|
Post by Progenitor A on Feb 12, 2011 11:16:58 GMT 1
Science isn't against new ideas I did not think that it was, but individual scientists are often against new ideas that conflict with their own. Nobody likes to be proved wrong. I feel that the global warming issue has become so polarised that scientific objectivity has been lost. Much of what is published is propaganda rather than science. Jeez mak2, you do speak good sense. Tell me 1. are you a physicist? and 2. why you do not post more often to enlighten us.
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 12, 2011 21:37:17 GMT 1
STA's comment in #56 that:
This needs correcting, because in her case, it is plain bullshit. This board is full of examples of her allergy to new ideas!
Any new ideas seem to excite an immoderate and near-psychotic reaction designed to reduce the discussion to a win-lose combat (.... aka a zero-sum game, Jean... ), rather than a cooperative discussion that could build on the idea to the point where it was interesting.
So, her comment only works if you exclude the words 'most of us'.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 15, 2011 10:07:12 GMT 1
It seems that to many AGW proponents, peer review is simply a reinforcement process, whereby any scrutiny of the scientific method (or lack thereof) in climate divination can be smothered with obfuscation, misrepresented, censored or squashed by any means necessary. This way, any progress of understanding is completely abandoned and we are left with an echo chamber full of zealots slapping each other on the back for their extreme cleverness in statistically eking out minute patterns from meaningless noise and mangled data. Obviously better this than to allow the impressionable public to get wind of uncertainty in the settled science though, don’t you think? So said JJB MKI on WUWT February 13, 2011 at 6:06 pm A viewpoint on the Antarctic warming debatewattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/13/a-viewpoint-on-the-antarctic-warming-debate/#more-33962
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Feb 15, 2011 11:48:26 GMT 1
STA It's a very small amateur discussion board in cyberspace; it is for FUN, ferchrissakes! And equidistant from you, as well. Why don't you look up the word 'amateur'!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 17, 2011 11:01:09 GMT 1
From Bishop Hill bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/2/17/steig-story-on-spectator-cover.htmlThe Spectator covers the Eric Steig Antarctic data peer review scandal The Ice Storm: Nicholas Lewis and Matt Ridley expose the bias and bluster behind the latest set of shaky global warming data. (Nic Lewis is of course one of the authors of the O'Donnell et al paper.) 00000 "Lewis and Matt Ridley have joined forces to tell the story in the cover issue of this week’s Spectator. It’s another powerful, and depressing tale of the woeful state of climate science. Real science welcomes refutation: with global warming, it is treated as a religion. As they say in their cover story: “Nature’s original peer-review process had let through an obviously flawed paper, and no professional climate scientist then disputed it - perhaps because of fear that doing so might harm their careers. As the title of Richard Bean’s new play - The Heretic - at the Royal Court hints, young scientists going into climate studies these days are a bit like young theologians in Elizabethan England. They quickly learn that funding and promotion dries up if you express heterodox views, or doubt the scripture. The scripture, in this case, being the assembled reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.” Fraser Nelson www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6706648/debunking-the-antarctica-myths.thtml
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 18, 2011 1:06:14 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 18, 2011 1:10:01 GMT 1
Willis Eschenbach comments:
Appointing Steig as a reviewer is contrary to the stated policies of the journal, which say:
A reviewer should be sensitive even to the appearance of a conflict of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer’s work in progress or published. If in doubt, the reviewer should indicate the potential conflict promptly to the editor.
Having Steig as a reviewer was done even though the authors of the O’Donnell paper wrote directly to the Editor (Broccoli) to ask that Steig “be treated as a conflicted reviewer or that his review, at least, be sent to unconflicted reviewers for consideration before requiring us to make more major revisions.”
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 22, 2011 5:02:34 GMT 1
Josh Don't you love the ironic polar bear?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Feb 27, 2011 8:37:49 GMT 1
The code of Nature: making authors part with their programsPosted on February 26, 2011 by Anthony Watts Guest post by Shub Niggurath However, as it is now often practiced, one can make a good case that computing is the last refuge of the scientific scoundrel. —Randall LeVeque------------ A very informative discussion of the implications of transparency (or the lack of it) in scientific research as reported in peer-reviewed journal papers. wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/26/the-code-of-nature-making-authors-part-with-their-programs/#more-34879
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 18, 2011 11:32:53 GMT 1
House of Commons SciTech Committee Investigation into Peer review. Peer reviewWritten evidence submitted by Donald Gillies, Emeritus Professor, University College London (PR 22) 1. In my academic career, I started as a graduate student in Professor Sir Karl Popper’s department at the London School of Economics in 1966, and retired as Professor in University College London in 2009. During this time, I continuously carried out research in history and philosophy of science and mathematics – publishing 9 books and numerous articles on the subject. I also edited a leading academic journal in the field (The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science). My research, and my practical experience with the peer review system, as editor, author, and reviewer, gradually convinced me that peer review is highly defective. Historically there are innumerable examples of what we now regard as major advances in science and mathematics which were judged at the time by the researcher’s peers to have no value. Philosophically one can explain why this was so. The net effect of an extensive use of peer review is to stifle innovation, and hold up the progress of science. So my recommendation would be to eliminate the use of peer review as much as possible. In this submission I will summarise my main arguments against peer review. I also believe that it would be easy to eliminate most of the present use of peer review. However, I cannot, for reasons of space, give here the details of how this might be done. They are to be found in my 2008 book, Part 3, pp. 63-130. Prof Gillies' submission continues here. It's short and interesting. I recommend it. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/856/m22.htm
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Mar 18, 2011 11:58:02 GMT 1
A really good link, and it is nice to see someone analysing the central problem of socialism ( i.e the ideological elevation of the group over the individual)
Wrt 'peer groups' .. the net now makes us one big peer-group, so I hope the good prof is recommending totally open publishing (including codes)
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 18, 2011 12:08:17 GMT 1
In a "climatology" which is increasingly statistical EVERYTHING has be out in the open.
The fact that so many orthodox climatologists (read IPCC clique) refuse to reveal ALL stinks.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 18, 2011 12:58:25 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 18, 2011 16:45:39 GMT 1
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/856/m09.htmProfessor Michael Kelly (a member of the Oxburgh Committee)Problems in peer review are the symptom, not the cause, of deeper problems in the modern scientific enterprise. It is these deeper problems that should be debated and solved, so that peer view or a timely alternative can do its job again. Since popular discourse sets 2050 as the date by which the world must be transformed, should science and technology be made more directly the handmaiden of such a transformation?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 18, 2011 16:49:50 GMT 1
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmsctech/writev/856/m02.htmRichard Hortonore importantly, intensified post as well as pre publication review would put uncertainty – its extent and boundaries – at the centre of the peer review and publication process. This new emphasis on uncertainty would limit the rhetorical power of the scientific paper (50), and offer an opportunity to make continuous but constructive public criticism of research a new norm of science.
|
|