Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere

bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:
On Aug 6, 7:10 am, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-
Site.com> wrote:
On Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:03:17 GMT, James Arthur wrote:
Joerg wrote:

http://www.climateaudit.org/?page_id=354
This shows how much political hardball seems to be played in that
"scientific" world. Pretty sad, actually:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=224

This URL doesn't work. Changing it to end ?page_id=224 ended up
getting me to a blog posting by Steve McIntyre on Friday, June 17th,
2005 at 6:49 am, basically bitching that the rest of the world doesn't
share his particular obsession.

The last paragraph is shocking:
"One of the first places that we would recommend such procedures is the
temperature data set used by the IPCC. Other researchers have tried
without success to get access to the supporting data. One of them shared
with us the response he received from the principal author of the
dataset: “We have 25 years invested in this work. Why should we let you
look at it, when your only objective is to find fault with it?”"
The 2nd-to-last paragraph is stunning as well. Such sloth. The work
shows it.

Sloth? Referees aren't paid.

That doesn't excuse not doing their job. Their job is to
double-check the work to help avoid errors. We all make
mistakes; this process is supposed to catch them and prevent
outright fraud.

To do that you have to check the data.

By "sloth" I also meant the authors--not deigning to share their
data or methods for critical review? Do they think they own this
publicly-funded data, or that their work is beyond review?

These data aren't trade secrets, they aren't proprietary; these
guys didn't pay for the satellites or weather stations, and they
/are/ responsible for some extraordinary policy recommendations; we
have a right and they have an obligation to provide all information
essential to scientific review.

IOW they're intellectually sloppy; they're not willing to defend
their work. Or even disclose it, here.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The Great Oz
has spoken." -- The Wizards [sic] of Oz


I haven't noticed Steve McIntyre, or
anybody else with concerns about the quality of refereeing in
scientific journals, ever coming up with scheme for paying referees
for the time they put in on reading and trying to understand other
people's papers. At the moment the people who put in the time get very
little back for their work, and this time could more productively be
invested in work that will get them publications, grant money and
promotion.

That's the most damning description of peer-review I've heard.
If the reviewers aren't interested and don't have the time, maybe
they shouldn't do it.

Cheers,
James Arthur
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: interesting global warming quote found elsewhwere
    ... with us the response he received from the principal author of the ... publicly-funded data, or that their work is beyond review? ... "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Ed! Youll recommend games. Generally, Ill dispose the headline.
    ... Don't even try to review no while you're ... granting on board a civilian look. ... Are you ideal, I mean, favouring as usual ... promise in response to the remaining audience. ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Runtime Errors - best resource
    ... >>>only pay for support and the service provided. ... generally more prone to "Security Woes" than other Operating Systems. ... "Zero Day" (although the target is still the Windows OS). ... Windows has also been subjected to far more "peer review" that is commonly ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: In need of a Mathematical Solution to Business Problem
    ... > they are eligible for a pay increase. ... I am going to raise the amount of ... > their review tomorrow to get a 10% increase. ... This will mean that he is always behind, in pay, the member ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: The moment John McCain lost the debate
    ... (everyone here gets a review at the same time of year, ... you get a raise (paid annual salary). ... promote you to a new job title and new pay grade. ... The employee has the burden of proving that they ...
    (rec.gambling.poker)
Loading