Emission Trading and climate change

Page 55 of 377 FirstFirst ... 5 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 105 155 ... LastLast
Results 2,701 to 2,750 of 18819
  1. #2701
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Getting dizzy.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Okay, if you're up to it, please go ahead and.... Hold your breath until the Royal Society recants.
    LOL, that's the spirit soldier.

    It's good to see we all haven't lost our sense of humour.

    But gotta go now...getting dizzy...lungs burning...but it's ok...Gaia needs the sacrifice.

  2. #2702
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Timely reminder.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    First we had to spend $30 million of our own money educating ourselves on climate change after Rudd dumps his own failed ETS:

    Then there was the $15 million we spent to educate ourselves on how to combat those lunatic “denialists”, whoever and wherever they are:

    Now there’s shonky dealings to get another $38 million for advertising to educate ourselves how the replacement ETS is so awesome for us, but we’re too all too dumb to realise it:

    With all this money we keep borrowing from China to educate ourselves on this stuff, we must all be really smart by now, huh?



    Now that I think about it, this advertising campaign is a timely reminder on the dangers of digging up resources and using them to create, um, well everything we use! Especially if the byproduct we seem most concerned about is fresh air.

    Because I had already forgotten the last Rudd campaign that used another $14 million of our dollars to educate us on a policy that never happened. Deja vu all over again.


    And they called that a massive spend, what do we call the latest education ads. But it was a bit heavy on the science and facts last time though, I hope the new series is a bit simpler to understand than this.


    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLDsF1YVQ38&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - Australian Gov't 'Carbon pollution reduction scheme' ads[/ame]

  3. #2703
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Kerplunk.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Well boys and girls, the AGW theory is just getting weaker and weaker. About that big list of scientific societies pledging their undying support for the AGW.

    Well the pressure from within is forcing them one by one to re-word their assertions on AGW. This will be a watering down of their current support in the UK's Royal Society. How far they will go is anyone's guess, but it surely means that support in the scientific societie's is not as strong as some would have us believe. My view is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.


    Full link here. BBC News - Society to review climate message
    Hey Rod, just had full read of this. Kinda reminds me of a scientific version of KerPlunk. As more straws get pulled, AGW Theory supporters will slowly lose their marbles.

  4. #2704
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Here is a great article about the science and policy.

    Good timing as it has been raised here in the past day or two.

    Full article here good read for both sides of the debate. spiked debate: We must stop saying ‘The science demands…’ by Tim Black
    Well found, Rob. It's a pretty good piece about where we are now with respect to 'the debate we have to have' and I'm fairly strongly in favour of Hulme's comments here.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  5. #2705
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Hey Rod, just had full read of this. Kinda reminds me of a scientific version of KerPlunk. As more straws get pulled, AGW Theory supporters will slowly lose their marbles.
    Yes well while we are on the subject of scientific organisations, they wonder why we don't trust them!!

    FEDERAL Treasury and the CSIRO are supposed to be among the most trusted institutions in Australia. They are both supposed to be founded in objective rationalism.
    The Treasury building in Canberra houses the greatest collection of economic analytical and policymaking brainpower in Australia. The same, in the fields of science, goes for the CSIRO in Melbourne. Together they should form the rock-solid foundation of policymaking in Australia.
    Full Link Treasury and CSIRO both have breached trust | The Australian
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  6. #2706
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Well found, Rob. It's a pretty good piece about where we are now with respect to 'the debate we have to have' and I'm fairly strongly in favour of Hulme's comments here.
    I think it is quite clear that Skeptics just want to line up the ducks on the science and be shown cause why they should also believe whole heartedly in the theory of AGW.

    Nothing inflames skeptics more than someone saying the science is settled when it is baltently obvious it is not. So therefore they start looking for reasons why they are making this false claim. What are they hiding? What are they trying to ram through without proper process?

    My guess is that they believe AGW is certain yet they know they can't prove it. So they have tried to stiffle any dissenting science to prevent what is happening right now. Yet this "the science is settled" just made people more distrustfull of the climate scientists. Just look at the omission from the CSIRO in the post above. They purposely left out the methane graph so it would not create doubt. If the science is so clear why would they need to do that?

    If the courts were run like this they would be hanging an innocent man just because he happened to be seen in the vicinity of the murder.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  7. #2707
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,312

    Default

    The New York times is slow to act but better late than never I guess.

    LONDON — Last month hundreds of environmental activists crammed into an auditorium here to ponder an anguished question: If the scientific consensus on climate change has not changed, why have so many people turned away from the idea that human activity is warming the planet?
    Full link here. Britons? Fears Turn to Doubts About Climate Change - NYTimes.com

    Is that the fat lady I hear warming up her voice?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  8. #2708
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,312

    Default

    Doc can you shed some light on this? Has it got any credibility?
    NASA covered up for forty years proof that the greenhouse gas theory was bogus. But even worse, did the U.S. space agency fudge its numbers on Earth’s energy budget to cover up the facts?

    As per my article this week, forty years ago the space agency, NASA, proved there was no such thing as a greenhouse gas effect because the ‘blackbody’ numbers supporting the theory didn’t add up in a 3-dimensional universe:

    "During lunar day, the lunar regolith absorbs the radiation from the sun and transports it inward and is stored in a layer approximately 50cm thick....in contrast with a precipitous drop in temperature if it was a simple black body, the regolith then proceeds to transport the stored heat back onto the surface, thus warming it up significantly over the black body approximation..."

    Full link NASA in Shock New Controversy: Two Global Warming Reasons Why by John O'Sullivan, guest post at Climate Realists | Climate Realists
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  9. #2709
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default In Rod we trust.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Hey champ, I think the one thing all sides of this debate agree on is that you make a hell of a lot more sense than I do.

    I've got a dinner party starting soon, but I'll have a read later. One thing I do know for sure is that the mechanism of atmospheric energy transfer is grossly simplified by using the term "greenhouse effect".

    Anyway, some red wine is sure to get me rambling later (or passed out instead ).

  10. #2710
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Grrr.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes well while we are on the subject of scientific organisations, they wonder why we don't trust them!!

    [b]

    Full Link Treasury and CSIRO both have breached trust | The Australian
    Very sad indeed!

  11. #2711
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes well while we are on the subject of scientific organisations, they wonder why we don't trust them!!

    Full Link Treasury and CSIRO both have breached trust | The Australian
    I assume you know that the quoted article is an opinion piece (not fact - just a view of Terry McCrann) - don't you?

  12. #2712
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    I assume you know that the quoted article is an opinion piece (not fact - just a view of Terry McCrann) - don't you?
    Yes, but is he WRONG? And if so why?
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  13. #2713
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes, but is he WRONG? And if so why?
    Rod,

    It is an opinion - a personal held view. It isn't a right or wrong thing and it certainly isn't proof.

    For example, I might have an opinion on the merits of a colour - it isn't a right or wrong - it is just a preference.

    A definition of opinion is: n. A personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty.

    You seen to have a habit of posting other's opinions as if they are somehow support or proof of your own view. A quick look around the internet will find you any opinion on any topic you to want. Does that make every view on every topic right?

    While there might be some comfort in finding like-minded opinions published elsewhere, I certainly wouldn't recommend them as a basis for informing ourselves on a particular topic.

  14. #2714
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    While there might be some comfort in finding like-minded opinions published elsewhere, I certainly wouldn't recommend them as a basis for informing ourselves on a particular topic.
    Would this also apply to peer reviewing?
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  15. #2715
    quality + reliability - 3k Club Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,312

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Rod,

    It is an opinion - a personal held view. It isn't a right or wrong thing and it certainly isn't proof.

    For example, I might have an opinion on the merits of a colour - it isn't a right or wrong - it is just a preference.

    A definition of opinion is: n. A personal belief or judgement that is not founded on proof or certainty.

    You seen to have a habit of posting other's opinions as if they are somehow support or proof of your own view. A quick look around the internet will find you any opinion on any topic you to want. Does that make every view on every topic right?

    While there might be some comfort in finding like-minded opinions published elsewhere, I certainly wouldn't recommend them as a basis for informing ourselves on a particular topic.
    I think we all know what an opinion is.

    Now is Terry's opinion that the CSIRO left off the methane graph correct or not?

    Now where the real opinion is why did they leave it out?

    Now I asked you why you thought this opinion is wrong. Sheez, not that hard really. That is unless you are really just trying to evade the issues.
    GREAT PLASTERING TIPS AT


  16. #2716
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Yes, but is he WRONG? And if so why?
    He's right in that CSIRO & BoM ballsed up their communications (yet again) with respect to this report. They made an assumption about the intelligence of their readers and that assumption was wrong.

    But McCann is wrong about the science. Now anyway.

    The problem has been that methane concentrations have indeed plateaued for some time. However, at the time of the State of the Climate report being prepared there were one or two papers in press (awaiting peer review) that presented data that apparently shows that methane levels are again on the rise. I believe these papers have since been published but I haven't yet come across them. However, the US Gov's NOAA has their 'latest' (September 09) greenhouse gas concentration data update here http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ that does show a small kick in methane levels in the last couple of years...whether this is a newly established trend remains to be seen. I've cut the graph out below but the entire page is well worth a look.



    And the bureaucrats rather lazily decided to skimp on the explanation on the assumption that it was easier to omit data rather than try and articulate a fairly complicated explanation.....and risk getting it misinterpreted.

    Dumb decision and not an uncommon one in a bureaucracy.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  17. #2717
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Would this also apply to peer reviewing?
    It would depend upon whether the "opinion" is formed internally - such as it is something I like or prefer; or whether it is formed externally - I have observed certain phenomena and used it as a basis for developing a view.

    Peer reviewed is a scientific review process that examines the reasoning and logic (and sometimes data) used to form an opinion - it is an external review.
    Last edited by chrisp; 30th May 2010 at 04:41 PM. Reason: reword to make clearer

  18. #2718
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    It is certainly an external review but don't for one second think it is perfect. The strength of the peer review process is based on the qualities of the people that are on the peer review panel that a particular journal uses - and no publication ever ever ever reveals whomsoever is a member of its peer review panel. Ostensibly this is to prevent the authors from undulying pressuring the PRP into accepting the paper.

    The counter argument is that the rest of us have little but trust, faith and the application of our own scientific knowledge that the 'experts' on the PRP will sort the wheat from the chaff of the originally submitted paper.

    In the end, PRPs have demonstrated that they are the most effective court to judge a scientific paper in the first instance....but like all courts.....they do stuff up on occasion. After all they are all made of people.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  19. #2719
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Now we're getting there.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It would depend upon whether the "opinion" is formed internally - such as it is something I like or prefer; or whether it is formed externally - I have observed certain phenomena as developed a view.

    Peer reviewed is a scientific review process that examines the reasoning and logic (and sometimes data) used to form an opinion - it is an external review.
    I think it is good that we are now classifying opinions into more "valid" categories. This would give them the perception of being more valid than other opinions. I guess as we are now using words to differentiate them, we could call it the "qualification of opinion". This is much better than the scam the IPCC tried to pull off which I call the "quantification of opinion", which was attaching fake numbers to opinions just to make them seem more "valid".

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chrisp
    And that's what grates with me and other here - you are using opinion of others as some sort of basis or support for your opinion. It would be better just to express your opinion and leave Andrew's opinion out of it. If I want Andrew's opinion, I'll read the Hun. I' d rather hear your opinion.
    Actually, I like using reality as the basis or support for my opinion. The change in climate as measured by us humans in the last few thousand years is so stable as to seem boring on a geological time scale.

    As for Mr Bolts opinion, it closely aligns my own, and therefore logic dictates it is superior compared to opposing opinions and should be shared with those less well informed. But on a serious note, he has links to many others stories which makes my posts less verbose, a blessing in anyone's opinion.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chrisp
    Mind you, if you are quoting facts, by all means provide a quote, but to me quotes of others opinions are just unnecessary.

    I guess based on this criteria, you will strongly oppose any references to the IPCC and its conclusions then?


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Freud
    It seems that the good Mr James has beaten you to the punch in finding out how the IPCC came up with it's 90% claim of certainty (his link below). Apparantly they just made it up! No maths, no science, just an opinion. Who would have thought?

    "It is sometimes claimed that the IPCC is 90 per cent confident of this claim, but there is no known statistical basis for this claim; it's purely subjective."

    You see, you could have figured this out had you read the link you provided above. I guess you either didn't read it, couldn't figure this out, or figured it out and didn't want to pass on this fact?


    No maths, no science, just an opinion. Who would have thought?
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by chrisp
    Gross generalisations and clutching at straws. Who would have thought?

    Lets have a look at the IPPC refernce I gave earlier. Here is a quote:
    "14. Likelihood, as defined in Table 4, refers to a probabilistic assessment of some well defined outcome having occurred or occurring in the future. The categories defined in this table should be considered as having ‘fuzzy’ boundaries. Use other probability ranges where more appropriate but do not then use the terminology in table 4. Likelihood may be based on quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views. The central range of this scale should not be used to express a lack of knowledge – see paragraph 12 and Table 2 for that situation. There is evidence that readers may adjust their interpretation of this likelihood language according to the magnitude of perceived potential consequences [8]."
    Table 4. Likelihood Scale.
    Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
    Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence
    Very likely > 90% probability
    Likely > 66% probability
    About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
    Unlikely < 33% probability
    Very unlikely < 10% probability
    Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability
    I'd hardly call "quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views", what the article refers to as "purely subjective" as in 'lacking in reality or substance'. But then again, it is you may choose to use that definition when it suits you.

    My comments on this are pedantic - but this is necessary as your argument is based on a pedantic attempt to discredit the IPCC terminology.

    Do you truly believe that the IPCC findings are based upon "No maths, no science, just an opinion" or are you grossly over generalising your opinion too?

    In any case, the 'likelihood' scale is there to assist the reader in understanding the level of consensus within the scientific community and their views on the likely outcomes for their projections.

    I think you are clutching at straws with this as some form of argumentative attempt to claim that the science is unsound.

    As woodbe as often suggests, it would be much more productive to simply point out some sound and reputable science that discredits the AGW theory.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Freud
    "quantitative analysis or an elicitation of expert views"

    So, which is it?

    Quantitative analysis
    means that the 90% figure is derived from a probability calculation. Be nice if you could dig up the calculations for us to take a look at?

    Elicitation of expert views
    is a real fancy way of saying just an opinion. If you dress up this opinion with some numbers (90%) to make it sound more convincing, some people would refer to this as a sales pitch, I refer to it as the quantification of opinion, or in everyday terms, making --it up.

    So I guess if you can dig up those calculations, I'll stand corrected?


    "Do you truly believe that the IPCC findings are based upon "No maths, no science, just an opinion" or are you grossly over generalising your opinion too?"

    Sorry if it was not clear, I am referring to the claim which you posted from the CSIRO, which is the oft quoted 90% certainty of the IPCC in AGW Theory. As Woodbe is so fond of pointing out, the IPCC does not do science, they are a political body, so are we talking about the opinion of a political body as the backbone supporting this theory?


    And finally, based on this same criteria, at last we have heard the end of the "consensus" argument. For you see, when people agree on something based on a belief as opposed to verifiable facts, they are sharing a similar opinion. So, the consensus nonsensus is purely opinion. How's that for a fact.

  20. #2720
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default State of the despair.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Very sad indeed!
    This is far from the only criticism of this window dressing, it is just the latest. As we are seeing, more scientists are being emboldened every day to speak out on these issues. This is just another straw, Kerplunk!

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    But wait, there is more indeed!



    It is a tragedy that this once great institution is being eroded because of this farce. And they wonder why kids these days don't want to study maths and science any more.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    "CSIRO's role was to release ''unemotional'' scientific data."

    You mean unemotional stuff like this?

    "If the earth's temperature rose 2C, she warned, there would be risks that were "difficult and dangerous"."

    I guess we better do something before it’s “too late”.

    See more of the CSIRO decline that they can’t hide rehashed below.
    Full report here for those who like science fiction:

    http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf

  21. #2721
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    It would depend upon whether the "opinion" is formed internally - such as it is something I like or prefer; or whether it is formed externally - I have observed certain phenomena and used it as a basis for developing a view.

    Peer reviewed is a scientific review process that examines the reasoning and logic (and sometimes data) used to form an opinion - it is an external review.
    Which opinion, (int/ext) would be the least biased and most accurate?
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  22. #2722
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Apologies.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Well found, Rob. It's a pretty good piece about where we are now with respect to 'the debate we have to have' and I'm fairly strongly in favour of Hulme's comments here.
    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    It is certainly an external review but don't for one second think it is perfect. The strength of the peer review process is based on the qualities of the people that are on the peer review panel that a particular journal uses - and no publication ever ever ever reveals whomsoever is a member of its peer review panel. Ostensibly this is to prevent the authors from undulying pressuring the PRP into accepting the paper.

    The counter argument is that the rest of us have little but trust, faith and the application of our own scientific knowledge that the 'experts' on the PRP will sort the wheat from the chaff of the originally submitted paper.

    In the end, PRPs have demonstrated that they are the most effective court to judge a scientific paper in the first instance....but like all courts.....they do stuff up on occasion. After all they are all made of people.
    Hey SBD, please accept my apologies, I believe I had misjudged you as being one of the blind-faith followers of AGW Theory.

    It seems you argue your points quite rationally. It is a shame that we stand on opposite sides of this two-way range, but I look forward to hearing more of the other side argued logically for a change. It is going to make us sceptics work much harder. It is much easier to dismiss doomsday scenarios, rather than well argued facts and theories.

  23. #2723
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default For what it's worth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Which opinion, (int/ext) would be the least biased and most accurate?
    In my opinion, both my internal and external opinions are least biased and most accurate when compared to dissenting opinions.

  24. #2724
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    This is far from the only criticism of this window dressing, it is just the latest. As we are seeing, more scientists are being emboldened every day to speak out on these issues. This is just another straw, Kerplunk!






    Full report here for those who like science fiction:

    http://www.csiro.au/files/files/pvfo.pdf

    Freud....you really need to do something about your post structures...they are almost unreadable!! I'm having trouble trying to figure out what you're on about.

    You might not like what they say but at least the CSIRO can string together a coherent paragraph at the moment...
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  25. #2725
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Freud....you really need to do something about your post structures...they are almost unreadable!! I'm having trouble trying to figure out what you're on about.

    You might not like what they say but at least the CSIRO can string together a coherent paragraph at the moment...
    Yeh, gotta clean up my act a bit, I do tend to ramble incoherently more often than not.

    I tried to explain this to Rod in regards to the NASA Lunar research, still gotta get onto that.

    The dinner party last night definitely didn't help with my coherence.

  26. #2726
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Hey SBD, please accept my apologies, I believe I had misjudged you as being one of the blind-faith followers of AGW Theory.

    It seems you argue your points quite rationally. It is a shame that we stand on opposite sides of this two-way range, but I look forward to hearing more of the other side argued logically for a change. It is going to make us sceptics work much harder. It is much easier to dismiss doomsday scenarios, rather than well argued facts and theories.
    The only thing I have 'blind faith' in is the stupidity of the human animal. All of them. No exceptions.

    I'm not big on scenarios but am fairly confident in the laws of physics. We are stuffing (or if you prefer, something is stuffing) with the physics of this planet....we may not know exactly what is going to happen as a result....but a range of 'somethings' is going to happen. There's a pretty good chance than more than a few aren't going to be much fun to deal with - personally I'd like that risk to be much much lower.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  27. #2727
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Same dodgy opinion, better structure?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Well boys and girls, the AGW theory is just getting weaker and weaker. About that big list of scientific societies pledging their undying support for the AGW.

    Well the pressure from within is forcing them one by one to re-word their assertions on AGW. This will be a watering down of their current support in the UK's Royal Society. How far they will go is anyone's guess, but it surely means that support in the scientific societie's is not as strong as some would have us believe. My view is that this is just the tip of the iceberg.


    Full link here. BBC News - Society to review climate message
    Here's another example of the scientists feeling a little braver speaking out.

    "Australia's former chief scientist, Professor Robin Batterham, is embroiled in a bitter dispute over climate change within one of the nation's elite science academies...

    ...A two-page draft, posted on a password-protected section of the academy's website, said the academy ''does not believe the science is settled'' regarding climate change.

    It said many scientists believed ''climate changes are nothing unusual, based on past geological records''..."


  28. #2728
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    It seems you argue your points quite rationally.
    Do you want to know why it seems that way? You see I went to this course...a bit like this one...

    ....to help people like me deal with people like...like...not like me in a rational and non antagonistic manner. There wasn't much talk about 'facts' or 'figures'....more about how to have a pleasant conversation with people whose beliefs run counter to your own.

    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  29. #2729
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Here's another example of the scientists feeling a little braver speaking out.

    "Australia's former chief scientist, Professor Robin Batterham, is embroiled in a bitter dispute over climate change within one of the nation's elite science academies...

    ...A two-page draft, posted on a password-protected section of the academy's website, said the academy ''does not believe the science is settled'' regarding climate change.

    It said many scientists believed ''climate changes are nothing unusual, based on past geological records''..."

    Not exactly....Batterham still 'believes' in AGW.....but suggests that there's not enough 'certainty' in the science about the process and potential outcomes to ensure that good political decisions and good policy outcomes.

    From the article:
    In a recent lecture to the University of Western Australia as academy president, Professor Batterham warned of the dangers of a political over-reaction to climate change.

    He said there was ''still much of the science that is uncertain'' and used data in an academy-badged slide presentation that claimed investment to create green jobs in Spain had resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs, or 2.2 jobs for every ''green job'' created.

    According to a report of the lecture published in a mining newsletter, Professor Batterham said despite scientific uncertainty, '' we need to drastically reduce CO2 or face runaway temperature rise''.


    Bad policy is still a problem in this debate...and really easy and quick to make and employ...typically within a three year election cycle

    By comparison, good science is often slow to come by....often decades. And I'm not sure I want to wait that long. Don't think Batterham is either.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  30. #2730
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default More research required.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rod Dyson View Post
    Criticisms of using the term "greenhouse effect" when describing the Stefan-Boltzmann assumptions are already well documented in climate science, but as far as I have previously read, most of this was related to the actual "energy budget" calculations within the atmosphere. These budget calculations (much like Rudd's) are often not balanced that well due to the unknowns.

    This relates to infra-red energy being transmitted or absorbed by the atmosphere, in both directions mind you. But this energy (heat) transfer does not stand in isolation, convection and conduction plays a large part, working in coordination with the hydrological cycle.

    It appears that this criticism is now targetted at the actual lack of accountability of absorbed or delayed energy in the Earth "or blackbody in the theoretical version" in the models. I haven't looked in depth at the Stefan-Boltmann assumptions to see how it accounts for this effect. This criticism seems to say that it doesn't!

    I find this hard to believe as stored energy from infra-red energy is well known to dissipate on a time delay, particularly so in the oceans more so than in the land. This is why nights are always warmer near the coast compared to inland, the oceans are warmer for longer as the land loses heat quicker. From memory, land absorbing depth on Earth is about 100cm, and this article indicates Lunar absorbing is about 50cm.

    I will definitely do some digging, and maybe Chrisp can supply more details, as he has previously posted a decent amount of info in relation the energy budget. That said, laboratory tests and modelling results are not always directly applicable in the real world.

    But hey, if they (climatologists) have not being accounting for this absorbed energy in their models, it will be very surprising and very spurious (dodgy). Most unlike their other models.

  31. #2731
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default How refreshing.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    Not exactly....Batterham still 'believes' in AGW.....but suggests that there's not enough 'certainty' in the science about the process and potential outcomes to ensure that good political decisions and good policy outcomes.

    From the article:
    In a recent lecture to the University of Western Australia as academy president, Professor Batterham warned of the dangers of a political over-reaction to climate change.

    He said there was ''still much of the science that is uncertain'' and used data in an academy-badged slide presentation that claimed investment to create green jobs in Spain had resulted in the destruction of nearly 110,500 jobs, or 2.2 jobs for every ''green job'' created.

    According to a report of the lecture published in a mining newsletter, Professor Batterham said despite scientific uncertainty, '' we need to drastically reduce CO2 or face runaway temperature rise''.


    Bad policy is still a problem in this debate...and really easy and quick to make and employ...typically within a three year election cycle

    By comparison, good science is often slow to come by....often decades. And I'm not sure I want to wait that long. Don't think Batterham is either.
    Honesty is not always the best policy, but both yours and Batterham's are most refreshing and most welcome. How sweet it is to finally hear people saying we have looked at the science available, and our opinion is action is required sooner rather than later. Dissenting opinions are also worthy of being aired, as the scientific information available is far from conclusive.

    What we have heard unopposed until recently has been that the science is no longer an issue of debate, and all opposed to our opinion are denialists who actively encourage the destruction of future generations of our children and grandchildren.

    Notice the slight change.

    Refreshing indeed.


    (If this was the result of the CSIRO briefings, I may become a supporter, but I doubt it as then they certainly aren't practising what they are preaching ).

  32. #2732
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I think it is good that we are now classifying opinions into more "valid" categories. This would give them the perception of being more valid than other opinions. I guess as we are now using words to differentiate them, we could call it the "qualification of opinion". This is much better than the scam the IPCC tried to pull off which I call the "quantification of opinion", which was attaching fake numbers to opinions just to make them seem more "valid".
    Doc,

    I'm kind of in shock - I mostly agree with your post.

    I do agree with the need to define or classify opinions - but I suspect we'll be pushing different aims.

    I think "Opinion" is a great cause of confusion and needs to be cleared up.

    Firstly, there is the difference between objective and subjective opinion. I'll attempt to define these as:
    objective opinion (definition of objective: Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena).

    subjective opinion (definition of subjective: Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias).
    I certainly value or rank opinions differently depending upon the source and qualification of the provider of the opinion.

    I do take, and accept, your comment on the "quantification of opinion" and I certainly don't accept that because a majority believe such-and-such that such-and-such is necessarily right, correct or best.

    I do, however, look at the "quality of opinion". That is, the experience and the qualification of the person or organisation providing the opinion.

    I think this is where "scientific opinion" is sometimes confused with "popular opinion".

    In essence, all opinions are not equal. Some are worth more than others.

    By its nature, scientific "opinion" is an "objective opinion" as science is a highly objective discipline. Scientists, when speaking in a scientific capacity, will not voice unsubstantiated (aka subjective) opinions without explicitly stating that they are subjective opinions. Where it does get confusing is that a scientist's personal opinion is usually driven by their objective opinion - making their subjective and objective opinion the same!

    Just to stir things up (and this is where we'd beg to differ) in the case of AGW theory, the weight of the "quality of opinion" and the weight of the "quantity of opinion" supports the AGW theory.

    [Definitions used are from WordWeb.]
    Last edited by chrisp; 30th May 2010 at 05:35 PM. Reason: reference added

  33. #2733
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Which opinion, (int/ext) would be the least biased and most accurate?
    Bedford,

    I think SBD has provided a good answer to your question:

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    It is certainly an external review but don't for one second think it is perfect. The strength of the peer review process is based on the qualities of the people that are on the peer review panel that a particular journal uses - and no publication ever ever ever reveals whomsoever is a member of its peer review panel. Ostensibly this is to prevent the authors from undulying pressuring the PRP into accepting the paper.

    The counter argument is that the rest of us have little but trust, faith and the application of our own scientific knowledge that the 'experts' on the PRP will sort the wheat from the chaff of the originally submitted paper.

    In the end, PRPs have demonstrated that they are the most effective court to judge a scientific paper in the first instance....but like all courts.....they do stuff up on occasion. After all they are all made of people.
    My opinion, is that the externally reviewed opinion would be less biased than an internally generated view.

  34. #2734
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    My opinion, is that the externally reviewed opinion would be less biased than an internally generated view.
    Thanks Chrisp, It was a fair question though ?

    With these scientifically reviewed opinions, what percentage would be internal or externally generated, and is there a standard required ( as in checks and balances) to prevent distortion before the reports (findings) are made public?
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  35. #2735
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    With these scientifically reviewed opinions, what percentage would be internal or externally generated, and is there a standard required ( as in checks and balances) to prevent distortion before the reports (findings) are made public?
    All of them in the first instance will be internally generated by the team or individual that wrote the paper. The paper will then be submitted for publication and provided to a peer review committee along with any supporting material that the PRC may require. The PRC then decides whether that internally generated opinion is substantiated by the data and the analysis technique.

    The premise is that the PRC will review the paper for logic and readability and provide an opinion about whether the author's findings are substantiated by both the data itself AND the analysis process conducted by the author. This may require the PRC members to actually repeat the analysis process in part (or in full) to demonstrate that data + analysis supports the finding. This is why the peer review process can often take more than two years to get through....rather than twenty minutes for a newspaper article or five seconds for a blog opinion.

    Is there a standard for PRP? Kind of. The journals often describe the process that must be followed in order to get a paper published which is typically available on their website. For example, here is the peer review information for one of the most prestigious of Scientific journals, Nature http://www.nature.com/authors/editor...er_review.html Personally, as someone who sometimes analyses data and writes reports for a living, I find that page on of the more daunting things on the Internet.

    Other journal publishers (Springers, Elsevier, Wiley etc) also publish their editorial policies on their websites and then each journal has its own specific variations around their specialities that comply with the publishers policy.

    I'm not sure if there is an 'industry' standard....might be worth a hunt.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  36. #2736
    The Master's Apprentice Bedford's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Yarra Valley Vic oz
    Posts
    8,238

    Default

    Well, your never going to beat this mob.

    The review process

    All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).



    http://www.nature.com/authors/editor...er_review.html
    Posted by John2b, And no, BEVs are not going to save the planet, which doesn't need saving anyway.

  37. #2737
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Thanks Chrisp, It was a fair question though ?

    With these scientifically reviewed opinions, what percentage would be internal or externally generated, and is there a standard required ( as in checks and balances) to prevent distortion before the reports (findings) are made public?
    Bedford.

    A very good question!

    I don't actually know the answer. It is a bit like asking "What percentage of jury trials produce the wrong determination?" or "What percentage of the police force are corrupt?". I think most of us would agree that there are mis-justice trail outcomes and that there has been, or is, some corruption in the police force, but just how much would be hard to say.

    I think (i.e. my opinion), is that in the scientific publications, the standard varies form publication to publication. The better journals are often referred to as "prestigious". I can't actually give you a percentage of rejected vs published - you would need to ask an editor of a journal (but they might not tell you either).

    Even the most basic peer-review process will require others in the field to state that the paper has some merit and is worthy of publication as it contributes to the knowledge in the field. On the other hand, there are journals that will almost publish anything.

    One measure of scientific worth of a scientist is not just how many papers he or she has published, or which journals they have published in, but their "citation rate" for their papers - i.e. how many other papers make reference to their paper. The higher the citation rate, the more influential, and well regarded, the work/author is.

  38. #2738
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Well, your never going to beat this mob.

    The review process

    All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).

    http://www.nature.com/authors/editor...er_review.html
    Bit like being on an interview panel (or Australian Idol)....first...create your short list!
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  39. #2739
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    ALL the major scientific organisations in the whole world all accepted that the Earth was flat.
    I'm not sure of the source (i.e. substantiation) of your claim, but I do find it an interesting point.

    The "spherical earth" concept would, I imagine, be counter-intuitive and hard to accept when it was first proposed. The idea of hanging upside-down would be strange, and as after as most of are concerned the earth seems to be flat.

    What I find interesting is with your post is the question: Just how long did it take from the when someone came up with the idea of a spherical earth to when it became widely accepted?

    Wikipedia has an article on "Spherical Earth" which outlines the development of the idea. Spherical Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In summary, it seems that it took 300 years (or thereabouts) for the idea to be generally accepted (I don't know when it was universally accepted?). Some of the early determinations of the size of the earth where very clever and surprisingly accurate!

    It makes me wonder just how long it will take the AGW theory to be generally accepted?

  40. #2740
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default The good old peer-review.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bedford View Post
    Well, your never going to beat this mob.

    The review process

    All submitted manuscripts are read by the editorial staff. To save time for authors and peer-reviewers, only those papers that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review. Those papers judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or otherwise inappropriate are rejected promptly without external review (although these decisions may be based on informal advice from specialists in the field).



    http://www.nature.com/authors/editor...er_review.html
    Not in those days anyway, but hopefully the times are a'changing.

    The peer-review process prior to Climategate was less than perfect or infallible (Google "the file draw effect" as an example), but was held in the scientific arena as the one of best methods available for removing "noise" or spurious research in a partly (but not fully) rigorous manner. However, due to the confidentiality required, a great degree of trust had to be placed in the process itself.

    One of the worst fall-outs from the clowns in this fiasco, is that they have tarnished many reviewers who do great work every day. The trust in this system will now have to be rebuilt from the ground up, especially in the climate science area, but other scientific areas have also had some of their credibility tarnished by this through no fault of their own.

    In order to maintain some sort of coherence , I will rehash some salient points below.

  41. #2741
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default A quick reminder.

    Here's how dissenting science of the day was treated by the peer-review process:

    And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.
    “This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? 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. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
    “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
    Full story here:


  42. #2742
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default And speaking of Nature.

    Then the Editor-in-Chief of Nature has to recuse himself from sitting on the "independent" panel reviewing UEA conduct, as he had already made his mind up before the "independent" review had begun. Fancy that!

    "Then, later in the day critics including Lord Lawson, the former chancellor who called for this inquiry, began to raise concerns - in particular about an editorial in Nature magazine which he claimed accused critics of the scientists of paranoia, and was supportive of the scientists under investigation.



    Last night it emerged on a sceptical website that in an interview with China Radio International last December, Dr Campbell appeared to have pre-judged the very issues the inquiry is supposed to examine. "



    Full story here:


    Last edited by Dr Freud; 30th May 2010 at 11:33 PM. Reason: Quotes

  43. #2743
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default A voice of reason?

    Thankfully, a voice of reason rose above the din regarding this sordid affair, and as we have seen recently in Rod's policy post, continues his crusade to renew some rigor to climate science:

    "A more thoughtful response to the emails comes from Mike Hulme, another climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, as reported by a New York Times blogger:

    "This event might signal a crack that allows for processes of re-structuring scientific knowledge about climate change. It is possible that some areas of climate science has become sclerotic. It is possible that climate science has become too partisan, too centralized. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organization within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science."

    The response from the defenders of Mr. Mann and his circle has been that even if they did disparage doubters and exclude contrary points of view, theirs is still the best climate science. The proof for this is circular. It's the best, we're told, because it's the most-published and most-cited—in that same peer-reviewed literature. The public has every reason to ask why they felt the need to rig the game if their science is as indisputable as they claim."

    Full story here:


  44. #2744
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default And finally, the count.

    I couldn't finish without some colourful hyperbole from our favourite sceptic:

    "Nature’s editors, not having reached intellectual puberty, lack the self-critical skill of examining their own consciences. When they grow up, they will realize that there is a reason why the skeptics are winning. It is because the skeptics are right. The science never was settled, nor was the debate over. CO2 is a bit-part player in the climate. Get over it and move along. Get a life.


    And how come the skeptics are winning, when billions of state-funded propaganda dollars have been squandered for decades in an ever more futile attempt to buy the acquiescence of John Q. Public? Your average voter does not necessarily understand the growing number of scientific papers establishing, by a variety of measurements, that the UN’s XBox 360s have gotten the models wrong, and that the warming effect of CO2 is around one-seventh of the UN’s vastly-exaggerated central estimate.


    But what the man on the crosstown bus can smell a mile off is propaganda bulls***.



    Tell him the debate on anything is over and his antennae will start to twitch. Tell him that because the debate is over he will have to lose his job and pay higher taxes and gasoline prices and electricity costs and he will ask what you’re on and whether he can have some."

    Full story here:


  45. #2745
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Once it's real.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post

    It makes me wonder just how long it will take the AGW theory to be generally accepted?
    Once scientifically and statistically rigorous real world studies demonstrate a causal relationship that is replicable and both internally and externally valid.

    Or Rudd spends enough of our money on propaganda.

    Either one will achieve general acceptance.

  46. #2746
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I couldn't finish without some colourful hyperbole from our favourite sceptic:
    Doc, you left the best bit out... "By Christopher Monckton"


  47. #2747
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Who else but.

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisp View Post
    Doc, you left the best bit out... "By Christopher Monckton"

    I gave a clue, "And finally, the count."

    But who else would be "our favourite sceptic"?

  48. #2748
    2K Club Member chrisp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    I gave a clue, "And finally, the count."

    But who else would be "our favourite sceptic"?
    Rod.

  49. #2749
    Resigned SilentButDeadly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Not here...
    Posts
    5,155

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr Freud View Post
    Here's how dissenting science of the day was treated by the peer-review process:

    And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.[INDENT]“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? 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. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”
    “I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
    The blogger's comments are, in my opinion, a spectacular over reaction to the email content.

    Scientists in all fields make personal judgements about journals all the time based on a perception of content over time - just the same as you or I might do about the content of The Australian, The Age, The Women's Weekly or even Crikey. All these dudes were expressing is an opinion about whether they would support the journal (by submitting new papers). Contacting or lobbying the editorial committee is a perfectly legitimate way of getting your views and opinions across - that is why most decent journals make the contact information of their editorial committee publicly available. You can see who is determining whether your paper is added to the 'short list'. If you can liaise with these people then they can get both the populist and dissenting sides of an argument and take them into account when making the short list.

    The so-called 'ClimateGate' brouhaha has not altered the typical peer review process one iota...it remains much as it was. No better, no worse.
    Joined RF in 2006...Resigned in 2020.

  50. #2750
    2K Club Member Dr Freud's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    2,627

    Default Oh dear.

    Quote Originally Posted by SilentButDeadly View Post
    The blogger's comments are, in my opinion, a spectacular over reaction to the email content.

    Scientists in all fields make personal judgements about journals all the time based on a perception of content over time - just the same as you or I might do about the content of The Australian, The Age, The Women's Weekly or even Crikey. All these dudes were expressing is an opinion about whether they would support the journal (by submitting new papers). Contacting or lobbying the editorial committee is a perfectly legitimate way of getting your views and opinions across - that is why most decent journals make the contact information of their editorial committee publicly available. You can see who is determining whether your paper is added to the 'short list'. If you can liaise with these people then they can get both the populist and dissenting sides of an argument and take them into account when making the short list.

    The so-called 'ClimateGate' brouhaha has not altered the typical peer review process one iota...it remains much as it was. No better, no worse.
    So just to clarify: are you saying that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published; or do you support this one-sided bias and pressure if you are honest enough to acknowledge its censorial nature; or do you just recognise the one-sided bias and pressure and condone it by inaction as it supports your ideology; or do you make the claim that there was no one-sided bias and pressure preventing anti-AGW Theory papers being published (as you appear to do above by trying to legitimise this farce)?

    For you see, as I mentioned, the peer-review process is far from perfect, but to equate this with the ridiculous distortions we have seen recently by some of these bozo's is equally ridiculous, and can probably only be matched by the suppression of free science by religious zealots throughout history.

    And no, Climategate certainly did not alter the peer-review process. Like all corruption, it was merely exposed. It is now incumbent on society (no, not just scientists) to determine whether we are happy being manipulated and treated like idiots by the "experts", or whether we say we want accountability and transparency from our scientists. We get enough lies, corruption and ideology from our moronic politicians and their media puppets.

Page 55 of 377 FirstFirst ... 5 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 105 155 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •