Reply to: Any electronics geezers ? peer review

[EternalOptimist]

The argument I see appears to be more, "there was a conspiracy to promote the idea that drinking impairs driving ability, led by soft-drink manufacturers. Therefore it's a lie that drinking impairs driving."

dont talk nonsense.
The argument is that I like money, but I dont like counterfeit money and I dont like counterfeiters

[doodab]

The argument I see appears to be more, "there was a conspiracy to promote the idea that drinking impairs driving ability, led by soft-drink manufacturers. Therefore it's a lie that drinking impairs driving."

It depends which of the many conflated fallacious arguments you're countering

[Ticktock]

Your argument is basically the same as saying all cars are tulip because the Austin Allegro was. It's nonsensical overgeneralisation.

The argument I see appears to be more, "there was a conspiracy to promote the idea that drinking impairs driving ability, led by soft-drink manufacturers. Therefore it's a lie that drinking impairs driving."

[doodab]

Science is not a popularity contest that can be judged by the number of papers supporting one 'side

But that's true whether or not papers are peer reviewed, so it's hardly a valid criticism of the peer review process.

TBH I get the impression you don't read and have never read proper peer reviewed journals and don't actually know what you are talking about. Peer review is about ensuring the quality of individual papers. Like any other media you have to learn to judge what is good and what is bad, there are undoubtedly some journals with low standards but top end journals such as Nature, Science, Physical Review Letters etc have high standards and don't actually publish crap. Done properly peer review works very well.

Your argument is basically the same as saying all cars are tulip because the Austin Allegro was. It's nonsensical overgeneralisation.

[pjclarke]

The climate science 'team' set out to abuse the process and they succeeded.

Interestingly, Mark Steyn, the US right wing journalist and author is being sued by Distinguished Professor Dr Michael Mann along these lines. Steyn accused Mann of 'torturing and molesting' data in the service of politicised science, and described Mann's pioneering paleoclimatic reconstruction as 'fraudulent'

Mann is suing for defamation. Given that his work has been investigated by his University, and several other panels, and every investigation into the issues raised by the email leak has concluded no significant malfeasance by the scientists involved, and Steyn's legal team seem to have bailed out on him, it's popcorn time for climate geeks.

A defamation lawsuit may kill National Review - Salon.com

[EternalOptimist]

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?

The peer review process is not infallible. Science is not a popularity contest that can be judged by the number of papers supporting one 'side'
The climate science 'team' set out to abuse the process and they succeeded.

Thats it.

[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?

[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]

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]

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 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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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