comment John. I thought in general your comment didn’t deserve the negative response. However I have to pick you up on this:

      “Well climate scientists indulge in pal review, so why can’t we do the same?”

      I don’t really think that is what anyone is saying. Mostly people are saying the peer review system isn’t working out very well for a bunch of reasons I won’t repeat. They are also saying that it was more an afterthought for the publisher to blame nepotist peer review, (which many are arguing it wasn’t with 19 scientists over 14 papers), for the closer. The Publishers primary stated reason for withdrawing the journal was because the editors summarised the special edition of papers as casting doubt on the IPCC’s position of continuing and accelerated global warming.

      They are also saying that if the publishers, and climate science or science in general are so concerned about independent peer review being so important, why have they waited until the publication of these anti-man-made global warming papers to express their deep concerns? Why haven’t they been cracking down on the issue with climate alarmist paper publishing journals?


      Report this

      40

  • #
    Richard S Courtney

    Jo:

    I think you know I admire your work and I strongly agree with you on most things. But I write to say that in my opinion you have misunderstood this matter.

    To be clear, I very strongly agree with you when you say

    Peer reviewed papers may be gems or junk but we won’t know which by discussing who reviewed them.

    Let’s follow due process in science, but that is not by review whether peer-or-pal, it’s by prediction, test, observation, and repeat.

    But that is NOT the issue at hand.

    I write to explain my view which I stated on WUWT. The following is something I wrote there because I think it also applies in this thread.

    The discussion is becoming bizarre. People are trying to talk about any imaginable irrelevance instead of the issue at hand. And the issue is clear; i.e.

    The publisher (Copernicus) of a small-circulation peer reviewed journal (PRP) enabled publication of an unusual opinion on cause(s) of climate change by inviting a group of people who espouse that opinion to provide a Special Edition of PRP, but the group flagrantly broke the rules of peer review so the publisher decided to protect its reputation by stopping the Special Edition and discontinuing publication of PRP, and this has resulted in damage to the entire community of climate skeptics.

    The clique responsible have no excuse for what they did because there can be no excuse.
    There was no compulsion on them to engage in peer reviewed publication: they chose to do it.
    If you ‘join the game’ then obey the rules or ‘get sent off the field’. And when in the ‘sin bin’ don’t whinge that some others have got away with committing fouls because ‘two wrongs don’t make a right’. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.

    The education and qualifications of those involved are not relevant unless it can be shown that they were illiterate so were incapable of reading the rules. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.

    And the personalities of those involved are not relevant in any way.
    For example, Nils-Axel Mörner is one of the miscreants: he is one of my friends, he has conducted excellent scientific work on sea-level, and I admire him, but so what? Loyalty does not consist of pretending that an error of behaviour did not happen. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.

    The nature and worth of the contents of what would have been in the Special Edition are not relevant. Those contents were not published because the rules of peer review were flagrantly violated. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.

    Suggestions of “censorship” are ridiculous. The Special Edition was not published because the rules of peer review were flagrantly violated. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.

    The value and purposes of peer review are interesting and worthy of discussion but they are not relevant to this debate. If people don’t like peer review then they don’t have to use it but can publish their ideas elsewhere; e.g. on a blog. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.

    It is also not relevant that overvaluation of peer review has increased the publication of scientific dross. Academia has adopted the practice of considering number of peer reviewed publications as being an indication of an academic’s work, but quantity is not quality and this practice has increased the publication of rubbish which obscures published gems. But again, in the context of this discussion, so what? The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.

    And the resulting discredit for the miscreants’ actions has not been constrained to them. It has enabled climate-alarmists to smear all AGW-skeptics as being like the handful of miscreants. This is extremely hypocritical because the alarmists have a long record of doing what the miscreants did and worse while being applauded for it by their supporters. But so what? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

    The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules. The reputation of all AGW-skeptics has been damaged by it. And this thread has not provided any indication that the miscreants have any remorse.

    Richard


    Report this

    47

    • #
      Jaymez

      I agree that quality of the papers is the primary concern and from what I read in the post by Jo, and her comments since, she has made no comment about the quality. The primary I share her primary concern which I take from reading the publisher’s own letter giving reasons for closing PRP.

      Martin Rasmussen wrote his reasons for closing the journal here: http://www.pattern-recognition-in-physics.net/ Specifically he writes: the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).

      Apart from the issue of peer review selection mentioned AFTER this point, this seemed the single most specific issue raised, and it doesn’t hold water as a genuine concern. Nicola Scafetta addresses this and other claims in his comment here: http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-paper-doubts-ipcc-so-whole-journal-gets-terminated/#comment-1373542

      In any event, the issues other than doubting the IPCC are relevant to many journals yet we don’t see them being lobbied for closure. If the publishers, and climate science or science in general are so concerned about independent peer review being so important, why have they waited until the publication of these anti-man-made global warming papers to express their deep concerns? Why haven’t they been cracking down on the issue with climate alarmist paper publishing journals?

      To me it just appears to be another example of the ‘Climate Orthodoxy Team’ using their sway to shut down debate wherever they see potential skeptics or those who don’t agree with the IPCC pop up.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Richard S Courtney

        Jaymez:

        Thankyou for your reply to my post. But your answer does not convince me for the following reasons.

        When people correct an error for which they are responsible then they often pretend the reason for the correction is other than it is. They do this because their responsibility is an embarrassment. But if their pretended excuse for correcting the error becomes a greater embarrassment than their responsibility then they usually ‘own up’. And that seems to be what has happened in this case.

        The blatant ‘pal review’ was more than sufficient reason to stop publication of the Special Edition.

        But you say

        To me it just appears to be another example of the ‘Climate Orthodoxy Team’ using their sway to shut down debate wherever they see potential skeptics or those who don’t agree with the IPCC pop up.

        The ‘Team’ probably did have the motivation you suggest, but so what? Such opposition from the ’Team’ was predictable.

        If the rules for publication had been adopted then there would have been no justifiable reason for the publisher to stop the publication. Indeed, the “not supporting the IPCC” argument would have been a publicity coupe for skeptics if it had then been used.

        The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules and this gives the publisher very good reason to have stopped the publication.

        So, and importantly, it is simply true that, as I said ,
        The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules. The reputation of all AGW-skeptics has been damaged by it. And this thread has not provided any indication that the miscreants have any remorse.

        Richard


        Report this

        24

        • #
          Jaymez

          I understand what you are saying Richard, and I don’t want to labour the point, because it has been made a few times now – but:

          Yes I am concerned about the peer review process, but it is broken and continues to be particularly within the climate science community or pro AGW papers. If it weren’t we wouldn’t have had the psychobabble garbage from Lewandowsky and Cook cleared by peer review for publication. Nor would we have had so many papers (I think the count is 19 or 20) allegedly confirm Mann’s Hockey Stick which essentially denies the occurrence of the MWP. Nor would we have so many ‘Climate Science’ papers which commence with the assumptions made by the climate models as a ‘given’. Then the authors make predictions about the impact of global warming on everything from the sex life of worms in the Amazon, to ocean alkalinity (I refuse to call it acidification!), without a single footnote to how poorly the models are performing to actual data currently.

          So isn’t it just a tad coincidental that the publisher has suddenly began to apply standards which haven’t been applied in other science publications to date, just when it publishes a special edition doubting the validity of the IPCC predictions of continuing and accelerating warming?

          The publisher Martin Rasmussen did not indicate in his letter explaining the withdrawal of PRP that he felt the papers published were deficient. But even if they were for crying out loud isn’t that pretty much where the bar has been set in climate science at the moment? Had Martin Rasmussen indicated for instance that he was sick and tired of ‘pal review’ in the climate science arena and has decided to make a stand and hoped that it would be a lesson to all the other journals out there – then he may have had some credibility in the matter.

          But you are really stretching your clairvoyant abilities when you suggest that perhaps Martin Rasmussen had chosen to indicate initially the problem was the ‘doubting IPCC warming’ issue because that might have been perhaps less controversial or easier to swallow than saying he thought the editorial team were doing a crap job.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Richard S Courtney

            Jaymez:

            I accept that you have put your view and I have put mine so I, too, will not labour those points.

            But you seem to be suggesting that I am championing peer review. Not so.
            Please note that in my post I wrote

            The value and purposes of peer review are interesting and worthy of discussion but they are not relevant to this debate. If people don’t like peer review then they don’t have to use it but can publish their ideas elsewhere; e.g. on a blog. The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules.

            Richard


            Report this

            02

    • #
      Mark D.

      Richard Courtney, I object to the use of “miscreant” as anything near appropriate for what I see here. You’d need to prove intent in order to justify such a smear. The harm you imagine coming to the reputation of skeptic appears to be blood on your hands as well.


      Report this

      20

      • #
        Richard S Courtney

        Mark D.

        The word ‘miscreant’ means ‘wrongdoer’. They did wrong, so my use of the word was correct and it is not a “smear”. “Intent” has nothing to do with it.

        But your assertion that I have “blood on [my] hands” pertaining to the reputation of skeptics is a smear without any foundation. I would accept your apology.

        Richard


        Report this

        04

        • #
          Mark D.

          adjective
          1.
          depraved, villainous, or base.
          2.
          Archaic. holding a false or unorthodox religious belief; heretical.
          noun
          3.
          a vicious or depraved person; villain.
          4.
          Archaic. a heretic or infidel.
          #########

          1. somebody who does wrong: somebody who behaves in a dishonest, malicious, or otherwise contemptible way
          #########

          1. An evildoer; a villain.

          #########

          Much more at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/miscreant

          Richard, you are certainly old enough and wise enough to know that the selection of an alternate word meaning “wrongdoer” (when you could have just used that word) might be interpreted by readers that you imply more than the mildest meaning of the word chosen. So to be clear, I’ll apologize to you immediately after you apologize to these folks for choosing a word that MIGHT be misinterpreted and that you definitely DID NOT mean to imply that they acted in regard to this peer review in a base and or dishonest and or malicious and or contemptible and or depraved and or villainous and or vicious manner. Fair enough?

          Regardless of what you intended to mean, there will be people reading this that may misinterpret what you meant.


          Report this

          30

          • #
            Richard S Courtney

            Mark D:

            You say to me

            Richard, you are certainly old enough and wise enough to know that the selection of an alternate word meaning “wrongdoer” (when you could have just used that word) might be interpreted by readers that you imply more than the mildest meaning of the word chosen. So to be clear, I’ll apologize to you immediately after you apologize to these folks for choosing a word that MIGHT be misinterpreted and that you definitely DID NOT mean to imply that they acted in regard to this peer review in a base and or dishonest and or malicious and or contemptible and or depraved and or villainous and or vicious manner. Fair enough?

            Regardless of what you intended to mean, there will be people reading this that may misinterpret what you meant.

            No, it is not “fair enough”.

            They were wrongdoers because they did wrong. That makes them miscreants. If you prefer the word wrongdoer then use it.

            Your semantic objection is an obfuscation which deflects from the subject at hand. It is the logical fallacy of Red Herring.

            And your untrue assertion that I “have blood on [my] hands” is another Red Herring.

            I still await your apology for your falsehood and will not reply to any more of your semantic twaddle.

            Richard


            Report this

            03

            • #
              Mark D.

              Richard keep waiting.

              Frankly I’m very surprised at you. I’m the same person that supported and agreed with you many many times when you USED to post here regularly. Now with your use of language and lack of peacekeeping skills, I have no choice but to say that I hope you intend a very very short stay here indeed. You reprimand these people for “The reputation of all AGW-skeptics has been damaged by it” and yet you are content with using a potentially damaging word against THEM. What you are doing is not likely to make it better from perspective of the public looking in, nor in the minds of these people as they think about YOU.

              A job well done? No foolish.

              Semantics and the etymology of words YOU USE is nothing I have control over therefore it isn’t any of the things you say. By accusing me of semantic twaddle you are the one obfuscating.

              The effect of your choice of words (NOT MINE), in my opinion, continues to be a potential smear and you’ve done nothing to soften it. Knowing that this is the World Wide Web, I shudder when I imagine what that word translates to in other languages. I think you have a duty to be clear THAT YOU DID NOT MEAN THE OTHER MEANINGS.

              Dare not to respond, I could care less but you should know that in my eyes you have descended several steps from the place I thought you once stood.


              Report this

              21

              • #
                Richard S Courtney

                Mark D:

                In am only bothering to reply to your continued waving of your Red Herring because you make one statement which I agree.

                You say to me

                you are content with using a potentially damaging word against THEM.

                Yes!
                As I have repeatedly said here and elsewhere
                The issue is the clear stupidity demonstrated by those who chose to use peer review then broke the rules. The inevitable outcome of that is a disaster. And – as I said – I have yet to see any remorse from any of them.
                What do you think I should say, that they need a ‘pat on the back’?

                Richard


                Report this

                22

              • #

                From Richard’s response I think he is not interested in taking up a propaganda/spin war. Isn’t that why you and Jo are trying to avoid calling a spade a spade?


                Report this

                15

              • #
                Mark D.

                Gee Aye Go Fucj yourself if you can possibly find an orifice small enough to fit.

                You think this is about MY propaganda or spin but not Richard’s? OR YOURS? Which definition of miscreant are YOU up for? what spin have I used? SPECIFICALLY WHAT BAD BEHAVIOUR HAVE I SUPPORTED DODGED OR AVOIDED?

                I’m about to jump off this ship skeptic before the waters below are all sewerage. She is not fit to sail, has scurvy and plague aboard. Her captain is a gay eunuch and her crew hermaphrodites. They together couldn’t make the ship profitable, productive nor seaworthy. Godless, spiteful, malevolent, mutineers that cannot even swim.

                I had hope.

                Richard, you now are held in lower esteem than Gee above.


                Report this

                31

              • #

                Your ship is the one truth and you are its captain and crew.


                Report this

                15

    • #
      Hans Jelbring

      Richard,

      I know you since long and I know that you have (at least had) 100% personal integrety, but here you are mixing politics with science. There was no intention to work as group when the work started and there was no agenda with the work. All the scientists (who were not rejected) chose their own titles and topics. Some articles were not accepted and some were. There was simply an urge to write as good scientifi articles as possible. The papers we signed together was suggested by Mörner in a late stage when he also suggested to incorporate scientists who did not contribute with any articlea. When you are claimning:

      “The miscreants chose to use peer review then broke the rules. The reputation of all AGW-skeptics has been damaged by it. And this thread has not provided any indication that the miscreants have any remorse.”

      you are reacting as a bureacratic police telling that the set rules are the most important there is regardless if they are meaningsful or not or why they are created.
      I react strongly to be treated on a group basis. I don´t consider myself as a climate sceptic. I am a scientist and I am proud to declare that I follow scientifc methodololy to the best of my ability and education just as i am persusded that you do, too.

      You might be correct that Copernicus has a lawful right to close down PRP,. I don´t know but Copernicus have no right to insult me by the argumets they used when doing that. I expect PRP to explain to everyone of us what we have done wrong individually to earn their written judgments and defamation. As long as I pay tax to EU my argument is that if Copernicaus is pressing this isue further they have to close down all their journal to be fair and follow a true scientific standard.

      I think that you, if any, know that there is a moral side of this and I am surprised at your cold-harted favouring of bureaucracy at the cost of dedicated scientists. For reasons given above I have zero obligation to feel that I have not followed my “duty” to behave as a good scientist. I have no obligation to behave as a good AGW-sceptic and I don´t give damn about their reputation and feel no remors for wrongdoing. On the contrary I am pissed off. My contribution is made out of free will and I have nothing to gain from participate beside intellectual stimulation to perform creative research. I know that AGW can be proven to be wrong and I have seen that as an interesting achievment as you well know. On the other hand I start to question if you really want to achieve that goal that based on scientific methodology when reading this contribution from you.

      Besides Einstein never followed the rules either.


      Report this

      40

      • #
        Richard S Courtney

        Hans Jelbring:

        It is good to hear from you again. Indeed, I think you could witness that I am not prejudiced against publishing things likely to have been in the withdrawn Special Edition of PRP. I think this because I assisted you in getting the Editor of E&E to consider for publication your paper which you debated with Willis Eschenbach in this thread.

        I am disappointed that you imply I have lost “personal integrity”.

        Please read my post again.
        The issue is not “bureaucracy”. And it is not “dedicated scientists”.
        Indeed, I listed all such irrelevancies and stated why they are not relevant.

        The issue is the clear stupidity demonstrated by those who chose to use peer review then broke the rules. The inevitable outcome of that is a disaster. And – as I said – I have yet to see any remorse from any of you.

        Richard


        Report this

        12

  • #
    Ian Wilson

    The hypocrisy has to stop Richard! Please contact me off line.

    [Your email address will be forwarded to Richard - Mod]


    Report this

    10

  • #

    Recieved in a email from Nils-Axel Morner:

    (1) We were alarmed by the authors’ second implication stating:
    “This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”

    So what? This is the direct inference of the 12 research papers (especially Papers 1,4,5,7,9,11,12).

    (2) “the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis”

    Nepotism is to favor friends and relatives without respects to qualifications. We did the opposite; the reviewer chosen were all specialists on the topics in question.

    It is true that they primarily were chosen among the authors of the special issue with some additional from outside. This does not mean “pal-reviewing”, but serious colleague reviewing. Most members of the author-team only new each other superficially or as authors. It is common practice when printing proceedings or collective volumes to seek the reviewers within the group, not in order to make the reviewing process less serious, but because those persons are the true experts within the field. And almost always they do a tremendously good job to improve the papers in constructive ways. So also in our case: our reviewing was simply excellent, which I am sure all persons involved would happily testify. This includes strong points and forces for relevant changes and updating. And what we achieved was a wonderful collection of papers that together make a very strong impact of elevating an old hypothesis into a firm theory saying that the solar variability is, indeed, driven by the planetary beat.


    Report this

    71

    • #
      AndyG55

      The same is often done with engineering and scientific conference papers.

      People submitting papers to the conference are often asked if they will review a couple of papers. And if you have been to prior conferences or have done study in that area, which you should have, it is quite likely that you will recognise the names on the papers you are asked to review.

      Its NOT nepotism… its using the most appropriate reviewers. Those who actually know something about the subject.

      And as stated, a non-antagonistic, but thorough review is way more valuable to science and engineering, than someone rejecting a paper because they don’t like the content.


      Report this

      11

  • #
    Paul Vaughan

    Joanne Nova cleanly & conclusively razes the maliciously invective argument-from-authority unscrupulously & relentlessly pushed by ignorant, darkly underhanded political agents (such as the increasingly untrustworthy WUWT Quintet, who are past due for stern correction):

    http://joannenova.com.au/2014/01/science-is-not-done-by-peer-or-pal-review-but-by-evidence-and-reason/

    • “My real problem is with scientists who make out that Peer Review is gospel [...]”

    • “Peer review should not be raised on a pedestal [...]”

    • “[...] the more we force science to fit a bureaucratic regimen, the less science we’ll get.”

    • “The Peer Review Game works as a gatekeeper to silence critics, so pandering and bowing to it is exactly what the unscientists want.”

    • “It’s death by committee.

    • “Bureaucratized Peer review is highly flawed, doesn’t prove a thing scientifically and works to the advantage of those who are already in the game.”

    • “Some people seem to have lost sight of this, and think that skeptics ought to be trying to play the Peer Review Game according to the fine print of arbitrary rules dictated by unscientists who hate skeptics and who don’t even play by the rules themselves. The game belongs to them – they set, change and break the rules, and they decide who gets an invite to the clubhouse. But in the end, the review game is a sideshow, and it is usually used to lock out those who question a consensus.”

    • “Anyone who claims that science only exists on official approved pages of anointed publications is a Gatekeeper of Dogma. (How many trolls respond to a valid point by saying “why don’t you publish it in the peer review?”) Real scientists know that the truth is not dependent on where it was printed, nor who reviewed it. It’s time to rise above the Gatekeeper’s Rules, not fight over them.

    • “In the peer-pal debate there is no win worth achieving. Peer review is a weak system anyway”

    • “It’s not a bun-fight we need to waste time on.”

    • “[...] the real high ground is another level entirely [...]”

    • “Anything that shows that there is nothing rigorous about peer review is a good thing for independent thinkers.”

    • “Let’s help independent scientists continue to push the bounds of knowledge.”

    • “Current journal reviewers are not crucial to science [...] If their pal-review system blocks the truth emerging in their journals, it will emerge somewhere else. So be it.”

    • “Let’s not get lost fighting in the bureaucratic maze, when what matters is the rest of the universe.”

    • “[...] the hallowed “Peer Review”. Fans of establishment science want us to believe it’s a gospel part of the scientific method, but it is neither intrinsic nor essential, and skeptics should not be fooled into thinking it is.


    Report this

    80

  • #
    Hans Jelbring

    Paul, I think you have covered what this thread is supposed to cover quite well. I just pick one of your points.
    Science and Scientific methods ought to be well defined and should probably be included in a European law. There is so much cheating going on now. What is allowed to teach in universities in Sweden is protected in a (weak) law which most universities don´t follow. Still, that law is stronger than what exists in most countries. Many thanks for your contribution.

    “Science is not done by peer or pal review, but by evidence and reason”

    • “..the hallowed “Peer Review”. Fans of establishment science want us to believe it’s a gospel part of the scientific method, but it is neither intrinsic nor essential, and skeptics should not be fooled into thinking it is.”


    Report this

    20

    • #
      Paul Vaughan

      Hans, is more regulation really the answer? Regards.


      Report this

      00

      • #
        Hans Jelbring

        Certainly no and I have not advocated more regulations. I advocate a definition of what Science encompass and of what duties a scientist have and that that is legally regulated which it actually is in Sweden (but it does not work).

        To put it short, politics does rely on consensus and has to do so and that is a foundation in a democracy.
        Science is based on a belief that it is possible to reveal how Nature does function and to express such findings in “laws” or confirmed experience. The latter can be divided into research and teaching of already secured knowledge.

        Peak research is an elitistic endevour and is incompatible with consensus. Teaching science is a profession which demands pedagogic skill but not necessarily demand much research skill and relies on concensus (Scientific results that have been accepted as based on facts and confirmed by experience or experiments)

        If it is a concenus that science (knowledge of nature) is a positive activity in a society there are two problems.

        You have to secure that peak science results are secured for the benefit of the society and you have to secure that nothing which isn´t science is labelled as science for other reasons than those defined ( based on scientific methods). Only the latter should be allowed to be teached at universities. For this reason any scientist should not be allowed to ignore any significan result which is in his/her area of expertice.
        It should be noted that most problems in a society cannot be solved by using scientific methods.

        There are several forces in our societies that have interest to stop peak research to reach the “market place”.
        Compare peak research results with a patent and you might grasp that part. It is also very bad if the suppliers of scientific results are telling them to be based on scientifi methodology when they are not. (It can depend on ignorance or willful cheating)

        The importance of science in democracies depends on the fact that people belive in science because they daily see and use small wonders that are the results of research based on scientific methodology.

        IPCC (a political organization) have taken CAGW as granted from start and its pretended scientific quality was never at hand. It is needed for propaganda reasons. CAGW was already disputed and falsified during the life time of Arrhenius. These results was known known among some people from start. You could say that the founder of IPCC were smart politicians but some was also scientists and they betrayed their obligation as scientists.

        We now see the results. A new religion has been created and massiv amounts of resources, both economical and mental are wasted every day in most western countries. Please, forgive me for preaching, but not defining what science include and what duties scientists should have in a society is actually a threat for the survival of democracies in the long run.


        Report this

        10

  • #
  • #
    Vic G Gallus

    From reading the history of peer-review by Michael Nielsen, I think I have the solution. A two tier journal system, within the publishing house. Once every peer has thrown their two-bobs worth in and responses published as well, then the paper can be bumped up to the top tier journal if deemed worthy. Only top tier papers are deemed worthy of making it to hard copy. A badge of honour theses days, if nothing else.

    The editors judgement can then be questioned if cronyism still persists.


    Report this

    00

  • #

    I am tired of the sanctimonious witch hunt being performed by Poptech and Richard Courtney. It is very obvious they have an axe to grind as does Anthony Watts, they have a perversion to any science that is planet/sun related (this is the real issue).

    Sure things could have been done better, but if the self righteous 3 I mentioned are so convinced of their stand, why dont they attack Leif Svalgaard for not standing down (refuse to review on personal grounds) when requested to peer review Nicola Scafetta’s papers?

    Equal criticism should also be addressed to their side of the fence.

    Planetary Science made large steps last year with highly respected players changing sides, and there is a big paper in press right now…it will take time, but a lot of egg will be on the faces of those associated with Watts.


    Report this

    81

    • #
      AndyG55

      hmmmm.. should be interesting :-)


      Report this

      10

    • #

      1. I have no axe to grind as I have repeatedly defended Dr. Scafetta and Dr. Morner from baseless attacks all over the Internet.

      2. I have a whole section of solar related papers on my list, including 15 from Dr. Scafetta in just this section.

      3. It is an absolutely ludicrous red herring that I should demand Leif review a paper if he chooses not to (this is the first I have heard of this). I already gave my opinion that I would not select Leif as a reviewer on one of Dr. Scafetta’s papers.

      Apparently Geoff and others here are absolutely ignorant of reality – I argued with Anthony (successfully) that he should not post Leif’s comments or reviews in any articles at WUWT about one of Dr. Scafetta’s papers, so it does not bias the initial discussion.


      Report this

      13

      • #

        Its not about demanding Leif review a paper, its about Leif should be NOT reviewing Scafetta’s papers. Anthony has squashed any talk of this on the PRP thread that you seem so entrenched with. You and others should be demanding that Leif’s antics are allowed to be discussed.


        Report this

        11

        • #

          The PRP thread is not about Leif as Anthony correctly pointed out, and I already stated I would not select Leif as a reviewer. However, I cannot make Leif do anything nor will I waste my time trying. It is up to the journal editors to make this call, take it up with them.


          Report this

          02

          • #

            No, it is up to Leif to reject any calls from editors to review Scafetta’s papers, which he hasn’t done. You are going off to the point of embarrassing yourself on WUWT and elsewhere because some of the PRP editors and reviewers didn’t strictly adhere to the rules. But if Leif is found to commit a similar crime you go quiet and do not demand action….a double standard most would think?

            It might be time for you to put a sock in it.


            Report this

            20

            • #

              Good luck with your Leif crusade. What crime did Leif commit?

              So you want me to escalate more? Have you learned nothing?
              [A threat to stifle free speech? No that won't do here. Change the tone now.] ED


              Report this

              01

              • #

                From Nicola at the talkshop:

                Nicola Scafetta says:
                January 20, 2014 at 2:59 am

                Yes, Geoff,

                Anthony has censored my reply to him.

                Anthony has, therefore, demonstrated his own hypocrisy.

                Anthony knows well that Leif Svalgaard himself has reviewed some of my papers despite his personal and public hostility against me. Thus, according Anthony’s rules Leif could not serve as a referee of my papers and he had to inform the editor that he could not serve as a referee because of his hostility.

                But he did not inform the editor, and provided very unfair reviews forcing me to change journal, where the paper was published after a fair review.

                Let us see if Anthony publish my comment:


                Report this

                10

              • #

                I am sorry but that is a ridiculous argument. Anthony is under no obligation to inform an editor not to use someone as a reviewer, nor does Anthony have any rule against using a “hostile” reviewer. It is the job of the editor to separate the valid from the invalid arguments in any perceived “hostile” review. The argument is about “pal-review”, no one would consider Leif as one of Dr. Scafetta’s “pals”.


                Report this

                00

    • #
      Richard S Courtney

      Geoff Sharp:

      I write to demand retraction of and an apology for your demonstrably untrue falsehood and smear that says

      I am tired of the sanctimonious witch hunt being performed by Poptech and Richard Courtney. It is very obvious they have an axe to grind as does Anthony Watts, they have a perversion to any science that is planet/sun related (this is the real issue).

      I have no “axe to grind” except that following my decades of opposition to the AGW-scare I object to AGW-scepticism having been ‘stabbed in the back’ by people who claim to be AGW-sceptics, and I want to prevent them or others doing it again.

      There is no “witch hunt”. Indeed, such a claim about Anthony Watts and me is a demonstrable falsehood.

      Anthony Watts and I initially supported the miscreants. We each gave that support because we thought there had been censorship. Anthony Watts posted an article on his blog to criticise the censorshipt and you can read that article here
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/

      In that thread I made a series of strong posts which also criticised the apparent censorship; e.g.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/the-planetary-tidal-influence-on-climate-fiasco-strong-armed-science-tactics-are-overkill-due-process-would-work-better/#comment-1540048

      But then I learned of the ‘pal review’ and reversed my opinion.

      Subsequently, Anthony Watts also reversed his opinion for the same reason and he explained why in a new article on his blog and it can be read here
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/the-copernicus-prp-fiasco-predictable-and-preventable/

      Trying to spin this as a “witch hunt” is demonstrably untrue propaganda.
      The spin is a lie. It is a smear. And it lets the miscreants ‘off the hook’ when it needs to be made clear that such behaviour as theirs will not be tolerated by AGW-sceptics.

      Richard


      Report this

      06

      • #

        Your actions have spoken Richard, and will remain online forever perhaps. History will judge you.

        Tell us Richard, what is your position on solar/planetary theory.


        Report this

        00

        • #
          Richard S Courtney

          Geoff Sharp:

          You say and ask me

          Your actions have spoken Richard, and will remain online forever perhaps. History will judge you.

          Tell us Richard, what is your position on solar/planetary theory.

          Yes, my actions have spoken. And I persist in those “actions” because I support proper scientific inquiry. And I am pleased that history will judge me.

          I do not have a “position on solar/planetary theory”. But I encourage publication of ideas so they can be scrutinised.

          For example, as is noted in this thread, I assisted Hans Jelbring to get his ‘Jelbring Hypothesis’ published.

          Also, I provided great assistance to the late Theodor Landscheidt in obtaining publication of his barycenter theory. Indeed, that assistance to Theodor included providing a re-write for him of his paper so it was in language acceptable for submission. Theodor was extremely grateful for all my help in that matter and we remainded good friends until his demise.

          It seems that untrue smears and inferences are the only ‘arrows in your quiver’. If you have any argument against my clear and factual position then please make it. As it is, your use of smears in place of arguments assists the possibility that history will judge me well.

          Richard


          Report this

          20

          • #

            On the accusation of anti planetary theory I do owe you an apology, but not so for Anthony Watts, he has made his position clear and is the one and only instigator of the “bash the PRP guys” on the skeptical side. He is clearly against any planetary-solar science ( not to mention Svalgaard, Eschenbach etc). When you support Anthony on these issues there is a cost.

            But any witch hunt statements are not retracted, I am not the first to accuse you. A simple statement of your views would have been adequate but you have persisted to the point of ad nauseam. Like I stated to Poptech, if you are so concerned about sticking to the letter of the rules then you need to attack Svalgaard for peer reviewing Scafetta, if not you fall into the same hypocrite bucket.


            Report this

            00

            • #
              Richard S Courtney

              Geoff Sharpe:

              So, you admit you have nothing to dispute in my clear and factual position. Instead you persist in smears and you add to the smears with the unfounded accusation of “hypocrite”.

              All this because I refuse to back-down from what I (and you) know to be the truth.

              And you add yet another Red Herring. I have said nothing about “Svalgaard” because he had nothing to do with the actions of the miscreants whose misdemeanour has done such harm.

              Richard


              Report this

              00

              • #

                The name is Sharp btw.

                A very poor argument Richard, I feel you are against the ropes.

                My only concession was in regard to planetary science, if you are so clear on your factual position you must challenge Svalgaard…put up or shut up.

                If not then the hypocrite status holds.


                Report this

                00

              • #
                Richard S Courtney