Any electronics geezers ? peer review

[pjclarke]

Fair enough. That was one of the factual errors I mentioned. (Didn't actually read the thing in depth, the guy's just rehashing the same discredited stuff he's been doing for years).

Does high levels of CO2 in the past contradict the warming effect of CO2?

[pjclarke]

Patrick Moore has told some US committee that he's written a science denying book. Well, woopy doo. Science denying books are plentiful but you won't learn anything about the natural world from them. All you will learn is how some humans delude themselves. How they'll rattle off a series of denier memes like CO2 is plant food, a warmer world is a better world, we're heading for an ice age, CO2 doesn't warm the world, warming is good for you etc etc.

What I can't understand is why Anthony Watts would make such a silly, empty denier speech a "sticky". It's not even ground-breaking denial. It's old, tired and worn out denial.

HotWhopper: WUWT Sticky: Patrick Moore yearns for the "good old days" 500 million years ago

See also Quark Soup by David Appell: Dr. Patrick Moore Just Misled Congress

[doodab]

un be leivable


so much for the vaunted peer review process

While the peer review process, like any process that relies on human beings, has it's flaws I'd suggest it's at best small minded to dismiss the entirety of peer reviewed scientific literature on the basis of a deliberate spoof because of your underlying agenda that you don't like a tiny fraction of what it has to say. After all you will end up throwing several million babies (i.e. all of modern physics, chemistry, biology, medicine) out with the global warming bathwater, not to mention throwing out anything that supports your view as well.

If you want to pick a fight with the way things are done in science generally I'd worry about statistical significance testing rather than peer review TBH. A 1 in 20 probability of significance in results being due to chance adds up to a lot of false positives when you are talking about thousands of papers.

[EternalOptimist]

While the peer review process, like any process that relies on human beings, has it's flaws I'd suggest it's at best small minded to dismiss the entirety of peer reviewed scientific literature on the basis of a deliberate spoof because of your underlying agenda that you don't like a tiny fraction of what it has to say. After all you will end up throwing several million babies (i.e. all of modern physics, chemistry, biology, medicine) out with the global warming bathwater, not to mention throwing out anything that supports your view as well.

If you want to pick a fight with the way things are done in science generally I'd worry about statistical significance testing rather than peer review TBH. A 1 in 20 probability of significance in results being due to chance adds up to a lot of false positives when you are talking about thousands of papers.

Yes I used to think in this way as well.
what changed my mind was two things. firstly a group of people started saying that such and such was true because they had more papers than the other side
as if science were a popularity contest. It isnt

secondly, I learned that a group of people were manipulating the system, there was a profit motive, then I learned they WERE the system

'I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal' - prof m mann


'I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!' - prof p jones

there are many more examples of course. I agree with you, obviously, that the system is flawed.
I dont know what the answer is

[pjclarke]

'I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [TRENBERTH] and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!' - prof p jones

Except that was hyperbole in a (stolen) private communication. Both parties would have known that nobody gets to redefine peer-review, so it was meant as a jokey way of saying that the papers were tulip.

And if it was a conspiracy, then it was a failure - the papers in question (McKitrick and Michaels (2004) and Kalnay and Cai (2003) were both cited and discussed in Chapter 3 the IPCC AR4 report. Neither has stood the test of time.

[doodab]

I dont know what the answer is

Well a rational and proportionate response to what is a very minor problem might be a good start, and writing off the entire peer review process isn't a rational and proportionate response.

[EternalOptimist]

Well a rational and proportionate response to what is a very minor problem might be a good start, and writing off the entire peer review process isn't a rational and proportionate response.

I dont think the pope is infallible either.

although at one time that was a sure-fire way to get burned at the stake

[doodab]

I dont think the pope is infallible either.

So what do you do? Ignore him.

Trying to shoot him because you disagree with his views wouldn't be a rational, proportional response.

The problem with what you are saying about peer review is that it doesn't just apply to the climate change papers you don't like. You're saying you won't go to hospital when you're ill, watch TV or use the internet because all of those things rely on peer reviewed science and can't be trusted. Of course, you will do all of those things, which means your argument is nothing more than sensationalist bollocks without foundation, which ironically means it's even less sound than peer reviewed gibberish, which unlike what you are saying has a small probability of being logically sound.

[EternalOptimist]

Yes, I ignore him, and I would never dream of shooting him.

But I look at certain sections of the peer review system and I dont like what I am seeing.
I look at the amount of bollocks that the cagw scam has generated, and I dont like what I am seeing

[doodab]

Yes, I ignore him, and I would never dream of shooting him.

But I look at certain sections of the peer review system and I dont like what I am seeing.
I look at the amount of bollocks that the cagw scam has generated, and I dont like what I am seeing

But you accept peer reviewed literature that you feel supports your case? Or do you only accept speculation and BS on the internet that hasn't been subjected to critical scrutiny at all?