For anyone interested in the science behind CGMs [modified]
-
fat_boy wrote:
its lack is not an indication of lack of quality.
Sure it is. It means that absolutely nobody involved in the field has bothered to check it for accuracy.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It means that absolutely nobody involved in the field has bothered to check it for accuracy.
You talking about Manns Hockey stick and AR4? ;P Of course it can also mean that no one was asked. In my job, lack of code review is not an indicator of lack of quality. The quality is principly derrived form the ability of the producer. Reviewers can, if there are problems, correct them, but only if they exist. So, here is your chance, why not review the document and see if you can find any errors? :)
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
ict558 wrote:
Little mouse, you need to learn that peer reviews may not be a sufficient check.
Hello? Its absence means that someone well versed in climatology either a) hasn't looked at it or b) thought it wasn't worth getting published. I don't know about you, but when considering scientific discourse outside that of my immediate expertise, I don't have time to become as versed in it as necessary to be able to appreciate a handful of articles or assertions in the context of the broader literature. Therefore, in order for me to take something seriously it needs to have some established scientific credibility and Google University simply does not produce that. Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence or devalue educational and institutional credibility. I'm not going to relax my standards of what I consider credible because some engineer on the Internet with absolutely no scientific training tells me I should.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence
Well said. Of course it means it should be tightened. Lets hope the IPCC can do better next time, because quite frankly, AR4 was a joke.
"If climate has not "tipped" in over 4 billion years it's not going to tip now due to mankind." Richard S. Lindzen, Atmospheric Physicist, Former IPCC Lead Author "It does not matter who you are, or how smart you are, or what title you have, or how many of you there are, and certainly not how many papers your side has published, if your prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Period." Professor Richard Feynman
-
ict558 wrote:
Little mouse, you need to learn that peer reviews may not be a sufficient check.
Hello? Its absence means that someone well versed in climatology either a) hasn't looked at it or b) thought it wasn't worth getting published. I don't know about you, but when considering scientific discourse outside that of my immediate expertise, I don't have time to become as versed in it as necessary to be able to appreciate a handful of articles or assertions in the context of the broader literature. Therefore, in order for me to take something seriously it needs to have some established scientific credibility and Google University simply does not produce that. Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence or devalue educational and institutional credibility. I'm not going to relax my standards of what I consider credible because some engineer on the Internet with absolutely no scientific training tells me I should.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Its absence means that someone well versed in climatology either a) hasn't looked at it or b) thought it wasn't worth getting published.
Its presence is because someone well versed in climatology (William M Gray: Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and Barry Schwartz: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colarado - each Author and/or Co-author of many peer reviewed papers on climate and weather, modelling and forecasting) thought it was worth presenting to the American Meteorological Society's Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology. And that the AMS thought it worth accepting. Armed with feedback from the conference, the scientists can improve on what has already been done (a new data-analysis technique, a new data set is suggested), and either takes the research in another direction, expands on the work, or, if far enough along, incorporates the feedback while preparing a paper for publication. It is here that the formal review process starts. - AMS literature on their peer-review processes. Since Gavin Schmit assures us that: The NCEP reanalysis used by Gray has very severe non-climatic trends in water vapour (because of the change of the observing network), and these are not repeated in any of the more modern reanalyses (ERA-40 even, or the Japanese version etc.) Thus the whole analysis appears to be based on correlations of non-climate influences and thus hardly likely to have much importance for anything. it may be that Gray and Schwartz are reworking using a new re-analysis; or that they are pursuing their research in another direction; or that Gray (at 80 odd) has finally got pissed off and retired.
Fisticuffs wrote:
in order for me to take something seriously it needs to have some established scientific credibility
Then at least attempt to determine its credibility, instead of the knee-jerk A non peer-reviewed "study" posted on their own website by two unknown authors whose group's mission statement is that of the "security of the energy supply."? Took 5 minutes to determine the paper's provenance via "Google University".
Fisticuffs wrote:
Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence or devalue educational and institutional credibility.
I
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Its absence means that someone well versed in climatology either a) hasn't looked at it or b) thought it wasn't worth getting published.
Its presence is because someone well versed in climatology (William M Gray: Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and Barry Schwartz: NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Boulder, Colarado - each Author and/or Co-author of many peer reviewed papers on climate and weather, modelling and forecasting) thought it was worth presenting to the American Meteorological Society's Conference on Hurricanes and Tropical Meteorology. And that the AMS thought it worth accepting. Armed with feedback from the conference, the scientists can improve on what has already been done (a new data-analysis technique, a new data set is suggested), and either takes the research in another direction, expands on the work, or, if far enough along, incorporates the feedback while preparing a paper for publication. It is here that the formal review process starts. - AMS literature on their peer-review processes. Since Gavin Schmit assures us that: The NCEP reanalysis used by Gray has very severe non-climatic trends in water vapour (because of the change of the observing network), and these are not repeated in any of the more modern reanalyses (ERA-40 even, or the Japanese version etc.) Thus the whole analysis appears to be based on correlations of non-climate influences and thus hardly likely to have much importance for anything. it may be that Gray and Schwartz are reworking using a new re-analysis; or that they are pursuing their research in another direction; or that Gray (at 80 odd) has finally got pissed off and retired.
Fisticuffs wrote:
in order for me to take something seriously it needs to have some established scientific credibility
Then at least attempt to determine its credibility, instead of the knee-jerk A non peer-reviewed "study" posted on their own website by two unknown authors whose group's mission statement is that of the "security of the energy supply."? Took 5 minutes to determine the paper's provenance via "Google University".
Fisticuffs wrote:
Problems with the peer-reviewed literature doesn't mean we should relax standards of evidence or devalue educational and institutional credibility.
I
ict558 wrote:
Then at least attempt to determine its credibility,
Again: the point of peer-reviewed literature is that there is a minimum of scientific credibility in that someone of an appropriately related discipline has reviewed the content for accuracy and relevance. If someone hasn't done that, as a very busy professional, I don't consider it worth my time to try and deal with it. Moreover, it's very easy to think one is able to interpret something when one actually can't because the internet is absolutely no substitute for an actual education. An education in a "related" discipline is not a substitute for an education in the actual field. Meteorology is not climatology. Example: the creationist movement is FILLED with physicists who think they understand biology enough to make arguments about the biological literature. They don't and their arguments are stupid in very subtle ways that takes hours to explain and generally cannot compete with the general internet user against sound bites assembled from a website with a preconceived agenda - sound familiar? (edit: normally, scientific papers have more than 3 references and should actually cite those references. Quality control alert!)
- F
-
ict558 wrote:
Then at least attempt to determine its credibility,
Again: the point of peer-reviewed literature is that there is a minimum of scientific credibility in that someone of an appropriately related discipline has reviewed the content for accuracy and relevance. If someone hasn't done that, as a very busy professional, I don't consider it worth my time to try and deal with it. Moreover, it's very easy to think one is able to interpret something when one actually can't because the internet is absolutely no substitute for an actual education. An education in a "related" discipline is not a substitute for an education in the actual field. Meteorology is not climatology. Example: the creationist movement is FILLED with physicists who think they understand biology enough to make arguments about the biological literature. They don't and their arguments are stupid in very subtle ways that takes hours to explain and generally cannot compete with the general internet user against sound bites assembled from a website with a preconceived agenda - sound familiar? (edit: normally, scientific papers have more than 3 references and should actually cite those references. Quality control alert!)
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
the point of peer-reviewed literature is that there is a minimum of scientific credibility in that someone of an appropriately related discipline has reviewed the content for accuracy and relevance.
True.
Fisticuffs wrote:
If someone hasn't done that, as a very busy professional, I don't consider it worth my time to try and deal with it.
As a retired professional, I check the credentials of the authors, and if they have a body of peer-reviewed papers in the subject being addressed, it is worth my time to deal with it.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Moreover, it's very easy to think one is able to interpret something when one actually can't because the internet is absolutely no substitute for an actual education
True.
Fisticuffs wrote:
An education in a "related" discipline is not a substitute for an education in the actual field.
Too compartmentalised a view of scientific research. Many climate scientists obtained their doctorates in other (but "related") disciplines. Research is "education in the actual field".
Fisticuffs wrote:
Meteorology is not climatology.
True - and yet they now are less clearly distinct than once they were.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Example: the creationist movement is FILLED with physicists who think they understand biology enough to make arguments about the biological literature. They don't and their arguments are stupid in very subtle ways that takes hours to explain and generally cannot compete with the general internet user against sound bites assembled from a website with a preconceived agenda - sound familiar?
Creationism? I thought you were a very busy professional! ;P And, yes, it does sound familiar. The most extreme blogs that I read are Real Climate and Watts Up With That. (My only bias being that I find the moderator on WUWT to be less condescending in tone, and more permissive of opposing views, than that of RC. Zealots' comments are a pain, whichever side they support.)
Fisticuffs wrote:
(edit: normally, scientific papers have more than 3 references and should actually cite those references. Quality control alert!)
Thank you for imparting y
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
the point of peer-reviewed literature is that there is a minimum of scientific credibility in that someone of an appropriately related discipline has reviewed the content for accuracy and relevance.
True.
Fisticuffs wrote:
If someone hasn't done that, as a very busy professional, I don't consider it worth my time to try and deal with it.
As a retired professional, I check the credentials of the authors, and if they have a body of peer-reviewed papers in the subject being addressed, it is worth my time to deal with it.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Moreover, it's very easy to think one is able to interpret something when one actually can't because the internet is absolutely no substitute for an actual education
True.
Fisticuffs wrote:
An education in a "related" discipline is not a substitute for an education in the actual field.
Too compartmentalised a view of scientific research. Many climate scientists obtained their doctorates in other (but "related") disciplines. Research is "education in the actual field".
Fisticuffs wrote:
Meteorology is not climatology.
True - and yet they now are less clearly distinct than once they were.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Example: the creationist movement is FILLED with physicists who think they understand biology enough to make arguments about the biological literature. They don't and their arguments are stupid in very subtle ways that takes hours to explain and generally cannot compete with the general internet user against sound bites assembled from a website with a preconceived agenda - sound familiar?
Creationism? I thought you were a very busy professional! ;P And, yes, it does sound familiar. The most extreme blogs that I read are Real Climate and Watts Up With That. (My only bias being that I find the moderator on WUWT to be less condescending in tone, and more permissive of opposing views, than that of RC. Zealots' comments are a pain, whichever side they support.)
Fisticuffs wrote:
(edit: normally, scientific papers have more than 3 references and should actually cite those references. Quality control alert!)
Thank you for imparting y
ict558 wrote:
As a retired professional, I check the credentials of the authors, and if they have a body of peer-reviewed papers in the subject being addressed, it is worth my time to deal with it.
It must be nice to have all that free time. I'm still not impressed. Let them get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. Stop making excuses for them.
ict558 wrote:
True - and yet they now are less clearly distinct than once they were.
According to who? You? Who are retired from... something? You've given me no reason to listen to your opinion.
- F
-
ict558 wrote:
As a retired professional, I check the credentials of the authors, and if they have a body of peer-reviewed papers in the subject being addressed, it is worth my time to deal with it.
It must be nice to have all that free time. I'm still not impressed. Let them get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. Stop making excuses for them.
ict558 wrote:
True - and yet they now are less clearly distinct than once they were.
According to who? You? Who are retired from... something? You've given me no reason to listen to your opinion.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
It must be nice to have all that free time.
It is.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I'm still not impressed.
Try a couple more runs through the rollers. Why would you think that I'm trying to impress you?
Fisticuffs wrote:
Let them get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.
That is your standard, but not mine. I will read a conference paper (given to an audience of peers) written by an author with a body of peer-reviewed work on the subject.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Stop making excuses for them.
First, I'm trying to impress you, now I am making excuses for the authors? Weird. I merely point out, again, that your initial post was a knee-jerk assumpion that had nothing to do with the standard of credibility you espouse, and all to do with the site to which the paper had been copied.
Fisticuffs wrote:
According to who? You? Who are retired from... something? You've given me no reason to listen to your opinion.
That Weather forecasts and Climate projections are being made from configurable modular Climate Models, by teams where there is no distinction between meteorologist and climatologist is a fact, not an opinion.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
It must be nice to have all that free time.
It is.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I'm still not impressed.
Try a couple more runs through the rollers. Why would you think that I'm trying to impress you?
Fisticuffs wrote:
Let them get it published in a peer-reviewed journal.
That is your standard, but not mine. I will read a conference paper (given to an audience of peers) written by an author with a body of peer-reviewed work on the subject.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Stop making excuses for them.
First, I'm trying to impress you, now I am making excuses for the authors? Weird. I merely point out, again, that your initial post was a knee-jerk assumpion that had nothing to do with the standard of credibility you espouse, and all to do with the site to which the paper had been copied.
Fisticuffs wrote:
According to who? You? Who are retired from... something? You've given me no reason to listen to your opinion.
That Weather forecasts and Climate projections are being made from configurable modular Climate Models, by teams where there is no distinction between meteorologist and climatologist is a fact, not an opinion.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
Why would you think that I'm trying to impress you?
If you're not, you should be trying.
ict558 wrote:
is a fact, not an opinion.
No, it's your opinion, and worth exactly what your opinion is worth. You have lower standards than me (who actually has to be involved in interpreting and participating in the scientific literature as part of my job) and I or anyone else is supposed to listen to you instead because... you're retired and have a lot of time to read the internet? Okay then!
- F
-
ict558 wrote:
Why would you think that I'm trying to impress you?
If you're not, you should be trying.
ict558 wrote:
is a fact, not an opinion.
No, it's your opinion, and worth exactly what your opinion is worth. You have lower standards than me (who actually has to be involved in interpreting and participating in the scientific literature as part of my job) and I or anyone else is supposed to listen to you instead because... you're retired and have a lot of time to read the internet? Okay then!
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
If you're not, you should be trying. [I,] who actually has to be involved in interpreting and participating in the scientific literature as part of my job
So, I have to impress you by laying out my tawdry alongside yours; and we have to promise to tell the truth and to believe each other, and the shiniest wins. Hmm. Shouldn't there be some kind of independent peer-review? But my credentials are irrelevant, as I am not commenting on the science. I merely pointed out that "A non peer-reviewed "study" posted on their own website by two unknown authors whose group's mission statement is that of the "security of the energy supply". was a knee-jerk post, and that you had not attempted to identify the provenance of the paper. Now, fat_boy supports the science in the paper, why don't you and he try to impress one another? BTW: Does "to be involved in" indicate any more than doing the photo-copying? Weasle words, never use them in your CV.
Fisticuffs wrote:
No, it's your opinion, and worth exactly what your opinion is worth.
But isn't that just your opinion?
Fisticuffs wrote:
You have lower standards than me
Of course. I enjoy the freedom to have whatever standards I wish. I would not dismiss out-of-hand a paper on Computer Science, written by a Professor of Computer Science, and delivered to an audience of Computer Scientists. I might, just might, learn something. A blinkered mind is a dreadful handicap. But were matters of great pith and moment to hang upon my decision, I would insist on having the paper peer-reviewed, and obtain all data and working, the peer-review papers, and the identity of the reviewers.
Fisticuffs wrote:
and I or anyone else is supposed to listen to you instead because... you're retired and have a lot of time to read the internet
Even were I a climate scientist commenting on the content of the paper, why would anyone be supposed to listen to me? You're getting weird again. But, again, this is not about the credibility of the paper, it is about your knee-jerk reaction to it.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
If you're not, you should be trying. [I,] who actually has to be involved in interpreting and participating in the scientific literature as part of my job
So, I have to impress you by laying out my tawdry alongside yours; and we have to promise to tell the truth and to believe each other, and the shiniest wins. Hmm. Shouldn't there be some kind of independent peer-review? But my credentials are irrelevant, as I am not commenting on the science. I merely pointed out that "A non peer-reviewed "study" posted on their own website by two unknown authors whose group's mission statement is that of the "security of the energy supply". was a knee-jerk post, and that you had not attempted to identify the provenance of the paper. Now, fat_boy supports the science in the paper, why don't you and he try to impress one another? BTW: Does "to be involved in" indicate any more than doing the photo-copying? Weasle words, never use them in your CV.
Fisticuffs wrote:
No, it's your opinion, and worth exactly what your opinion is worth.
But isn't that just your opinion?
Fisticuffs wrote:
You have lower standards than me
Of course. I enjoy the freedom to have whatever standards I wish. I would not dismiss out-of-hand a paper on Computer Science, written by a Professor of Computer Science, and delivered to an audience of Computer Scientists. I might, just might, learn something. A blinkered mind is a dreadful handicap. But were matters of great pith and moment to hang upon my decision, I would insist on having the paper peer-reviewed, and obtain all data and working, the peer-review papers, and the identity of the reviewers.
Fisticuffs wrote:
and I or anyone else is supposed to listen to you instead because... you're retired and have a lot of time to read the internet
Even were I a climate scientist commenting on the content of the paper, why would anyone be supposed to listen to me? You're getting weird again. But, again, this is not about the credibility of the paper, it is about your knee-jerk reaction to it.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
ict558 wrote:
But, again, this is not about the credibility of the paper, it is about your knee-jerk reaction to it.
Well, that's what you've tried to make this about, anyway. So many words, such little content.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, that's what you've tried to make this about, anyway.
Because that is what it was all about. I was certainly not going to argue the science. How could I? I am not a climatologist, so nothing I could say for or against AGW is going to impress you. However, the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is inquiring into the Peer Review process that you set such store by. Submissions[^] have been made by 'real' scientists. My attention was drawn to the following comments by Dr David Taylor (the author of over 40 peer reviewed papers, and a peer reviewer himself): ... Note that the reviewer is not asked to affirm that any theories or opinions presented in the paper are correct. The purpose of peer review is NOT to establish the validity of the science. This is the function of the much more extensive review by peers which follows publication. ... the reviewer is not expected to repeat the author's work. ... impractical where experimental work is concerned ... not expected even where the study is simply related to the manipulation of data. The function of a peer reviewer is not the same as an auditor. ... Publication in a Peer Reviewed journal is therefore not a guarantee that the theory is correct, or even that the information is valuable. The reverse is also true, publication in a non peer reviewed journal or the grey literature does not mean that the science is untrustworthy. ... Peer Review should therefore lead to the reduction in the number of duplicate publications and to the improvement of the presentation of scientific work. However, it is not a mechanism for determining scientific "truth". ... Unfortunately, in recent years, the impression that journal peer review confers the stamp of authority on a paper has gained wide acceptance. This is completely erroneous. Of course, it is merely his opinion that you are in error; but the opinion of a successful professional chemist with a PhD in marine chemistry and 35+ years' experience of the evaluation and resolution of environmental issues in the heavy chemical, specialty chemical, agrochemical and pharmaceutical industries is difficult for me to ignore.
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, that's what you've tried to make this about, anyway.
Because that is what it was all about. I was certainly not going to argue the science. How could I? I am not a climatologist, so nothing I could say for or against AGW is going to impress you. However, the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is inquiring into the Peer Review process that you set such store by. Submissions[^] have been made by 'real' scientists. My attention was drawn to the following comments by Dr David Taylor (the author of over 40 peer reviewed papers, and a peer reviewer himself): ... Note that the reviewer is not asked to affirm that any theories or opinions presented in the paper are correct. The purpose of peer review is NOT to establish the validity of the science. This is the function of the much more extensive review by peers which follows publication. ... the reviewer is not expected to repeat the author's work. ... impractical where experimental work is concerned ... not expected even where the study is simply related to the manipulation of data. The function of a peer reviewer is not the same as an auditor. ... Publication in a Peer Reviewed journal is therefore not a guarantee that the theory is correct, or even that the information is valuable. The reverse is also true, publication in a non peer reviewed journal or the grey literature does not mean that the science is untrustworthy. ... Peer Review should therefore lead to the reduction in the number of duplicate publications and to the improvement of the presentation of scientific work. However, it is not a mechanism for determining scientific "truth". ... Unfortunately, in recent years, the impression that journal peer review confers the stamp of authority on a paper has gained wide acceptance. This is completely erroneous. Of course, it is merely his opinion that you are in error; but the opinion of a successful professional chemist with a PhD in marine chemistry and 35+ years' experience of the evaluation and resolution of environmental issues in the heavy chemical, specialty chemical, agrochemical and pharmaceutical industries is difficult for me to ignore.
ict558 wrote:
I am not a climatologist, so nothing I could say for or against AGW is going to impress you.
Exactly, so stop trying. What, peer review isn't perfect? Shocking! I guess then your argument for granting credibility for whatever YOU feel merits it is 100% correct.
- F
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Well, that's what you've tried to make this about, anyway.
Because that is what it was all about. I was certainly not going to argue the science. How could I? I am not a climatologist, so nothing I could say for or against AGW is going to impress you. However, the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology is inquiring into the Peer Review process that you set such store by. Submissions[^] have been made by 'real' scientists. My attention was drawn to the following comments by Dr David Taylor (the author of over 40 peer reviewed papers, and a peer reviewer himself): ... Note that the reviewer is not asked to affirm that any theories or opinions presented in the paper are correct. The purpose of peer review is NOT to establish the validity of the science. This is the function of the much more extensive review by peers which follows publication. ... the reviewer is not expected to repeat the author's work. ... impractical where experimental work is concerned ... not expected even where the study is simply related to the manipulation of data. The function of a peer reviewer is not the same as an auditor. ... Publication in a Peer Reviewed journal is therefore not a guarantee that the theory is correct, or even that the information is valuable. The reverse is also true, publication in a non peer reviewed journal or the grey literature does not mean that the science is untrustworthy. ... Peer Review should therefore lead to the reduction in the number of duplicate publications and to the improvement of the presentation of scientific work. However, it is not a mechanism for determining scientific "truth". ... Unfortunately, in recent years, the impression that journal peer review confers the stamp of authority on a paper has gained wide acceptance. This is completely erroneous. Of course, it is merely his opinion that you are in error; but the opinion of a successful professional chemist with a PhD in marine chemistry and 35+ years' experience of the evaluation and resolution of environmental issues in the heavy chemical, specialty chemical, agrochemical and pharmaceutical industries is difficult for me to ignore.
This is a great article from 2005[^] These are actually complex and interesting issues but guys like you trivialize it and cherry-pick in order to service your own existing preformed conclusions. It's really depressing. There are legitimate ways to argue or change existing scientific consensus but a bunch of programmers opining on the internet isn't one of them. Learn some humility. Sorry if the club seems exclusionary to you but those of us who respect science actually do it the hard way: degrees and publications.
- F
-
ict558 wrote:
I am not a climatologist, so nothing I could say for or against AGW is going to impress you.
Exactly, so stop trying. What, peer review isn't perfect? Shocking! I guess then your argument for granting credibility for whatever YOU feel merits it is 100% correct.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
Exactly, so stop trying.
To recap: Why on earth would I want to impress you?
Fisticuffs wrote:
What, peer review isn't perfect? Shocking!
It was you who chose it as the 'stamp of authority'. Evidently, you were wrong.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I guess then your argument for granting credibility for whatever YOU feel merits it is 100% correct.
Within my area of expertise, yes. To recap: I would not dismiss out-of-hand a paper on Computer Science, written by a Professor of Computer Science, and delivered to an audience of Computer Scientists. I might, just might, learn something. A blinkered mind is a dreadful handicap. But were matters of great pith and moment to hang upon my decision, I would insist on having the paper peer-reviewed, and obtain all data and working, the peer-review papers, and the identity of the reviewers.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
This is a great article from 2005[^] These are actually complex and interesting issues but guys like you trivialize it and cherry-pick in order to service your own existing preformed conclusions. It's really depressing. There are legitimate ways to argue or change existing scientific consensus but a bunch of programmers opining on the internet isn't one of them. Learn some humility. Sorry if the club seems exclusionary to you but those of us who respect science actually do it the hard way: degrees and publications.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
This is a great article from 2005
This is a great response from 2007[^]. This is a great reply from 2007[^]. And there's more, lots more.
Fisticuffs wrote:
These are actually complex and interesting issues
Actually, they must be. Apparently they can actually keep statisticians employed for years.
Fisticuffs wrote:
but guys like you trivialize it and cherry-pick in order to service your own existing preformed conclusions.
* All 'deniers' deride AGW papers in Nature. * ict558 derided 3 AGW papers in Nature. * Therefore, ict558 is a 'denier'. Your own existing preformed conclusion. That's really depressing.
Fisticuffs wrote:
There are legitimate ways to argue or change existing scientific consensus
Conventional rather than legitimate.
Fisticuffs wrote:
but a bunch of programmers opining on the internet isn't one of them.
Gosh, no, really? You think that fat_boy is attempting to change scientific consensus by posting in the Back Room? There you go, getting weird again.
Fisticuffs wrote:
Learn some humility.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Fisticuffs wrote:
Sorry if the club seems exclusionary to you but those of us who respect science actually do it the hard way: degrees and publications.
Behold! Humility, writ large! That's it, I can no longer take you seriously. I just cannot believe you to be much of a scientist, you make too big a deal of it. The 'exclusionary club', indeed. :rolleyes:
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
Fisticuffs wrote:
Exactly, so stop trying.
To recap: Why on earth would I want to impress you?
Fisticuffs wrote:
What, peer review isn't perfect? Shocking!
It was you who chose it as the 'stamp of authority'. Evidently, you were wrong.
Fisticuffs wrote:
I guess then your argument for granting credibility for whatever YOU feel merits it is 100% correct.
Within my area of expertise, yes. To recap: I would not dismiss out-of-hand a paper on Computer Science, written by a Professor of Computer Science, and delivered to an audience of Computer Scientists. I might, just might, learn something. A blinkered mind is a dreadful handicap. But were matters of great pith and moment to hang upon my decision, I would insist on having the paper peer-reviewed, and obtain all data and working, the peer-review papers, and the identity of the reviewers.
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
ict558 wrote:
But were matters of great pith and moment to hang upon my decision, I would insist on having the paper peer-reviewed, and obtain all data and working, the peer-review papers, and the identity of the reviewers.
So I repeat. Again. Your standards are selectively weak and because your opinion is not important in the slightest, you have no problem with accepting weak evidence and weak arguments to argue against scientific consensus in fields you know nothing about and can contribute nothing to. Fine. You can smugly spout off about how weak peer review is and blah blah blah you would listen to anyone with a microphone and a degree but then you say if you thought for a minute your opinion mattered you would be OH SO MUCH MORE CAREFUL about what you choose to make your opinion to be? You know, I could not care less about what a bunch of dumb assholes on the internet with no science background think about global warming, but that same sentiment and lazy arrogance they express towards one scientific field permeates life-and-death medical issues that I will then have to deal with. The anti-vaccination movement - similar anti-science arguments. Home birthing - similar anti-science arguments. Psychiatric medication - similar anti-science arguments. Cherry picking, vague "science isn't perfect" complaints, hints of a GRAND SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACY, etc, etc, etc. It's repetitive and tiresome and frankly, if you believe you can legitimately argue the scientific consensus on global warming without doing some due diligence, go be your own doctor, too - or better, actually take responsibility for the decisions for someone else's life and experience some immediate consequences of being anti-science. Not willing to do that? Then shut the fuck up.
- F
-
ict558 wrote:
But were matters of great pith and moment to hang upon my decision, I would insist on having the paper peer-reviewed, and obtain all data and working, the peer-review papers, and the identity of the reviewers.
So I repeat. Again. Your standards are selectively weak and because your opinion is not important in the slightest, you have no problem with accepting weak evidence and weak arguments to argue against scientific consensus in fields you know nothing about and can contribute nothing to. Fine. You can smugly spout off about how weak peer review is and blah blah blah you would listen to anyone with a microphone and a degree but then you say if you thought for a minute your opinion mattered you would be OH SO MUCH MORE CAREFUL about what you choose to make your opinion to be? You know, I could not care less about what a bunch of dumb assholes on the internet with no science background think about global warming, but that same sentiment and lazy arrogance they express towards one scientific field permeates life-and-death medical issues that I will then have to deal with. The anti-vaccination movement - similar anti-science arguments. Home birthing - similar anti-science arguments. Psychiatric medication - similar anti-science arguments. Cherry picking, vague "science isn't perfect" complaints, hints of a GRAND SCIENTIFIC CONSPIRACY, etc, etc, etc. It's repetitive and tiresome and frankly, if you believe you can legitimately argue the scientific consensus on global warming without doing some due diligence, go be your own doctor, too - or better, actually take responsibility for the decisions for someone else's life and experience some immediate consequences of being anti-science. Not willing to do that? Then shut the fuck up.
- F
Fisticuffs wrote:
So I repeat. Again. ... Then shut the f*** up.
Thoughts? Where? I see none. Just seriously weird ramblings.
ict558 wrote:
I just cannot believe you to be much of a scientist, you make too big a deal of it.
Congratulations! You have now convinced me that you are not a scientist at all. BTW: You missed Home Schooling. What a lack of Humility that shows! Children are Supposed to go to school! It is the only Legitimate way to be educated! Who are Home Schoolers trying to Impress? They are probably Religious and Anti-Science, too!
2011 - Our best hope is that things will be frightening and dangerous rather than desperate and horrific. Jesse's Café Américain
-
A non peer-reviewed "study" posted on their own website by two unknown authors whose group's mission statement is that of the "security of the energy supply." Lordy, that's credible!
- F