In an emotional commentary written for the WorldNetDaily (aka WND) Christopher Monckton has said that he’ll take over the journal and publish a first issue in March 2014. He displays what he calls a “mockup cover” (shown below) that consists of his coat of arms along with various cyclic, spirographic, and colorful psychedelic style images of natural and mathematical patterns.
Monckton writes (he calls the editor Rasmussen “the Rabbit” for some reason):
However, The Borg do not allow publishing houses to act as publishing houses. When I recently co-authored a paper with professor Fred Singer on the consequences of chaos theory for the predictability of global warming, the editor of Energy & Environment, one of the few journals to allow skeptical science an airing, ordered my name to be taken off the paper on the ground that it would annoy The Borg. Besides, she said, she did not like my politics (of which there was nothing whatsoever in the paper).
These are the points the Rabbit made in rejecting professor Mörner’s special issue and shutting down the journal:
- “Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus’ attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics.” And why should taking part in scientific debate debar an editor?
- “Before the journal was launched, we had a long discussion regarding its topics. The aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines. PRP was never meant to be a platform for climate skeptics.” It should be a platform for science, wherever the evidence leads.
- “Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled ‘Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts.’ Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they ‘doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project’ (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).” The Rabbit stated no reason for daring to dispute their scientific conclusion?
- “While processing the press release for the special issue, ‘Patterns in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts,’ we read through the general conclusions paper published on 16 December 2013. We were alarmed by the authors’ second implication stating ‘This sheds serious doubts on the issue of a continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project.’” And why was the Rabbit “alarmed”? Because he was told to be.
There is only one reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the above passages. The Age of Reason and Enlightenment is over. The Dark Ages are back.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/01/the-thermageddon-cult-strikes-again/#uptbtelyETT0rmR6.99
Of course, the true measure of a journal’s success will be how much it is read, how often its articles are cited, and whether it gets that all important listing as certified journal in the ISI Web of Knowledge. See: http://ip-science.thomsonreuters.com/mjl/
Of course that last bit isn’t a requirement, but it does help a journal become accepted. I would urge them to apply as soon as their first issue is completed.
All I can say is that I hope the people that tried to publish in the first PRP journal (now closed) find a friendly home there. It will be interesting to watch it evolve and I wish them all the success they deserve.
Judging from the comments in the WND article, it looks like Joseph A Olson (aka FauxScienceSlayer of the Slayers/PSI fame) is queuing up to submit some of his writings. I’m sure other like minded individuals will follow in seeking to publish there.
We live in interesting times.
To have any credibility the rules of the peer review process have to be impartial (in their intent)and must be adhered to.
Will the rules be published?
If this journal isn’t part of the Copernicus family then their rules don’t apply.
So what rules do apply?
See how many of the patterns on the moc-kup front cover you can identify.
William Connolley is already spewing invectives over at WND. I doubt he will last long. Their editorial policy is very strict. Stick to the facts or you are gone.
Lord Monckton,
Alas I have to rely on my eyes and brain wiring to extract patterns. I may not be able to justify the patterns via statistics…. yet my brains says they are there. Woe is me, I see dozens of patterns, in the background image color gradients, the discreet lay outs of the smaller images, the color periods, cycloid and Fibonacci patterns and Archimedes spirals…nice..
But I don’t see the connection to the Heraldry? I expected Monckton but the Portcullis is Somerset?
“The Rabbit said the professor had allowed authors of some papers in the special issue to review other papers in the same issue.
Suppose that had been the Rabbit’s real reason. All he had to do was to tell the professor – who had of course obtained reviews from outside the diverse group of 19 authors as well – to get some more outside reviews.”
—-l
Best line of attack I have seen in the matter.
Physicists theorize that life exemplifies an emergent pattern, inevitable under certain conditions:
https://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140122-a-new-physics-theory-of-life/
http://www.santafe.edu/news/item/smith-braakman-physbio-logic-metabolism/
Christopher Monckton,
In the free marketplace of ideas, I think your proposed journal ‘take over’ plan to sustain a new part of the marketplace is admirable.
I think the important task to further the process of demarcation, of what is science and what is not, will occur in the free marketplace of ideas if the community of science can create a more objective and rational culture.
As for any reborn PRP, there will be controversy by necessity. There should be.
John
Would each item in the Heraldry qualify as a repeating pattern?
The Heraldic symbol used to be on the 1p coin in the UK.
I guessed it was a reference to PR1P – the name of the journal (PRiP).
Of course, the portcullis was on the Tudor Arms which are derived from the House of Beaufort so it may be a windspeed reference.
I support TB not because I agree with he & company (I decisively don’t) but rather because it’s morally imperative that they be assured (via law if necessary) freedom of expression without stalking, harassment, & malicious misrepresentation.
I similarly respect peoples’ right to believe in cAGW, even if it isn’t true.
The key question would be “[does] Copernicus own the journal?”. If they do, then they own the rights to the name and it will not be possible to restart the journal without their consent. Copernicus have two models for starting up a journal, one in which they own the journal and the other where it is owned by the client, see
http://publications.copernicus.org/launch_your_journal.html .
Everyone is acting like Peer-review is like the purple USDA seal of approval but just like the current USDA stamp “peer-reviewed” science today now contains “contamination.. such as feces, vomit and metal shards….(inspectors said they would have taken action under the old system.)”
Peer-review is NOT some sort of magic wand. All it does is make sure the work is reasonably logical, decently written and not plagiarized…. if we are lucky.
The real test is does the paper contain ALL the data, ALL the methods, ALL the computer code and everything else needed to make the information reproducible.
This is the key point and peer-review, as done today by climate scientists ignores it.
Gail Combs says at January 23, 2014 at 7:49 am…
I agree that such a journal would be worthy of the name.
But if that is not the standard that this journal is working to the, so be it.
So long as they were clear that this journal would be less worthy of respect than one that has “ALL the data, ALL the methods, ALL the computer code and everything else needed to make the information reproducible” then it could still perform a service.
A lesser service but at least an honest service.
Thanks Christopher, Lord Monckton. May the new journal prosper on merit.
@Gail Combs
…Peer-review is NOT some sort of magic wand. All it does is make sure the work is reasonably logical, decently written and not plagiarized…. if we are lucky….
Actually, it’s worse than that
What ‘peer review’ ensures is that ‘peers’ are happy with it.
There is a general feeling that this means that it is logical, coherent, etc – but we have seen many examples of situations where climate science arguments are not logical, where conclusions do not follow from the data – all sorts of problems.
‘Peer Review’ is as good as the ‘peers’ doing the review. If they are corrupt, the review is damaging. If they are good, the best peer review can do is weed out the rubbish. This in itself is dangerous – it means that readers may get into the habit of believing that EVERYTHING in a peer-reviewed journal is error-free, and switch their critical facilities off.
If that happens, it is arguably even more damaging…
As they come to mind :
The Vaticans double spiral staircase,
Peacock feathers,
Italian Broccolli,
Computer Graphic Fractal generation,
A Rose,
Coiled up Millipede
Satellite shot of a Hurricane (Just west of the Bahamas at a rough guess)
The sandy thing, the sea-shell looking thing, the yellow flower thing, and the rock aggregate looking thing, not a clue….
Only Christopher Monckton can pull a rabbit out of a broken magician’s hat. What an amazing guy. Kudos GK
Require that the peer reviewers be selected RANDOMLY, and that their NOTES first draft to final are also published.
Sir,
I have spent considerable amount of my spare time spotting patterns in the solar and geomagnetic data; these are persistently characterised as meaningless ‘curve fitting’, which may be so, but they are still unquestionably similar or correlated patterns, I do hope that one or two may find place in the magazine. I wish you best of luck.
It would be interesting to see if the reborn journal will have the guts to also publish the texts of the reviews of each article. This way others can judge if a proper review was done [and by whom].
2-1 Narceus americanus
1-1 The Coat of Arms (or perhaps Heraldic Badge) of Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
1-3 Oscillating chemical reaction.
3-2 Rosebud
2-2 Cyclone
4-2 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5b/Vatican_Museums_Spiral_Staircase_2012.jpg/220px-Vatican_Museums_Spiral_Staircase_2012.jpg
No offense, but the coat of arms doesn’t look that great on the cover and, frankly, detracts from the other impressive looking patterns. If the cover had another natural pattern like the others in the top left box it would look sleeker and more professional. Perhaps reserve the coat of arms for inside the cover, or on the back?
He displays what he calls a “mockup cover” (shown below) that consists of his coat of arms along with various cyclic, spirographic, and colorful psychedelic style images of natural and mathematical patterns.
That is not his coat of arms it is in fact a slightly modified version of the logo of the House of Lords. Monckton has been asked by the House of Lords to discontinue using it but apparently continues to do so.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
See how many of the patterns on the moc-kup front cover you can identify.
#################################
1. will you require that all papers have a proper SI?
2. will you require that all papers supply their data AS USED in the paper.
That is, they should supply an actual copy of the data, rather than pointing
to a pile somewhere as Phil Jones did.
3. Will you require that all authors supply their code used to generate their results
4. Will you retract any paper where the author fails to supply this material?
I bet you’ll try to weasel out of these requirements and be worse than Mann or Jones ever were.
“See how many of the patterns on the moc-kup front cover you can identify.”
Other than the Coat of Arms, they all appear to be variants of the same pattern, an expanding spiral based on the natural logarithmic function, the “Spira Mirabilis”.
the top right may just be a simple spiral, though.
p.s. my guess for the green is a Romanesco Broccoli. Ah, and that magnificent staircase is in the Vatican.
I believe the coat of arms was added as an additional dig to his opponents (tongue in cheek).
Brilliant!! GK
Here’s a picture of a publisher’s board of directors as they decide the fate of one of their journals that transgressed against the consensus.
http://ricksheridan.netmar.com/rosicrucian/graphics/6wisdom-must-die.jpg
Steven Mosher says: “I bet you’ll try to weasel out of these requirements and be worse than Mann or Jones ever were.”
Projection, Steven, projection.
lsvalgaard says: “It would be interesting to see if the reborn journal will have the guts to also publish the texts of the reviews of each article. This way others can judge if a proper review was done [and by whom].”
Yes, indeed, Leif. How many journals already do this?
I see a millipede, a low pressure system (hurricane?), an ammonite, a circular stairwell , a flower (hibiscus?), some unidentifiable vegetables and floral patterns
The repeated visual theme of the downward spiral is presumably a reference to “the dark ages are back.”
I hope that this deal is in the bag but it seems odd that the publishers would sell the title only to attract ridicule.
Anyway, Godspeed to P. R. i. P. redux.
The pattern of the photos themselves replicates the portcullis, with rotation.
The real test is does the paper contain ALL the data, ALL the methods, ALL the computer code and everything else needed to make the information reproducible.
GAIL NAILS IT!
Papers are not science. Papers are words and figures that ADVERTISE the science that the author says he did.
Monckton will now be put to the test. Can he demand that authors to his Journal provide code and data? or will he be a sleaze like Mann and Jones
Most importantly will his reputation survive if fraudulant results are exposed?
I’m with Gail, Mosher, and Leif. If this journal is going to be anything more than a repository for way out there ideas, it needs these tools.
Lord Monckton I support your point of view and I congratulate our host for possting despite his misgivings regarding the publication circumstances of PRP.
The apparent spat with Tallbloke over this issue is unfortunate and the revealed animosity regarding Willis Eschenbach (I am a fan) is not edifying and comes at a bad time.
As has already been stated may the new journal prosper on merit.
I assume that as long as Lord Monckton reads everything that goes into his new journal, he can claim that it is definately ‘Peer’ reviewed.
jorgekafkazar says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:47 am
“It would be interesting to see if the reborn journal will have the guts to also publish the texts of the reviews of each article. This way others can judge if a proper review was done [and by whom].”
Yes, indeed, Leif. How many journals already do this?
None that I know of. And this would be a way for the new journal to improve on that sorry statistics, specially for papers that may be controversial.
On my own website I publish the text of the reviews of my own papers.
It is a commonly practiced bit of strategery to provide one’s opponents a length of rope sufficient that they will find irresistible the opportunity for self suspension.
It seems poor form to reuse the rope.
lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:01 am
jorgekafkazar says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:47 am
“It would be interesting to see if the reborn journal will have the guts to also publish the texts of the reviews of each article. This way others can judge if a proper review was done [and by whom].”
Yes, indeed, Leif. How many journals already do this?
None that I know of. And this would be a way for the new journal to improve on that sorry statistics, specially for papers that may be controversial.
On my own website I publish the text of the reviews of my own papers.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is the ideal way. In fact, peer review should improve the paper and so the reviewer becomes, in a sense, a co-author. He should be identified. Good for you , Leif.
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:37 am
Monckton of Brenchley says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
See how many of the patterns on the moc-kup front cover you can identify.
#################################
1. will you require that all papers have a proper SI?
2. will you require that all papers supply their data AS USED in the paper.
That is, they should supply an actual copy of the data, rather than pointing
to a pile somewhere as Phil Jones did.
3. Will you require that all authors supply their code used to generate their results
4. Will you retract any paper where the author fails to supply this material?
I bet you’ll try to weasel out of these requirements and be worse than Mann or Jones ever were.
__________________________________
Mosh, You’ve made some good points about what would be needed for a journal’s validity, but your sentiment and “bet” at the end…. let’s just say that you didn’t do yourself any favors.
JJ says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:16 am
” … It seems poor form to reuse the rope.”
—-l
But makes perfect economic sense 🙂
If Monckton suggests that he will start with a March 2014 issue. I hope he realises that recruiting action editors, attracting papers, sending them out for review, performing round or two of satisfactory peer review and getting the papers typeset in that timeframe is, errr… somwhat ambitious!
Parthlan says: @ January 23, 2014 at 8:57 am
It just proves skeptics are cats not herd animals. Try herding cats sometime – a can of tuna works well :>)
– – – – – – – – – –
Christopher Monckton,
Thank you for teeing up the issues surrounding the PRP situation wrt the open and free marketplace of ideas. Any given commenter’s position on the PRP scenario is an interesting litmus test about the nature of her/his world view (intellectual framework).
The intellectual dialog between world systems of the rational (free and open marketplace of ideas) versus the irrational (closed cults) has been going on for 3,000+ years. It is NEVER going to end. Nor should it end.
The question is not whether bunches of intellectually fashionable fanboys and herds of uncritical sheep will try to use coercion in the dialog to thwart the free and open marketplace of ideas. They always will try; look at history. The question is whether a lone individual has generic encouragement from his/her culture to courageously argue for the fundamental right to pursue life, liberty, happiness and intellectual independence/activity? Any world view is critically defined by that question.
I applaud you (CM) for intending, by your takeover plans of PRP, to let the free and open marketplace of ideas deal with the past PRP objectivity issues surrounding Tallbloke et al.
And CM, no doom and gloom dark age is near the place we are now. : ) Just keep vigilant to keep it that way.
John
And if he lets WUWT rake the online preprints over the coals, he can claim it’s been jeer reviewed as well.
I hope it does well. It can only open up new perspectives. Now why do I think Willis and Anthony will be getting free lifetime subscriptions? 🙂
REPLY: Likely all subscriptions will be free, I doubt they’ll be able to charge for an “open access” journal – Anthony
@Steven Mosher says:
“I bet you’ll try to weasel out of these requirements and be worse than Mann or Jones ever were.”
+1
The American Society of Testing and Materials has, in the past two decades, expanded from publishing standards in materials testing to developing and publishing professional practice standards. Those latter standards have established minimum criteria for various professional practices: For example: ASTM E678 – 07(2013):Standard Practice for Evaluation of Scientific or Technical Data; ASTM E1020 – 13 Standard Practice for Reporting Incidents that May Involve Criminal or Civil Litigation; ASTM E1527 – 13 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process;
If only Peer Review could be standardized in a similar manner. Of course, academics will counter that they are not “Professionals” – a claim that no-one who follows the unethical escapades of some of them (names not needed here) would contradict.
Too bad – we professionals have licenses which we could lose over the kind of shenanigans academics pull off.
Tom G(ologist) says:
January 23, 2014 at 9:59 am
Too bad – we professionals have licenses which we could lose over the kind of shenanigans academics pull off.
Standards are good, but ANYBODY should be allowed to publish scientific research, regardless of credentials and licences. If the paper survives peer-review that is enough.
Of course, the true measure of a journal’s success will be how much it is read, how often its articles are cited, and whether it gets that all important listing as certified journal in the ISI Web of Knowledge.
A missing element is it must be profitable.
Newspapers and magazines first and foremost exist to sell advertising. Content is the inducement.
At the least the benefits to be gained by the publisher must outweigh its costs. Benefits can be measured in more than $. Often benefits include political influence to an extent where the monetary losses are inconsequential in comparison.
I can understand the vomit and feces, but I can’t understand the metal shards bit.
“A missing element is it must be profitable.”
This is not true, some of the best journals, e.g. JMLR are published on a not-for-profit basis (in the case of JMLR it is even free for both authors and readers).
So the storm in a teacup, supposedly over proper procedure of publishers review, was the best online advertising campaign to date.?
As for the good lords new magazine, time will tell.
I will be interested and the future of running speculations of science by the minds of the public is being explored.
The current practise of blocking articles from being published, if the reviewer disbelieves the concept is profoundly anti discovery, denigrates inquiring minds.
Reviewers would be far better employed if focussed on ensuring an article is written clearly, the concept is clear and the claimed data is attached.
So much of journal material of late has been deliberately obscure waffle.
The journals interest is attracting readers complete with the advertisers who follow, the readers interest is mental stimulation, learn something new, be inspired… and so on.
But asking an editor or an unpaid reviewer to be an expert in every topic or devote the time to really dig into a new look at an old subject is asking too much of most.
As for posting the reviewers comments, fine idea as long as they are a footnote, not the dominant feature and that the reviewers have the choice of anonymity if they desire.
True testing of an idea begins once it is released into the wild.
Says Watts: I’m with Gail, Mosher, and Leif. If this journal is going to be anything more than a repository for way out there ideas, it needs these tools.”
I didn’t realize that “way out there” ideas was a reason to stop someone from expressing them. Let people think as they will: bad ideas will die on the vine. “Way out there” ideas may spark some reasonable line of inquiry. After all, is it not possible that the Watts et al view could use some improvements or (perish the thought!) weaknesses that might be considered?
The WUWT put-down sounds more like an attempt to keep the CAGW discussion within the bounds of what a “team” considers the “correct” approach to be, determined through some consensus among the players.
Ah, that terribly double-edge thing, skepticism.
It is his journal project and I wish the Lord well.
My hope is that this Journal will be substantially web based whether or not it has a paper medium. Web will keep costs down, and raise readership.
A web based delivery could be various subscription levels of access, for example:
Free: To the abstract and key pages or illustrations. (like books.google does)
Level1: To the papers.
Level2: To the papers and reader’s comment area
Level3: all Level 2 plus, separate section for registered peer-reviewers post publication comments.
Level4: All level 3 plus raw data and code.
Level 5: All level 4 plus pre-publication review’s comments and drafts.
It could be based upon subscription or per article, like an iTunes purchase model. I’m not advocating DRM, but it could be an element to help with profitability.
In the web, Journal articles need not be static. No Journal Article need be “Retracted”, but corrections, failures to replicate, and refutations can be added to the article as time evolves, section by section, conclusion by conclusion. The world needs a dynamic citation protocol that tracks evolution of citations from paper to paper.
The internet changed the music publishing and distribution business. Given how scientific research was the progenitor of the internet, it is amazing to me how little the world of scientific journal publication has changed in 20 years in comparison.
Is there a “Steve Jobs” that is or is about to change the business of journal publishing?
Monckton of Brenchley says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
See how many of the patterns on the moc-kup front cover you can identify.
is that a sign of a classic Greek scholar ?
Plato For a child direct it to what may amuses his minds, thus you may find with accuracy his inner genius’ inclination.
Sir
May I add another quote which may be appropriate:
Forgive a child that fears the dark; the tragedy is when men fear the light.
Re: the excitable Rabbit…. The White Rabbit from Alice in Wonderland, I think? Such a twitchy, panicked, small-minded, sycophant certainly fits the bill, anyway… .
Perhaps, the “shell thing” is a Chambered Nautilus, like the one that inspired Oliver Wendell Holmes…
This is the ship of pearl, which, poets feign,
Sails the unshadowed main,–
The venturous bark that flings
On the sweet summer wind its purpled wings
In gulfs enchanted, where the Siren sings,
And coral reefs lie bare,
Where the cold sea-maids rise to sun their streaming hair.
Its webs of living gauze no more unfurl;
Wrecked is the ship of pearl!
And every chambered cell,
Where its dim dreaming life was wont to dwell,
As the frail tenant shaped his growing shell,
Before thee lies revealed,–
Its irised ceiling rent, its sunless crypt unsealed!
Year after year beheld the silent toil
That spread his lustrous coil;
Still, as the spiral grew,
He left the past year’s dwelling for the new,
Stole with soft step its shining archway through,
Built up its idle door,
Stretched in his last-found home,
and knew the old no more.
Best wishes, Christopher Monckton, on the birth of your latest shining venture, a spacious fortress where truth can thrive and grow,
Janice
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 8:37 am
“I bet you’ll try to weasel out of these requirements and be worse than Mann or Jones ever were.”
Mosh, do you mean to say that Mann or Jones practiced some measure of restraint in their weasling, or that their imaginations were taxed to the limit to achieve some intermediate level.? I have to admit that it seems to me they did as thorough a job as possible of weaslying. Monckton, with far superior intelligence and imagination, I fear, could only match their weasling if he were to put his best effort to it. You would lose this bet.
Gail Combs says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:49 am
Peer-review is NOT some sort of magic wand. All it does is make sure the work is reasonably logical, decently written and not plagiarized…. if we are lucky.
The real test is does the paper contain ALL the data, ALL the methods, ALL the computer code and everything else needed to make the information reproducible.
This is the key point and peer-review, as done today by climate scientists ignores it.
YES! Feynman could not have put it better.
Re: “metal shards” (Richard Sharpe (10:13am) — Gail must speak for herself, of course, but, I think she was referring to the tiny amount of metal that would be allowed in a sample of food for human consumption (and still pass inspection). Not likely to harm anyone, I think. Heh, just consider it a bonus mineral supplement!
@ Gary Pearse — LOL — good one.
I have been saddened by many of the comments here as I suspect have been many others. Few of the regular contributors to WUWT have had the guts to travel worldwide as has Lord Monkton lecturing and teaching us all about the nonsense promoted by AGW disciples. WUWT seems to be a little small minded here and unwilling to grant credit where it is due. I wish Lord Monkton the very best of luck with this venture.
OT
London students on the first telescope observation lesson discover a closest observed supernova !
Monckton of Brenchley says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
See how many of the patterns on the moc-kup front cover you can identify.
———————————————————————————————-
All the patterns have one thing in common to my eye. A Fibonacci spiral.
Godwin’s Second Law – when World Nut Daily is linked, it’s time to say goodnight, Gracie.
Re: the broccoli — my math professor cousin used broccoli (the kind commonly sold in U. S. grocery stores, not the kind above, though) to explain fractals to me.
@dikranmarsupial at 10:14 am
I urge you to consider the point that people make money off of non-for-profit ventures all the time. And even if everyone involved is paid not one thin dime, there are benefits that arise from the effort in the currency of reputation, influence, and prestige. It is profitable as in “worth the effort and cost” to those that do it.
Richard Sharpe says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:13 am
just like the current USDA stamp “peer-reviewed” science today now contains “contamination.. such as feces, vomit and metal shards…”
I can understand the vomit and feces, but I can’t understand the metal shards bit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Automated meat slicing comes to mind. They use assembly lines for processing and much of it is automated.
The study of the Golden Ratio and Fibonacci patterns in nature have a long and venerable history. The proportion, symmetry and beauty of all nature seems to reflect order, and invite numerical and philosophical contemplation and hypothesizing. Here is Vihart’s Doodling in Math, showing examples of Fibonacci spirals in nature (great for kids too):
I do enjoy the shape of pinwheel galaxies, and I suppose there are mathematical/proportional reasons why it is aesthetically pleasing. Architecture, art and sculpture utilize these same proportions. Ya gotta love people who love the Golden Ratio. They are one of the spices of life.
http://www.amazon.com/Curves-Dover-books-explaining-science/dp/048623701X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1390242767&sr=1-1&keywords=the+curves+of+life
Enjoy the new journal.
Stephen Rasey perhaps you should investigate the example I gave in a bit more detail. Most of the work done in academic publishing – the writing and peer review of the papers is done for free by the academic community, commercial publishers don’t pay for any of this, they get it for free. These days most authors are pretty competent with LaTeX and so can do a fair job of the typeseting for themselves (although a production editor is still required to collate everything and make sure everything is done to a very high standard). The cost of hosting the web site and some funding for the production costs is not a great deal of money in the great scheme of things, and the benefit for the research community is that they get to publish their work and read that of their fellow academics for free. There is no need for anyone to make money out of it, the academic community profits by not giving money to the publisher for work that can be mostly done by the academics. This is making better use of the tax payers money, what is there not to like? All IMHO, of course.
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2011 was awarded to Dan Schechtman for his discovery of the quasi-crystal. When he announced his results, he was given a crystallography textbook to study and was asked to leave the research groups. But as others were able to replicate his work, he was vindicated.
“Here is an interesting bit about the quasi-crystal:
The golden ratio – a key provided
A fascinating aspect of both quasicrystals and aperiodic mosaics is that the golden ratio
of mathematics and art, the mathematical constant
τ
(tau), occurs over and over again. For instance, the ratio between the
numbers of fat and thin rhombi in Penrose’s mosaic is
τ
. Similarly, the ratio of various distances between
atoms in quasicrystals is always related to
τ
.
The mathematical constant
τ
is described by a sequence of numbers that the 13th-century Italian mathematician Fibonacci worked out from a hypothetical experiment dealing with rabbit reproduction. In this
well-known sequence, each number is the sum of the two preceding numbers: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55,
89, 144, etc. If you divide one of the higher numbers in the Fibonacci sequence with the preceding number
– for instance, 144/89 – you get a number that is close to the golden ratio.
Both the Fibonacci sequence and the golden ratio are important to scientists when they want to use a diffraction pattern to describe quasicrystals at the atomic level. The Fibonacci sequence can also explain
how the discovery awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2011 has altered chemists’ conception of regularity in crystals.”
ref pdf included here: http://zekeunlimited.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/crystals-of-golden-proportions/
In addition to natural spirals, nature seems to know a hexagon. Here’s a photo of Saturn’s Polar Vortex.
Snowflakes are all hexagons too:
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5197/20131205/saturns-unique-hexagon-jet-stream-captured-gifs-nasas-cassini-probe.htm
No two snowflakes are alike, but they are all hexagons. Haven’t seen one yet that’s a pentagon. Anyone here know (have a scientific reason) why Saturn’s polar vortex is in the shape of a hexagon???
Maybe God likes hexagons:
https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=real+snowflake+pictures&client=firefox-a&hs=FWR&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=TGzhUsKXLaqX2QX724DoAQ&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=619
Zeke, thanks for sharing that delightful Fibonacci video (at 11:11 — you did that post time on purpose, no doubt, heh). Enjoyed it!
And thanks for the info., J. Philip Peterson.
“…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.” Romans 1:19.
“… God is not a God of disorder… .” I. Corinthians 14:33.
Gloria in excelsis Deo!
” Monckton, with far superior intelligence and imagination, I fear, could only match their weasling if he were to put his best effort to it. You would lose this bet.”
i will bet that Monkton doesnt have the guts to make a stand on the data sharing code sharing issue. If he does muster up the courage he will promise one thing and do another. or he will launch into a litany of excuses that will surpass those imagined by Mann or Jones.
He can prove me wrong very easily:
he can come here and proclaim that his journal will strictly enforce an open data and open code policy no ifs and or buts.
That said, if monckton does not support open data and open code, then I’m sure you and others will defend him.
But prove me wrong. state here and now your position.
Apologies in advance. No worries about peer review – every paper that Lord Monckton publishes, presumably after reading and approving it, will have been peer reviewed.
(Retires, cowering from expected storm of scorn)
Good luck, sir! A noble project.
Spirals are also a symbol of hope.
As C. S. Lewis wrote (in A Grief Observed), when one is mourning a great loss, one can feel like one is wearily trodding, endlessly, in a circle. When will I feel joy again? Will I ever feel joy again??……….. Then, one day, one realizes that one is not walking in a circle at all; one is on a spiral. One is slowly, but surely, going — up.
Gail Combs says: January 23, 2014 at 9:38 am
It just proves skeptics are cats not herd animals. Try herding cats sometime – a can of tuna works well :>)
If you actually have a herd of cats, Gail, then a single can of tuna merely incites them to try and trim down the competition, usually with a lot of noise and threatening gestures.
Softly: Gail Combs for President.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
See how many of the patterns on the moc-kup front cover you can identify.
There is only one type of pattern (I think) they seem to be variants of the Fibonacci sequence.
Called out to Vigilant Fish as he hurries off…
“Good show, Vigilant! A fine pun to honor a fine man……..
…….. Vigilant?……………….. VIGILANT!……. I SAID, ‘Good show,’ old man!…… .”
Ah, there… he doffed his cap…. he heard me. Good.
Sure Janice. Here it is as it appears in the human form:
https://www.google.com/search?q=golden+ratio+in+the+human+hand&client=firefox-a&hs=SC7&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=h3HhUsnIJIjwoASj4IHYAw&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=911&bih=443
You can see if you scroll down that even dentists can use the Golden Ratio effectively for results. But to see it in space is also is interesting.
Peer review isn’t good enough. Make it public review via “pre-print” versions on the web and you might have something. Let the final publication be a sequence of thesis-criticism-rebuttal sections.
I agree with the idea of sharing data, possibly under a general public license agreement?
Is it a requirement of any-other form of publishing in scientific journals or is the bar standard being unreasonably too high in this case for some reason?
I think Lord Monkton’s move is excellent for science.
I guess I’m no different from many on this excellent site in that I visit most of the links on the right-side of the page daily including TB, Jonova et al. Again like everyone else I’ve donated to many of the sites over the years. The recent difference of opinion between Anthony and Roger is disappointing and sad but I am not party to the underlying issues nor should I be. All I want to see is true open-minded investigation of the issues. If, at the end of the day, the CAGW meme is proven beyond doubt then that’s fine (I’d be mightily surprised) and if the sun proved to be the defining issue then that’s fine too, I suspect there is no one driver of climate but a multitude of factors many of which are, even now, unknown to us – ultimately the more we understand about our environment the better for everyone now and in the future for their short stay on this tiny ball.
Several here are taking pot shots at the processes already before anything has been published – I’m sure LM et al know what is required when their first papers are published – they have to get past Willis, Anthony, Bob etc and that won’t be easy. So the standards had better be high to survive the first hurdle. As for the CAGW crowd, well they won’t change their minds even if a polar bear bit them on the bum at the equator, they are becoming irrelevant pretty fast, hence the wilder scenarios and scary predictions.
The key people are the politicians – we’ve known all along this is a political issue and as long as our standards are maintained then we can withstand any accusations from the “interested” parties.
So I wish SCIENCE all the best in the world, we need you but only if you retain your independence and objectivity, anything else and you are just the same as any other activist group.
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:41 am
That said, if monckton does not support open data and open code, then I’m sure you and others will defend him.
Accidental post before text to above.
It blows my mind how quick people defend work they agree with out of hand and conversely put in enormous effort to disprove what does not sit well.
The Golden Rectangle is the basis for the Golden Ratio and is supposedly the most pleasing shape for a rectangle. Also the basis for the spirals shown.
https://www.google.com.mx/search?q=golden+rectangle+spiral&client=firefox-a&hs=f1R&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=6HPhUpCmHOrK2gW0kYGgBA&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=619
(You take a perfect square, use one point of a compass on – well here are the steps:
http://www.wikihow.com/Construct-a-Golden-Rectangle )
Thanks Janice…
One of the better ideas from a commenter here,( for an online magazine on first thought anyway) is pay to comment.
Perhaps this would limit online review to the truly committed.
This would require the footnotes including all reviewers work, to ensure a comment does not reinvent the wheel.
Given the collapse of the print journals,we need to find a better way to play with ideas.
Fascinating to witness a medium evolve.
We could do a lot worse than the WUWT model.
Thanks, Zeke, for your illustrations. If you make a spiral whose length doubles with each winding, it is a model for sound frequency on the spiral, and our tonal system on twelve car-wheel axes. The angles between axes represent our musical intervals. Musically experienced people hear the axes as discrete sets of tones with the octave relationship. So spirals are everywhere outside, in our cochlea, and in our brain.
Sign me up for a subscription
So Monckton is ’emotional’ (I fail to see much difference with many of his other writings featured here) and with the penultimate paragraph you link the slayers. Anthony, your good wishes are belied by your other words here. Nice to see you adopt wholesale the modus operandi of the alarmist fog horns. Interesting times indeed /sarc
“Monckton of Brenchley says:January 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
See how many of the patterns on the moc-kup front cover you can identify.”
4. I’m failing and I know it ;(
Very trippy cover man. What were you doing in the 1960s??
Good luck.
Well done Lord Monckton.
I believe it should be free to access to give maximum publicity.
Many top journals insist on Latex typescript, so the job is 90% done.
Most journals have a template guide to ensure the paper will fit the final format.
Authors submit their paper in Latex form plus a pdf copy plus supplementary information.
The editor views the pdf and makes a go/nogo decision.
If go (so far):
A suitable reviewer is selected from a panel.
Authors submission sent to reviewer.
Review compiles a brief review, returns all to the editor.
Editor makes final decision (may go round the loop once or twice if paper can be improved)
Editor sends final papers in Latex to layout editor
Layout editor combines all papers into one volume, adds index and uploads to website.
Uploads supplementary information to website.
Job done, go to pub….
Thank you Christopher Monckton. I’ve been waiting for Ivanka Charvatova’s new paper to come out. It now looks like that just might happen.
‘Is it a requirement of any-other form of publishing in scientific journals or is the bar standard being unreasonably too high in this case for some reason?”
no. we are asking for the same thing we demanded of others
here is an example
http://climateaudit.org/2006/04/21/another-inch-at-sciencemag/
http://climateaudit.org/2008/6/11/10/santer-refuses-data-request/
Monckton is on record agreeing that data and code should be released. we will see if he stands by his previous position
Janice says: @ January 23, 2014 at 11:47 am
If you actually have a herd of cats, Gail,…
>>>>>>>>>>>>
I have two at this time and two is a herd, just ask my equines. And yes the tuna can with kibble works fine but then they know where the food dishes are :>)
One of my hubby’s favorite tricks is to give a bucket of feed to an obnoxious teenager and send them out to feed the sheep and goats… June (a sable) standing on her hind feet is close to six feet and she is really good at getting her head in the bucket and dragging it away from you.
That’s Al Gore’s backward spinning hurricane.
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:07 pm
‘data and code should be released
There are practical problems with this. For example the data we collect from the SDO-satellite amounts to 1,000,000 megabytes per day….
Joseph Murphy says: @ January 23, 2014 at 12:09 pm
…It blows my mind how quick people defend work they agree with out of hand and conversely put in enormous effort to disprove what does not sit well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is how science works and that is why ALL data and methods must be available and may the best man be left standing after the fray.
A Herculean waste of effort. I can only wonder why?
“…the data we collect from the SDO-satellite amounts to 1,000,000 megabytes per day….
Good grief, that’s even more than next years iPhone.
1000 Gig per day is a lot to store, let alone handle. How much of this translates into the data you actually use for scientific analysis, though?
I do wish Lord Monckton, whom I am proud to say is a friend of mine, and who is the very model of the essential eccentric Englishman, the best of luck with the journal.
Were I in his shoes, I’d see if I could assemble a serious reviewing team. I’d do my best to include people like Steven McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Steven Mosher, Anthony Watts, Zeke Hausfather, Judith Curry, and other skeptics and lukewarmers with a nose for bad numbers and a proven ability to critically dissect and find the flaws in climate claims, along with whoever he can find from the AGW supporters who is honest and brave and has those same skill sets. Don’t want any yes men, no “I believe it so there’s no need for mathematics” folk, nobody like that.
I’d assign referees, and do my best to double blind the papers although that’s not truly possible. Then when the paper was published, I’d publish the referee’s comments, and their names, as supplementary online information for the paper. We are wasting people’s time as reviewers. They do a decisive, incisive review, good thoughts and ideas … and it never sees the light of day. We’re calling on their intellect and knowledge, asking them to work, and then foolishly throwing their work product in the trash. This is particularly true if they still have reservations or if the paper is published over their objections. Those objections should be made known at the time of publication. We solicited their opinion for a reason. I think this would make it easier rather than harder to get reviewers, because of the opportunity to have their ideas published as well as those of the authors of the paper.
Then I’d make the public archiving of data as used and code as run de rigeur. No handwaving at a giant pile of data and saying “I got my data from that pile.” No claims that its all so simple that the verbal description suffices. If the written description alone sufficed, then the authors wouldn’t have needed to use a spreadsheet or a computer program, would they?
Finally, I’d shoot anyone who cites the IPCC report, or any other extensive text or large document, without giving specific information as to chapter, page, and verse. To me, that is the sure sign of a charlatan, just saying “Oh, the IPCC said it, check their report” … yeah, all 5,000 pages of it. The citation I love is seeing some outlandish claim with a footnote number [5], and when I go to footnote [5] I find something like “IPCC AR5, Susan Solomon, Ed., Porkoisie Press, 2007”. Thanks a heap.
Sorry, but that kind of handwaving is not science in any shape or form. As a result, I was as dismayed as Copernicus was about the statement that the authors and editors “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project”. I don’t know why the Copernicus folks were dismayed, but I didn’t like it for scientific reasons—it is scientifically meaningless because it doesn’t say what the heck they are talking about at either end of the statement. Which exact IPCC claim are they referring to, and exactly which part of which paper of their special issue falsifies that exact claim?
The problem with their statement, that their 19 papers puts the IPCC in doubt, is not that they questioned the consensus. The problem is that their statement is nothing but vague unfalsifiable pseudo-scientific twaddle that has no place in a scientific paper. All it says is “Our pile of paper beats your pile of paper, so there!”
In any case, if Christopher does those few simple things, he’ll have a very, very interesting publication, and one that will be bulletproof to the kinds of problems that led to the earlier cancellation. As I said before, he’s a great guy, a wicked-smart thinker, and an inspired Bedlam escapee of my favorite kind. I wish him every success in the world with his new venture.
w.
PJF says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:31 pm
1000 Gig per day is a lot to store, let alone handle. How much of this translates into the data you actually use for scientific analysis, though?
for some analysis, all of it [that is the whole purpose of collecting that much data].
Out of curiosity … what scientific training/credentials does Moncton have???
Gail Combs says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:17 pm
—-l
The only effective way I know of to herd cats is with catnip. But that might be viewed as cheating 🙂
@negrum – Catnip? Then you have a bunch of drunk cats that cannot walk straight! 😉
=======================================================================
There’s a millipede, a rose, a hurricane, a staircase. Maybe pollen? A sea urchin? A swirl of orange sherbert? Bottom right, somebody’s bad trip?
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:07 pm
no. we are asking for the same thing we demanded of others
Monckton is on record agreeing that data and code should be released. we will see if he stands by his previous position
It doesn’t sound unreasonable to me for scientists and reviewers to have access to data, bar some impracticalities mentioned of sharing the data. More transparency with data done properly would be a step in the right direction for all I would think!
lsvalgaard wrote:
January 23, 2014 at 1:36 pm
“for some analysis, all of it [that is the whole purpose of collecting that much data].”
Interesting. I assumed (always a mistake) that the satellite was collecting a whole range of information for various individual studies.
Steven Mosher’s suggestion was that “all papers supply their data AS USED in the paper”. Your practicality point is well made if a paper relates to a study that made use of a supercomputer that crunched through thousands of millions of megabytes of data.
PJF says:
January 23, 2014 at 2:23 pm
Interesting. I assumed (always a mistake) that the satellite was collecting a whole range of information for various individual studies.
And throw away the rest? No, the main purpose of SDO is to study the Sun’s interior by looking at how sound waves propagate across and through the sun. For this we need [and use] the whole sun [many megabytes every few seconds]. For some high-energy physics experiments [LHC of Higgs fame] collect many orders of magnitudes more. It is not practical to publish ALL the data and ALL the code for most experiments. At best, a researcher can publish a digest [so-called ‘high-level’ data] of the raw data, and then one has to trust that digest [and scientist].
Mosher’s insulting cynicism is ridiculous. Once I would have expected more from him. No longer.
‘lsvalgaard says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:18 pm
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:07 pm
‘data and code should be released
There are practical problems with this. For example the data we collect from the SDO-satellite amounts to 1,000,000 megabytes per day….
#####################
what you have set out for SDO is a good example. No problems here
The SDO science investigators agree to abide the Rules of the Road developed for the Sun-Earth Connection and its successor, the Heliophysics Division. These are:
The Principal Investigators (PI) shall make available to the science data user community (Users) the same access methods to reach the data and tools as the PI uses.
The PI shall notify Users of updates to processing software and calibrations via metadata and other appropriate documentation.
Users shall consult with the PI to ensure that the Users are accessing the most recent available versions of the data and analysis routines.
Browse products are not intended for science analysis or publication and should not be used for those purposes without consent of the PI.
Users shall acknowledge the sources of data used in all publications and reports.
Users shall include in publications the information necessary to allow others to access the particular data used.
Users shall transmit to the PI a copy of each manuscript that uses the PI’s data upon submission of that manuscript for consideration of publication.
Users are encouraged to make tools of general utility widely available to the community.
Users are also encouraged to make available value-added data products. Users producing such products must notify the PI and must clearly label the product as being different from the original PI-produced data product. Producers of value-added products should contact the PI to ensure that such products are based on the most recent versions of the data and analysis routines. With mutual agreement, Users may work with the PI to enhance the instrument data processing system, by integrating their products and tools.
The editors and referees of scientific journals should avail themselves of the expertise of the PI while a data set is still unfamiliar to the community, and when it is uncertain whether authors have employed the most up-to-date data and calibrations.
A good start would be if submitters to Monckton’s new journal adopted a similar approach to Willis Eschenbach’s WUWT science posts – all data, code etc available.
Steven Mosher says: “I bet you’ll try to weasel out of these requirements and be worse than Mann or Jones ever were.”
I’ll bet he doesn’t LOL.
Janice Moore says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:50 am
Called out to Vigilant Fish as he hurries off…
——-
Hi Janice. I’ve been enjoying your contributions here. Thanks for not booing my rather uncharacteristic post, which is not really worth of this thread! BTW I, like you, am a woman!
One of the virtues of WUWT is how most participants share a deep and serious concern about the conduct of science, and are worried about how science has been derailed by the earnest and often self-promoting efforts of do-gooders, ideologues, and activists. The peer review system is indeed broken, and I applaud Steve McIntyre’s efforts, along with many of those here, to push mainstream science journals to insist on providing raw data, algorithms used, code, etc.
I like Willis’s idea for a who should be potential peer reviewers. It would be a lot of work, however. I hope Willis is willing to include himself!
Some excellent peer review goes on here, too. It is a tremendous thrill to see unsupported claims shredded by commenters at WUWT.
Well, to have any luck with it at all, good or bad, ‘is Lordship would first have to get said journal.
It would seem unlikely that him what has it is just going give it over to him what says he’ll take it, given that said Journal Keeper has recently been publically referred to by said Peer as, among other things, “…a formless lump of lard.”
Unless, of course, said Journal Keeper is want to exact revenge for the aforementioned unflattering commentary, and is also willing to temporarily part with custody of one slightly soiled rope, on the fairly strong prospect that doing so will get him satisfaction in short order. In that case, Lord Monckton may yet get that for which he has asked.
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 3:32 pm
what you have set out for SDO is a good example. No problems here
The difference is that the access to the data is not provided by the author, but [usually] by a link to the ‘pile’ of data….
No, heirloom crops and local-only policies would spell disaster for the majority of the people in this country and the world. Those crops were often wiped out completely either by storm weather or by rust, blight, mildew, etc. and left farmers with nothing. They would all have to shift to some other cash crop – for example flax instead of wheat – because the outbreak was so devastating to a region.
Today, it is world wide shipping, tractors, new cultivars, fertilizers, and pest control that allows quick response and stable prices when any particular region suffers. Heirloom and local only is a fantasy based on re-written history and extreme ideologies in fashion amongst progressive scientists right now.
Excuse me, I thought I was on another thread
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/bbc-runs-6-excellent-minutes-on-quiet-sun-and-past-correlation-with-little-ice-age/
TLMango says:
January 23, 2014 at 12:51 pm
Thank you Christopher Monckton. I’ve been waiting for Ivanka Charvatova’s new paper to come out. It now looks like that just might happen.
Here you go
http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/prp-2-21-2014.pdf
So nice to see Willis and Mosh dictating policy to PRP.
Naff off the pair of you. we’ll do it our own way thanks.
REPLY: so right off the bat, solid suggestions for making your new journal more immune to criticism (for preventing pal review, etc) are summarily rejected. How disappointing, but not surprising.
Well then ignore those suggestions, and you’ll end up with a journal of low standards. Personally I’d like to see it done in a way that it succeeds getting listed on the WOK journal list, but without proper controls it most certainty will have an uphill battle. – Anthony
“Besides, she said, she did not like my politics (of which there was nothing whatsoever in the paper).”
How depressing.
I don’t like your politics, either, but I recognize that your politics are irrelevant to your tightly constructed arguments about Global Warming. And I appreciate your elegant prose too.
I would have hoped a professional editor could do the same. Very disheartening to see this is not so.
JR says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Do you mean the city of Moncton, New Brunswick?
dikranmarsupial says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:14 am
“A missing element is it must be profitable.”
This is not true, some of the best journals, e.g. JMLR are published on a not-for-profit basis (in the case of JMLR it is even free for both authors and readers).
———————————————————-
Then why do they charge so much to access a single article?
Hi, Ms. Vigilant Fish,
Thanks for swimming back to let me know (ooops — I proved that aphorism about making assumptions, once again… sigh). Thank you for your kind words.
Happy posting!
Janice
(wasn’t that weird that “Janice” posted right after me?! — I have had “Craig Moore” (I have no idea who he is) do that, too — fun coincidences……… wait — a — minute — there’s a correlation in there somewhere, thus,………….. {cue Bob Weber (the solar-flares-make-people-act-weird guy)} –> causation!
#(:))
******************************************************
Re: “emotional” — yeah, I didn’t get that either. Huh? How so?
(is this connected to the sneeringly dismissive “Salby’s Slide Show” characterization of another Monckton post from late 2013? — What’s up? — is M-osh-er doing a little ghost writing?)
btw: when one reads Mr. M-osh-er’s comments on any thread that discusses his group’s BEST temperature reconstruction project, it is CLEAR that he is sold out to AGW, and not merely “lukewarm.” I would NEVER include him on any editorial board whose goal is to GET THE TRUTH OUT about human CO2. Of course, he may simply be posing on WUWT (and others would know that far better than I), but, if he is in reality as he appears to be in his comments on WUWT, he is not for science: he is for propaganda.
“Besides, she said, she did not like my politics (of which there was nothing whatsoever in the paper”
I know exactly what this is about having trodden that path myself years ago; however I managed to get published thanks to Bob Foster who was guest editor.
Re: editorial board
We are in a WAR for truth, here, folks. We are not out to forge a negotiated armistice. We are out to win. Including enemy or even non-committal generals in the staff room will NOT help win. It will only impede truth.
And we do not need the stamp of approval of the AGWers (lukewarm or boiling mad) to be seen as credible. Genuine science, stands alone.
Those who disagree with what is published, given that all data, code, etc… is also published to the extent practical, will have AMPLE opportunity to be the potential countering voice in their own publications. Let the “marketplace of ideas” sort it out. We do not need an opposing viewpoint filter. That will waste time and will hinder truth, not simply filter out shoddy work.
We are advocating for truth, not writing up the minutes of a meeting where all the views presented must be represented fairly.
Willis Eschenbach wrote:
January 23, 2014 at 1:33 pm
“I’d do my best to include people like Steven McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Steven Mosher, Anthony Watts, Zeke Hausfather, Judith Curry, and other skeptics and lukewarmers with a nose for bad numbers and a proven ability to critically dissect and find the flaws in climate claims, along with whoever he can find from the AGW supporters who is honest and brave and has those same skill sets.”
Lord Monckton claims to be taking over “Pattern Recognition in Physics Journal”, so he’ll need a wider range of reviewers than that if the journal is to be something that doesn’t require urgent renaming.
That he describes Roger Tallbloke as an eminent scientist doesn’t bode well for the journal under any guise, or reflect well on Lord Monckton’s judgement.
I had hoped that this self-destruct by the wiggle fabulists would mean they would crawl away in shame, and we could be free of their indulgent nonsense to concentrate on the dodgy climate science of modelling assumed secondary forcing (and related frauds).
But sadly, too many have been distracted by the “censorship” hand-wave to see the danger of being associated with deluded clowns. Just at the point where the natural and human world seemed to be about to shake off the climate scare, we’re all suddenly focussing on a sideshow of freaks.
I’m reminded of the film “The Hill”, where an establishment conspiracy is wound up to the point of turning on itself and coming apart, and victory is essentially achieved only to thrown away by angry fools wading in and having a go themselves.
My suggestion to the WUWT team is to ignore the idiots. Don’t refer to them or their “science”. And if Lord Monckton wants to associate himself with them, distance yourself from him and his “science journal” too.
Mann, Jones, Connely, et al, must be having a good laugh at the fleas wagging the tail wagging the dog.
tallbloke says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:18 pm
Yeah, you were so successful with that plan last time, why not repeat it?
If Christopher doesn’t want my advice, I’m quite certain he will tell me. It is one of his more admirable qualities. In either case he certainly doesn’t need you playing gatekeeper …
w.
Just guessing he’s not doing it for the money? Nor the prestige? Why then would he not go for transparency of the review process and open access to the data? Pretty much what goes on here, no?
I see that Steven Mosher is at his best here. Mosh, as someone who always has undeclared goals and intentions for my writing, and as someone willing to take the heat to play the long game, I can only bow my head in admiration.
Do y’all see what he’s done? The arrogant, sneering tone of his final statement is a superb misdirect. By focusing everyone’s attention on the challenge and the way it was made, he has slipped the scientific requirements in under the radar.
And that is a very good thing, because the scientific requirements, which boil down to simple transparency, are the very lifeblood of science. Mosh is absolutely right that in the 21st century, either the paper is accompanied by the data as used and the code as used, or it’s not worth publishing or discussing.
Among many other reasons, we plain don’t have time to faff around with emails asking for data or code and then the scientist being out of the office and when they get back yadda yadda yadda three weeks go by … I can’t tell you how many hours I’ve wasted digitizing some wanker’s data. Worse, I don’t want to get out a shovel and dig through some huge pile. We need real-time access to the data AS USED.
The code is even more important, because fifty years of writing computer programs has taught me that the first rule of code is that code has bugs, and the second rule of code is that when you kill a bug it creates two more. For starters, we need the code to determine if the authors have made some simple (or complex) mistake. Then we need it to follow what actually happened to the data. Not what they said happened, but what the actual steps were. The idea that a written description of the code should suffice is laughable— that’s why we have code, because English is far, far too vague for the purpose. We need real-time access to the code AS USED.
I capitalize those because anything else is not sufficient. I don’t want their whole giant data pile, I want just what they used. I don’t want the preliminary code, nor what it might have morphed into since the writing of the paper. We need the code and data as used in the paper.
And I have to tell you folks, that it is astonishing to me how much resistance that there is among skeptics to these two simple requests. We are insisting on nothing more than simple scientific transparency, but you’d think we were stealing watches.
In any case, Mosher has most definitely thrown down the gauntlet, and good on him. I will wait with great anticipation to see if the new journal will follow this totally simple and totally necessary step of requiring the authors to archive the data and code as used as a firm condition of publication.
Hey, Mosh does it for his work. Steve McIntyre does it for his work. I do it for my work. Anthony does it for his work.
Truly, I don’t understand the opposition to this idea.
And Mosh? Gotta say, hot damn that was a slick and lovely move. The best part was the contrast of the totally calm and collected entire post up to the very last line … sweet as.
Best to all,
w.
Al Gore starts a journal. Skeptics welcome new journal with open arms and the science is all accepted. The debate is over – the end.
I had no idea the strategy was to go from bad to worse.
“The 19 eminent scientist who had co-written the dozen learned papers in the special issue…”
WTF? ROFLMAO!
Roger Tattersall, HNC [Higher National Certificate] Mechanical and Production Engineering, Leeds Metropolitan University (1985); B.A. History and Philosophy of Science, University of Leeds (1988); Customer Services manager, Vital online Ltd. (2000-2004); Fundraising Coordinator, Yorkshire Air Ambulance (2006-2008); Digital Content Manager, School of Education, University of Leeds (2009-2013)
lsvalgaard says (Jan 23 8:17 am) “It would be interesting to see if the reborn journal will have the guts to also publish the texts of the reviews of each article. This way others can judge if a proper review was done [and by whom].“. Thanks Leif, I’ve been thinking that an open review system – together with availability of all data etc – could be the way forward out of the mire that peer-review finds itself, but I didn’t know whether it really could work, so I’m very pleased to see someone of your calibre saying this. Let’s hope that Christopher Monckton picks it up.
REPLY: so right off the bat, solid suggestions for making your new journal more immune to criticism (for preventing pal review, etc) are summarily rejected. How disappointing, but not surprising.
Well then ignore those suggestions, and you’ll end up with a journal of low standards. Personally I’d like to see it done in a way that it succeeds getting listed on the WOK journal list, but without proper controls it most certainty will have an uphill battle. – Anthony
Anthony, I was was discussing peer review procedure at university when Mosher was wow-ing over the early 3D computer games and Willis was becalmed on a beach by something psychedelic he saw on a sea shell.
I was discussing peer review procedure and journal editor tenure with Judy Curry’s husband Peter Webster last year at the Royal Society’s three day conference on Uncertainty in Climate and Weather Prediction.
Mosher is not the first person ever to come up with the idea of requiring the archiving of data and code. WiIlis can’t even read the paragraph following the figure in Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim’s excellent PRP paper on solar-planetary relations before attacking him for something he didn’t do.
You talked about starting your own online WUWT journal a couple of years ago. Set it up in competition with PRP with Mosh and Willis on the editorial board and may the best journal shine through. healthy competition is far better than condemnation and oblique sneers and smears.
REPLY: “healthy competition is far better than condemnation and oblique sneers and smears.” No doubt, but you should read again what you’ve just written about Willis and Mosher. Did it make you feel better? Did it make you feel superior to them? You’ve been quite emotional, prone to applying labels to people, and condescending (as has Nicolas Scaffetta who went off on a “lynch mob” description right after MLK day without realizing how bad that looks). I suggest that your new journal won’t succeed with those emotions involved. Some self reflection on your own failings in these areas is needed.
People that blame everyone else for the failure of their own situations; a trait of narcissism, something that we’ve seen from people like Michael Mann. Surely you can do better than him.
Question: Since you’ve banned Willis from commenting at your blog, will you also ban him from commenting and/or peer review opportunities at this new journal? – Anthony
Anthony says:
I suggest that your new journal won’t succeed with those emotions involved. Some self reflection on your own failings in these areas is needed.
I think you’ll find I was being factual. Mosh told me about his 3D computing work at Lisbon, and Willis has posted here at WUWT about his adventures on planet Psychedelia. And don’t forget you were the one who used ‘psychedelic’ first in this thread.
People that blame everyone else for the failure of their own situations; a trait of narcissism, something that we’ve seen from people like Michael Mann. Surely you can do better than him.
My situation has succeeded, not failed. You wished me luck in the future 24 hours ago and I said I prefer to make make my own luck, but thanked you and wished you the same. Well, I make my own luck, and my future already arrived, looking pretty bright.
As for comparing me to Michael Mann, I’ll say this. We didn’t get the chance to upload all supplementary material etc before Martin Rasmussen blocked our access to the back end of PRP. But I will be hosting it on my website once it’s all collated. At that time you’ll be able to check the data and code I used in the production of my two peer reviewed papers. If you don’t find anything amiss, a retraction of that comparison would be welcome.
REPLY: I’ll let Willis look at those things, as I don’t have much time for errant cyclo-pursuits, my concern is mostly over your and Nicola’s boorish behavior and labeling. If you look at your own history, like Mann, you two don’t take criticism well, or as some say, not at all. – Anthony
Anthony, I didn’t answer your question:
Question: Since you’ve banned Willis from commenting at your blog, will you also ban him from commenting and/or peer review opportunities at this new journal? – Anthony.
I’ll need to find out for you from the relevant PRP editor. I think that would be Professor Jan-Erik Solheim.
Monckton of Brenchley says:
January 23, 2014 at 7:10 am
See how many of the patterns on the mock-up front cover you can identify.
All are examples of nonlinear pattern formation. Some of them show the infinitely fractal geometry of the Mandelbrot set.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set
Except the top left, which is the Monckton coat of arms.
Top right, the pinkish spiral, look like possibly a Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction with spiral pattern.
Second row middle is a galaxy, possibly the pinwheel galaxy, from the Hubble telescope?
http://www.spacetelescope.org/static/archives/images/screen/heic0602a.jpg
The green one is the Romamesco broccoli, otherwise known as fractal cauliflower.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanesco_broccoli
The pink one next to the fractal cauliflower is a rose (pink), bottom row left looks like a yellow rose.
Bottom row center is a spiral staircase, it looks like the photo-art by Maico Presente:
http://fineartamerica.com/featured/spiral-staircase-maico-presente.html
Every cloud has a silver lining I guess. This PRP brough-haha has achieved one rather charming result – breathed new life into the bromance between Willis and Mosher.
@Willis Eschenbach at 9:04 pm
Mosh is absolutely right that in the 21st century, either the paper is accompanied by the data as used and the code as used, or it’s not worth publishing or discussing.
If the author of the paper is taking public taxpayer money, if the data is in the public domain, sure. The methods and publicly funded code should be made available with links to the public databases. But not all papers are written from government grants and Mosher’s demand that all data be released is unrealistic, undeserved and unwarranted in the majority of scientific fields financed by private capital.
I’ve been a member of AAPG (American Association of Petroleum Geologists) since 1985. Society of Exploration Geophysicists before that. In their journals seldom, perhaps never, is the underlying data and code, field tapes, field books, well logs, cores ever available to the general reader. The data is too valuable and the competition high.
3D seismic surveys cost from $8,000 to $60,000 per square km to acquire, process, and interpret. Offshore deep water wells cost over $100 million. You might get to see a well log or seismic section a couple of years later. A typical assembly line fracking well on shore is $8 million per well. You might see the 6-month production history. No one gives that information away. Even on federal lands , the information usually becomes public after the lease is relinquished.
The world is a business. People will publish theories, case histories, lessons learned and show some of their work products. It is not even guaranteed to be transparent…. a lot of stuff must be held confidential. What you get is the reasoning and some data that you can compare with your own data and experience. Then you can evaluate your own prospects and plays using information you didn’t have before.
I’m looking at AAPG Memoir 75: Western Gulf of Mexico Basin. Chap. 20: “Geologic Study of the Miocene Rodadar Field and its Exploitation Possibilities, Tabasco State, Southeastern Mexico.” Author: Francisco Javier Martinez Castillo, PEMEX E&P, Veracruz, Mexico. 9 pages containing one index map, 3 field maps, 5 stratigraphic cross sections at reservoir level and scale, 1 seismic section, 2 schematic sedimentary models. Should this paper not be published because ALL the data they used isn’t provided? Yes it should be published and we should thank the author and company for contributing their time and treasure to helping the rest of us understand a piece of the world we could not experience for ourselves.
I cannot tell you the hundreds of AAPG papers I’ve seen at conferences that will never be published. You get to see the seismic, maps and logs in Powerpoint. Be thankful for that much. I remember one paper called the “Will K “ post well review. It was a very deep, high temperature, high pressure gas prospect in the High Island area in the Gulf of Mexico shelf. The chief message from the paper was that the play was dead to the participating companies. “We no longer believe that the Paleogene is prospective at 350 deg F. We’ve changed our limit to 325 deg F.” They drilled the well with a rig they paid to upgrade to the only one capable of 40″ surface casing. They were at 3.5″ diameter at the target. A 425 day mechanical success, but geologic failure. They were down to microdarcy permiability. “It was an expensive well, be we can’t tell you what it cost.” “Five year lease terms were barely enough to do the job.” They were there to tell their compatriots now to not waste money, what could be done, what shouldn’t.
Demand the data and code when the research paid by the public. Be thankful for what you can get when the research is privately funded.
Steve from Rockwood says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:36 pm
“Then why do they charge so much to access a single article?”
JMLR don’t charge *anything*, either to the authors or the readers, that is the point. It is hard to understand why there are not more journals that follow that model (particularly in computer science where the vast majority of authors are capable of typesetting the papers for themselves).
tallbloke says:
January 23, 2014 at 4:18 pm
“So nice to see Willis and Mosh dictating policy to PRP.
Naff off the pair of you. we’ll do it our own way thanks.”
If PRIP is to restart, and tallbloke is to have any editorial involvement, then I would venture to suggest that being publicly rude and dismissive to two potential authors of comment papers submitted to the new PRIP criticising papers published in the special issue does not project quite the right image for an editor.
I am not sure why the first line of the article started out with “In an emotional commentary written for …” nor am I sure why there was so much blatant hostility towards the announced project on this thread. I am not sure why one group of people who are skeptical of the “CO2 will fry us all” orthodoxy of the day are so hostile to another group who are also skeptical of the orthodoxy of the day. Heck, I am not sure why there was so much hostility and childish backbiting on this thread but is sure was an eye opener for me.
By the way, I have been reading here a long, long time and have seen a portion of the snipping over a few subjects but have not paid a lot of attention. Apparently there is one group who think that the earth’s climate is highly cyclical and look for patterns and reasons in these cycles while the other group thinks that the earth’s climate may not be explained via cyclical patterns. Then there is another group of skeptics that is not welcome here at all and they seem to think that CO2 does not act as a “greenhouse gas” at all. I think they were given the name “slayers” but I don’t know who got “slayed”.
It would be nice if someone who knew all the groups would do a list of the various players and groups here for those of us that don’t have time to keep up properly. A “program” like one gets at a play or at a sporting event. Better still, like a “tip sheet” at a dog race track so we outsiders can tell the parties apart.
TIA to whomever does this.
Mods
Please look for another one of my posts in moderation. This one I would like to be seen as it carries a plea for explanations of the various players here at WUWT
Steven Mosher says: at January 23, 2014 at 1:07 pm
Very good point.
Although the practical problems could be overcome by requiring that the data and code (as used in the paper) be available rather than delivered. If the author doesn’t archive their data they are leaving their reputation in the hands of someone else.
But Lord Monckton should abide by the standards he demands of others. So should we all, of course.
WND is an odd duck editorially. It is an anti-drug prohibition and also anti-gay (or the gay agenda if you prefer) conservative site. They are big on “Obama is not” a citizen. Joe Farrah (the editor) and I used to correspond before 9/11. Then he got busy.
Jack Cashill (a writer for the site) and I still trade correspondence.
The coat of arms looks very like that of the UK Parliament. The office block built for MP’s is called Portcullis House.
markstoval says:
January 24, 2014 at 1:55 am
” … It would be nice if someone who knew all the groups would do a list of the various players and groups here for those of us that don’t have time to keep up properly. … ”
—-l
I feel it is better if everyone does their own reading and analysis, in order to judge from first hand data and avoid [relying on] subjective opinions. Ater all, this is not supposed to be a scheduled soap opera 🙂
As a starting point I recommend the list supplied in the sidebar of many of the positions held. You might find that it is well worth the time spent.
JR says:
January 23, 2014 at 1:39 pm
Out of curiosity … what scientific training/credentials does Moncton have???
I don’t know, but I am certain it is more than, for example, Michael Faraday, William Herschel, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Mary Anning, Gregor Mendel and Albert Einstein among many others, all of whom were scientifically uneducated yet fathered (or mothered, I suppose) much of modern science.
It is intelligence not learning that is important. As a friend used to say, ‘I know a lot of folk with a lot of learning, but little wit’.
That shoud read : ” … and avoid relying on subjective opinions. …”
[Fixed. -w.]
Stephen Rasey:
I write to provide the apparent paradox of supporting your post at January 24, 2014 at 12:37 am while also supporting the statement of Willis Eschenbach (at January 23, 2014 at 9:04 pm) which you wrote to oppose; i.e.
I agree that Willis was absolutely right when he wrote that. The apparent paradox is that I also agree you are absolutely right when you say
And I add that it is not only “privately funded” research which rightly constrains information release.
But the paradox is only apparent: it is not real because you and Willis are discussing different things.
Only a small proportion of scientific research is published in the public domain. Most scientific research is not published to the public because it has commercial, industrial, military and/or national confidentiality.
Most research now directly or indirectly commissioned by UK government is not publicly available (e.g. by Freedom Of Information Act request) because it is exempted from public scrutiny by being of military, strategic and/or security value to the nation. For example, does anybody think a computer algorithm known only to government workers and of potential use to GCHQ will be published in the public domain so its code could be scrutinised? It would be a criminal offence if I possessed copies of scientific reports I wrote of work I conducted when employed by the UK’s Coal Research Establishment (CRE). The information in those reports is the property of UK government who owned CRE and I have no right to copies of it. Indeed, any knowledge of it in my head is owned by UK government, not me. Very little of it is in the public domain.
And work which is published in the public domain often omits critical information. This is a scientific malpractice, but most scientists have done it. Indeed, I am guilty of it.
This paragraph explains my guilt of the malpractice and is only provided as illustration so can be jumped over.
As part of a method for determination of wear rates exhibited by PFBC boiler tubes being researched at CRE, I devised a novel mensuration method. The method was a development from the standard technique of using an optical microscope stepping stage to determine the coordinates of points on a planar surface. My method enabled the coordinates to be determined for any point over an area 10cm x 10cm to an accuracy and precision of ±0.5µm. This is astonishing precision which would be lost without, for example, very stable temperature control of the specimen, equipment and ambient conditions. It also requires difficult calibration because the measurement is more accurate than the manufacturing tolerances of the stepping stage. Automated calibration of each grid coordinate would take years to complete so would be impractical. I published the method in Microscopy but that paper omitted mention of the statistical algorithm which enabled the calibration to be conducted in under 2 hours. The idea represented by that algorithm is the real development I had achieved. However, the paper included no hint of that idea so the paper did not enable others to use the method unless the users commissioned CRE to conduct their calibrations. CRE would not have permitted publication of the paper if the paper had included that idea.
Hence, Stephen, I completely agree with you when you say it is unrealistic to expect most publication of research to include all data and code. That will never happen in the real world.
But that is NOT what is being suggested in the present discussion.
Studies of climate and climate change utilising publicly available data are not usually constrained by commercial, industrial, military and/or national confidentiality.
There are exceptions. For example, someone may devise a method for long-range weather forecasting and use that method to generate forecasts for sale (e.g. Piers Corbyn does this). The method used by that person has clear commercial confidentiality.
Hence, there is usually no justifiable reason to refuse access to the ideas, information and code used to conduct the work published in a scientific paper on climate studies. And provision of the ideas, information and code for public scrutiny is very desirable when the conclusions of a paper have implications for public policy.
Therefore,Publication needs to be refused if it fails to provide such full exposure or fails to provide cogent explanation of the commercial, industrial, military and/or national confidentiality which prevents the full exposure.
Richard
Steven Mosher says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:41 am
i will bet that
============
how much?
markstoval:
I share your frustration. Another of my posts is ‘in the bin’, too.
Yours has appeared and I know mine will eventually. But it is frustrating because a post one took care and trouble to provide can ‘get lost’ to people when it appears high up in the thread.
Unfortunately, the problem is WordPress so we have to put up with it. I am certain it is not personal so the best any of us can do is to swear to relieve our feelings. And I hope your feelings are somewhat assuaged by knowing you are not alone in having them.
Richard
when someone says “I will bet”, is it not expected to see an amount, as in “I’ll bet $x that”. Otherwise the wager in effect says “I’ll bet nothing that”, which really means that the offer to bet has no value. However, if someone says “I’ll bet $x that”, then someone else can say “I accept your wager”, and that would constitute a contract, except where such a contract is proscribed.
M Simon says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 24, 2014 at 3:01 am
Well either I said something bad or the comment is in the bit bucket.
Janice Moore says: January 23, 2014 at 5:07 pm
Hi Janice, I love your herding cats analogy for the skeptic crowd. Very apt. Reminds me of some funny cat videos on Youtube, where the cats stand on their back feet and “talk” to each other in low-toned growls and hisses…. like some commenters do here at WUWT some days… We have Cleo the Climate Kitty at our house – a very self-satisfied skeptical cat with a mind of her own, who has a tendency to go over the same territory repeatedly. Sound familiar?
As for solar flares – I hope the point was taken about the many ways earth-directed solar flare events are very influential to our biosphere. The human response aspect is but one area of interest – a very subjective area compared to the hard sciences, because a person’s feelings are unmeasurable. My efforts are focused primarily on learning the full spectrum of measurable cause-effect relationships regarding solar activity, the weather, and climate.
Like a court of law, the court of science has its ways, and advocates are well-advised to learn the ways and language of the court before attempting to defend a case convincingly. Recent turmoil over the Pattern Recognition in Physics journal has reinforced the importance of knowing your way around the court of science. Let’s hope the PRP rides again without the political correctness.
Cleo the Climate Kitty wants to go outside and get some fresh air, but she forgets in five minutes that its cold and snowy. In many ways she’s like the warmists – the real climate deniers. They forget that night follows day, that summer follows winter, that there are cycles within cycles in nature at all levels, and like Cleo, they don’t know or care that what goes up must also come down. Too bad so many warmists will never know what causes cycles or their interrelationships thanks to scientific blindness, censorship, and misinformation.
M Simon:
re your post at January 24, 2014 at 3:54 am.
Many understand your frustration. Please see my post addressed to markstoval at January 24, 2014 at 3:40 am.
Richard
“I don’t have much time for errant cyclo-pursuits, my concern is mostly over your and Nicola’s boorish behavior and labeling.”
Ahem. Labelling. ‘Cyclomaniacs’ ‘Barycentrists’ ‘Astrologers’. There are so many beams in the eye here it’s unsurprising some are blind to their own prejudice.
Having put up with a week of cyber-bullying from people who haven’t read the papers and don’t know anything more about our peer review process than Martin Rasmussen’s as yet unsubstantiated vague smears, complaining of ‘boorish behaviour’ is a bit rich.
As Niklas Morner ( a scientist with nearly 600 peer reviewed papers to his name) pointed out, in a special edition, it is common practice for authors to peer review other authors work, especially in small fields such as ours. The only reason this got attacked in our case was because we were honest enough to put the fact out in the open. If the papers had been published months apart and the names kept anonymous like in the warmo-journals, no-one would have been any the wiser.
The journal that will be quite literally Peer reviewed.
Peter C says:
January 24, 2014 at 3:15 am
I don’t know, but I am certain it is more than, for example, Michael Faraday, William Herschel, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Mary Anning, Gregor Mendel and Albert Einstein among many others, all of whom were scientifically uneducated yet fathered (or mothered, I suppose) much of modern science.
Not to forget
– My hero Oliver Heaviside ( mathematical analysis of transients in distributed electric circuits, loading of transmission lines for distortionless transmission; postulated the Heaviside layer, put Maxwells equations into the form used today, methods of transient analysis for linear circuits, later shown to be equivalent to Laplace transform analysis)
– William Beaumont (physiology of digestion)
– Humphry Davy (discoverer of sodium and potassium)
– The Wright brothers (controlled heavier than air flight from systematic use of experimental aerodynamic data)
– Michael Faraday (principles of electromagnetic induction)
Tallbloke,
Your enterprising enthusiasm is infectious, to me at least. It is good to see a person such as you set on trying to achieve an acceptance of their research work.
It is integrity that will prevail; it will guide throughout any errors and subsequent corrections. People from the peanut gallery may cheer at mistakes, but so what . . . it is normal science to correct and move on.
It is a very good signal from the ‘open and free marketplace of ideas’ that there are some very severe critics here at WUWT of you and your associates. Use it to your advantage, it is a wonderful opportunity.
Unsolicited Advice => perhaps an outside / independent review (audit) of any new review process of a reborn PRP would serve the idea of PRP openness if it was done openly.
Anyway, as we used to fondly say during my professional working days, “Get to work!” : )
John
tallbloke says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:14 pm
And despite that solid theoretical foundation, when it came to the practical application of your extensive knowledge, you and your friends got fired from a journal for, what was it … oh, yeah, inter alia it was because “the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis” …
I gotta say, Roger, with that as the most recent thing on your CV, lecturing people regarding your extensive knowledge of peer review theory and procedures seems … well … out of place.
I didn’t notice Mosh saying he was the first one, so what on earth are you objecting to? You’d look a lot more credible, Rog, if you were to bust him for something he actually said …
Yes, it’s an old idea. Not only that, it was a requirement for Copernicus journals, that enough data and code be published to be able to replicate the author’s work.
And despite it being an old idea, and despite it being a requirement, you guys were too foolish to follow it. Instead, you as an Editor allowed the publication of a number of papers with zero data and zero code, papers that are not replicable in any manner, papers that were pal-reviewed … you totally ignored the requirement for transparency as the Editor … you sure you want to lecture Mosh now because he is pushing for scientific transparency?
My goodness, now we get to something almost scientific. However, only almost … Rog, I’ve asked many times that if you disagree with something I say, quote my words. This is a perfect example of why I insist on that. I don’t have a clue what you think I “can’t even read”. I don’t know in what manner I “attacked him for something he didn’t do”. I definitely said he didn’t do the math to determine the r2 and the p-value … is that what has you upset? If so … point out the math. If not … what is your beef?
You see the problem, Roger? When you get all excited, nobody can tell what has your blood in a boil, heck, it gets hard to even read your words because you’re spraying spittle all over the screen.
SO … if you want to quote whatever it is I said regarding the Solheim paper, Roger, and let us know what it is you think I didn’t do that has you so exercised, I’m more than happy to answer.
The oddity about your claim is that I not only read “the paragraph following the figure in Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim’s” paper … I started off my post by quoting that exact paragraph in its entirety, and I discussed it at some length. So your objection at this point is totally unclear. What is the mystery content of the paragraph that you think I failed to read?
And if you want to lecture people on peer review after you guys all got the sack for, inter alia, nepotistic peer review, which by all appearances consisted in looking each other’s papers over, not requiring code or data, and giving each other a big pat on the back … well I’m more than happy to laugh at a man who wants to bust people regarding their ideas about something he just got canned for not understanding …
w.
John Whitman says: “get to work”
Thanks John. And don’t worry, we are busy in the background. And we will make our journal policy as rigorous as we can. We’ll never be able to please those determined to do us down, but that isn’t so important. It’s the science that matters, and we await properly formed criticism of that. All else is a sideshow.
Tomorrow I return to the coal face with a bundle of calculations on orbital resonance my co-researcher and I are working on. Working out how the energy is stored and released in resonant interactions is key. We’ll carry on making waves.
REPLY: I think you incorrectly conflate “those determined to do us down” with “those determined to help you do it right”. Examine the dichotomy of your own comment:
1. It’s the science that matters, and we await properly formed criticism of that. All else is a sideshow.
2. We’ll carry on making waves.
Making waves with auguring in your own unique opportunity with PRP special edition by ignoring the stated rules sure seems like a sideshow to me. – Anthony
No Willis. As Bernd Felsche pointed out, it was the paragraph after the one you quoted that contained the information which showed your criticism to be a straw man.
Peter C … what Einstein had no scientific education? Do you research!
tallbloke says:
January 23, 2014 at 11:54 pm
Let’s see. Michael Mann didn’t post his code and data until there was a public outcry after the publication of his paper.
Roger Tattersall still hasn’t posted his code and data, despite the public outcry after the publication of his paper. However, he says he will do it, and I believe him.
Michael Mann thinks requiring people to observe normal scientific transparency by providing code and data is wrong.
Roger Tattersall, as Editor, agreed with Michael Mann and Nicola Scafetta, that requiring Scafetta to provide code and data would be wrong.
What am I missing here?
As to checking the data and code, my problem with your work is not lack of data and code.
My problem is that when you point out something like that the ratio of the orbital period of Mercury to Venus (2.583…) is sort of near to the repeating fraction 23:9 (2.555555…), and then you point out that if we add one to the 24 we get the repeating fraction 24:9, which reduces to 8:3 (2.666…), which in your mind proves that the orbital periods of the planets are related by simple mathematical ratios, I just have to shake my head and say a) say what?, and b) SO FREAKIN’ WHAT?
What does it mean that if we add one to the numerator of a ratio that’s kinda sorta like the ratio between the orbits of two planets? Heck, you don’t even require that you add the one to the numerator, sometimes you add it to the denominator. It’s a mystery why you are doing this at all, and it’s not helped by being accompanied by this explanation:
Like the song said, “Well it was clear as mud but it covered the ground, and the con-fu-sion made the brain go round …”
I didn’t review your paper, Rog, because I couldn’t find any science in it to review. To quote Gertrude Stein, “there is no there there”. When I got to Kepler and his insight that the sun and the earth emitted magnetism that move the moon and the earth and planets, I started to worry about my mental stability. And as I feared, you had to bring in Bode-Titius, viz:
The Bode-Titius so-called “law” simply doesn’t work for the planets. It was discredited by the discovery of Neptune, which didn’t fit the “law” at all. Nor is it borne out by modern computer simulations, which reveal that there are many other long-period stable possible orbits for the planets. In 2013, the Bode-Titius “law” is right up there with astrology, and when a paper brings it up, and starts going on about Kepler, and about Copernicus and the music of the spheres, sorry—for my own mental health, I had to jump overboard at that point and swim for shore. I never did finish your paper, my apologies, but I just couldn’t take it.
w.
PS—Are there resonant effects in planetary systems? Of course, that’s what makes e.g. the gaps in the rings of Saturn. However, by and large these are tidal effects, the same forces that keep the same face of the moon always turned towards the earth. And because they are tidal effects, they only work near to a planet or the sun, because tidal forces fall off very, very rapidly, by the cube of the distance.
But going from there to a system where you approximate some non-integral, non-repeating ratio of planetary orbital periods by a fraction, then add one to either the top or the bottom of the fraction to get a simpler fraction, and then draw some conclusions from the fractions, is not science.
That’s numerology.
Stephan Rasey
” But not all papers are written from government grants and Mosher’s demand that all data be released is unrealistic, undeserved and unwarranted in the majority of scientific fields financed by private capital.”
Think about what you are saying.
Imagine George Soros funded mann to do a proxy study.
Mann publishes a paper demonstrating that the MWP never happened.
You ask for data and he says No, its private .
Now, when we were fighting for Jones data and Manns’s data ALL THE ARGUMENTS THAT YOU GUYS ARE MAKING NOW WERE MADE BY THE DEFENDERS OF MANN AND JONES.
1. The data is IP
2. The data is confidential
3. the data is too big
4. you have the links, go get it.
And my response is the same now as it was then.
If you dont supply your data, then I am under NO RATIONAL OBLIGATION to believe you, and Im under no obligation to find your mistake. You havent made a case, you’re advertising and I’m not buying it.
There is one and only one practical problem that relates to very large datasets.
What suprises me is that some very smart people here cant see the solution that they themselves used to do the science in the first place.
Where the dataset is too large, you simply supply the code to fetch it from whereever it is stored. Use REST, SOAP, wget, whatever. I regularly work with datasets that are terabytes.
If I cannot include that whole dataset in an SI, I include the code that i wrote to access it and subset it. In short, you dont merely point to the link, you share the code that used the link to get the data. Its easy, and you know its easy because you had to do it to create the science in the first place.
people pretend that this is impossible. In short they pretend thatthe science they did Cant be replicated. If you cant include all the data then dont be an idiot and oppose open data. be a smart guy and include the code you need to access the big data. Its not rocket science, its not solar
science, its dirt simple programming.
Now of course this is the internet so people work very hard to raise objections rather than finding solutions.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 24, 2014 at 10:00 am
That’s numerology.
Indeed it is. To pass it on a science is shameful.
Just a quick clarification made necessary by Bob Weber’s 4:16am post:
I only post as “Janice Moore” and never as “Janice.” That is another person. She (and its originator, GAIL COMBS) should get the credit for the clever cat herding analogy.
***************************************************
Soooo, Mr. Weber (heh, heh, heh)…. we meet again — bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaa! Meh, don’t worry — I FINALLY got it that you really believe in that stuff — no more mocking and sneering from me, just description. I hope today is a solar-safe day for you (and for your cat).
The other oddity in your work, Roger (Tallbloke), is that you seem surprised and impressed that if you modify the approximate fractional representation of the ratios of the planetary orbital periods, by either adding or subtracting 1 to/from either the numerator or the denominator or both, the fraction simplifies to a fraction with smaller numbers on top and bottom.
However, it turns out that this is the case far more often than not for numbers picked at random. In fact, it’s difficult to find a pair of numbers forming the fraction x / y where one of the following will not reduce to a simpler fraction:
(x+1) / y
(x-1) / y
x / (y+1)
x / (y-1)
(x+1) / (y+1)
(x+1) / (y-1)
(x-1) / (y+1)
(x-1) / (y-1)
Given that large number of possibilities, eight variations on the theme, there are very few number pairs where x / y will NOT simplify using one of those eight modifications. Even ratios of prime numbers like 31/17 are not immune, since 32/16 reduces to 1/2 …
Additionally, you don’t seem to have noticed that the decomposition is not unique, e.g. 31/17 also could reduce to 32/18 = 16/9, or reduce to 30/16 = 15/8, or reduce to 30/18 = 5/3 …
Like I said, that’s not science, that’s numerology.
w.
tallbloke says:
January 24, 2014 at 9:16 am
If you have an objection, Roger, spell it out. Last time you airily waved your hand at one exact paragraph, the one following the graph. I went there, looked at it, and found nothing. You sent me on a fool’s errand looking for something that wasn’t there.
Now you say no, not that pararaph, the next one … and you still haven’t said what my egregious error is supposed to have been.
Fool me once, your fault. I’m not going to get fooled twice by trying to guess what you are talking about. Sorry, I’m not going on another snipe hunt, the first one was enough. Detail your objection or go home.
w.
tallbloke says:
Anthony, I was was discussing peer review procedure at university when Mosher was wow-ing over the early 3D computer games and Willis was becalmed on a beach by something psychedelic he saw on a sea shell.
################################
tallbloke no you were not discussing peer review while I was working on 3D
You were at University of Leeds between 1985 and 1988
Since we are mates on Linked in, you should have CHECKED THE DATA. Its all there, in the open. but you didnt check you shot your mouth off based on your memory. bad move.
from 1985 to 1988 I was at Northrop Aircraft. Of course, during my time at Northrop we did not discuss the peer review system, we actually had to USE IT. That meant any and all work I did had to be fully documented and reproduceable. My work was turned over to my adversaries who would tear it to shreds. I did not study the ‘peer review’ system, I sat on murder boards and was subjected to murder boards. some people talk about sh*t at university, other people do it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_board
But even people who talk about sh*t at university know enough to check their facts.
3D games? you are off by a decade as I didnt work on games until 1995 when I brought the first 3D graphics technology to the PC.
And I didnt really “wow” over 3D games. having built flight simulators I actually spent more time helping game programers solve problems or explaining TLMM to them. And yes even back then I spent my time promoting openness, who do you think was there when opengl was created? Who do you think invested in companies promoting open APIs?
So, your resume is blank from 1988 to 2000. during that time I was practicing openness. Those values and principles havent changed. And as you know from 2007 and after I continued to practice openness by working on the first mobile phone to adopt GPL and get richard Stallman’s endorsement. In 2009 I founded a copy-left hardware company, providing all the design files so folks could build the hardware or modify it as they saw fit. So, I dont adopt openness as a weapon to use in this fight. Its a principle
But enough of making this personal. its not personal. its principle. You supported me when I asked for data from mann and jones. you supported me when i demanded code from Hansen.
let me know if you continue to share the principles of openess and transparency.
Willis Eschenbach says:
January 24, 2014 at 10:34 am
The other oddity in your work, Roger (Tallbloke), is that you seem surprised and impressed that if you modify the approximate fractional representation of the ratios of the planetary orbital periods, by either adding or subtracting 1 to/from either the numerator or the denominator or both, the fraction simplifies to a fraction with smaller numbers on top and bottom.
############
yes willis, table 1 and table 2 from that paper were a hoot.
You finally got some wood on the ball. Bravo. GK
‘Having put up with a week of cyber-bullying from people who haven’t read the papers and don’t know anything more about our peer review process than Martin Rasmussen’s as yet unsubstantiated vague smears, complaining of ‘boorish behaviour’ is a bit rich.”
tallbloke.
I saw your journal around december 18th. Your hum paper was the first I read. I was quite amused by table 1 and table 2 and noted the same problems that Willis does.
namely: you have no clear method for adding, or substracting “unitary” to the ratios to come up with your desired ratio. No method whatsoever. And further you didnt consider the probabilities of this happening by chance. After finishing your paper, i started to check the references.
and that led me to another paper in the collection which I read. finding more mistakes in that one I went to its references.. here I found a reference to another paper in the journal, this one
was described as ‘submitted’. Do you not see the house of cards? Looking at the submission dates and accepted dates it was clear that even this was not correct. And so I thought who reviewed this shit? That’s when it become clear.
there is that old saying about seeing better because you stand on the shoulders of giants.
Well, I read all papers the same way. I read them and then I go to the sources. what data did they use, who did they reference. Is it a house of cards OR is this paper a foundation that I can build on? The lack of data, the shoddy referencing, the “suspect” review system are signs to me. Dont build your science on this foundation. Further, recall that all the hockey stick work
relies on a few Suspect series of proxy’s. Like bristlecones.
Go through your papers. find the bristlecones. Its there, plain as day
philjourdan says:
January 24, 2014 at 10:45 am:
—-l
The trick is in the dose 🙂 I wonder what the correct dose for sceptics would be?
Well done MC! Plz open up the reviewers’ names and the mathematical codes utilized by the authors. Continue with the rebuttal approach. This will put the new PRP in a top-notch position among scientific journals in terms of transparency, democracy, and thus QUALITY. The vast majority of climate journals on this account is still back in the Middle Ages, not to mention the AR5 paleolythical spaghettis, obviously neither peer-reviewed nor code-amended All the best, GT.
Feathers, Quartz, Centipede, Hurricane, Mollusc, Plant cell cross section, rose blossom, mandelbulb, smoke swirl, staircase, some sort of moire pattern, spiral galaxy in the background.
Mosher:
3D games? you are off by a decade as I didnt work on games until 1995 when I brought the first 3D graphics technology to the PC.
—
LOL! So Mosher claims he is also the grandfather of 3D graphics technology on PCs. Thank you so much for that little peek into your thoughts Mosher, it sure helps on decyphers what is happening here of late.
Oh, brother, Wayne — that is, indeed, a sad glimpse into a troubled mind. Gore & M-0sher, IT’s founding fathers. Who knew?
Say, btw, how did those frozen pipes turn out? I hope okay (waspraying). Keep warm out there in the POLAAAARRRRRR VORTEX!!!! (lol)
…. not Maurice Moss, that’s for sure:
(wave of the hand to a commenter who posted this recently whose name I forget, sorry)
When any of you wiseacres currently dissing the PRiP papers UNREAD show any indication of having understood what has been written by the authors here having their reputations trashed, and, moreover, can explain to me, a non-physicist, the gist of their arguments and the faults therein, I will be prepared to the note your remarks but until then they are much hot air and self-serving, old-womanish tittle tattle. Please desist. You bring the board into disrepute.
“I will be prepared to the note your remarks but until then they are much hot air and self-serving, old-womanish tittle tattle. Please desist. You bring the board into disrepute.”
I have been very disappointed in Willis and a few others on this thread. Very disappointed. I really don’t think they give a good hoot about anything other than smear and attack. Frankly, our host did not come off as well as he normally does. Most times he is a paragon of cool and calm discourse; but this thread not so much. Mosher on the other hand did not disappoint — he is always like that.
Talking of code, here is the most relevant code for generically simulating climatic oscillations, the Lorenz attractor:
Function mylorenz (varargin)
MYLORENZ Plots the orbit of the Lorenz attractor with sigma = 10,
r = 28, b = 8/3 along with a Lorenz attractor with user-defined
parameters. MYLORENZ(sigma,r,b) takes input values.
MYLORENZ(‘sigma’) adds uncertainty to sigma.
Also: MYLORENZ(‘r’), MYLORENZ(‘b’). numsteps = 2 ^ 11; x = zeros(numsteps,3); dt = .01; sigma = 10; r = 28; b = 8/3;
beta = [.01;.01;.01];
x(1,:) = [10;20;30]; x(1,:) = [10*normrnd(0,1);10*normrnd(0,1);10*normrnd(0,1)]; x0 = x(1,:);
n = normrnd(0,1,3,1); for i=2:numsteps x(i,:) = x0(:);
+ sqrt(dt)*beta.*n; x(i,1) = x(i,1) + dt*sigma*(x0(2) – x0(1)); x(i,2) = x(i,2) + dt*(-x0(2) + x0(1)*(r – x0(3))); x(i,3) = x(i,3) + dt*(x0(1)*x0(2) – b*x0(3)); x0 = x(i,:);
n = normrnd(0,1,3,1); end y = zeros(numsteps,3); y(1,:) = x(1,:); y0 = y(1,:); if varargin{1}==’sigma’
newsigma = normrnd(sigma,7) newsigma = gamrnd(sigma,1) newr = r; newb = b; elseif varargin{1}==’r’ newsigma = sigma;
newr = normrnd(r,9) newr = gamrnd(r,1) newb = b; elseif varargin{1}==’b’ newsigma = sigma; newr = r;
newb = normrnd(b,2) newb = gamrnd(b,1) else newsigma = varargin{1}; newr = varargin{2}; newb = varargin{3}; end for i=2:numsteps y(i,:) = y0(:); y(i,1) = y(i,1) + dt*newsigma*(y0(2) – y0(1)); y(i,2) = y(i,2) + dt*(-y0(2) + y0(1)*(newr – y0(3))); y(i,3) = y(i,3) + dt*(y0(1)*y0(2) – newb*y0(3)); y0 = y(i,:); end figure;
plot(x(:,1),x(:,2),’k.’); hold on plot3(x(:,1),x(:,2),x(:,3),’g’); plot3(y(:,1),y(:,2),y(:,3),’r’); plot3(sqrt(b*(r-1)),sqrt(b*(r-1)),r-1,’g.’); plot3(-sqrt(b*(r-1)),-sqrt(b*(r-1)),r-1,’g.’); plot3(sqrt(newb*(newr-1)),sqrt(newb*(newr-1)),newr-1,’r*’); plot3(-sqrt(newb*(newr-1)),-sqrt(newb*(newr-1)),newr-1,’r*’); title(‘Lorenz attractor’); xlabel(‘x’);ylabel(‘y’);
hold off
Janice Moore, so far so good today, but it is very cold and windy. Thanks for caring about Cleo.
@Steven Mosher at 10:08 m\
Stephan Rasey: ” But not all papers are written from government grants and Mosher’s demand that all data be released is unrealistic, undeserved and unwarranted in the majority of scientific fields financed by private capital.”
SM: Think about what you are saying.
First, you address what I said. You must live in a world where you do not have rights to publish data much less demand that others do so.
AAPG is an extremely well respected journal in an industry where information CANNOT be included with the paper. Ownership of the data cannot be ignored. Ownership of the full wave equation software cannot be ignored. That is only one jounal as an example.
Take the JAMA which lives and dies on Patients’ case histories. You do not have the right to make patient’s health records public.
That is why your demands that all data and code must accompany all papers are unrealistic, undeserved, and unwarranted.
Mind you, we are not talking about just climate journals here. Monckton in the main post never implied that the journal he speaks of will be limited to climate. In fact the cover illustration belies a climate focus. “Pattern Recognition in Physics” Not “Pattern Recognition in Climate Science”. Come to think of it, “Pattern Recognition in Science” might be more apt since many of the illustrations were biological.
I think it can be argued that in Climate Science the data is mostly owned by governments, if not in public domain. And most of the work on climate data is done with large helpings of government money from taxpayers. So demands that taxpayer funded researchers make their raw and processed datasets public is right and just. It might not be the journal editors’ job to enforce that policy, its really the job of the granting agency, but it seems a reasonable voluntary editorial policy.
Gail Combs at 1/23 7:49 am was real close with:
I would argue that the real test the peer reviewers and editors should subject the paper to is does the paper contain the methods and procedures and detailed references to replicate the conclusions of the paper. That’s all. Data and code are laudable. Required for publishing? Not necessarily.
Think about the profession of Cartography. By demanding all supporting data be published with a map, you would preclude the publication of all maps that were worth the paper they were printed on. Early world maps came from compilations of ship’s logs which were highly secret. Information about the world would be so restricted we might still think the world was flat.
The first line in the book “How to Lie with Maps” is:
“Not only is it easy to lie with map, it is essential.“
You must distort the data from necessity. Projecting 3D into 2D is a lie. Making highways wider than reality and red or green is a lie. But it makes maps useful by accentuating what is crucial and hiding what is unimportant to the purpose of the reader.
What protects us from bad maps? The map itself is provides the means to replicate it. People can take the map a verify it themselves. The reputation and fortune of the cartographer will suffer if the map cannot model reality usefully. Just as it should reflect upon researchers who’s conclusions cannot be verified either by omission or commission.
The final argument is that including the “data and code used” is a red herring. The real crimes in science are in the data that is not used and filtered out. It it better to debug some author’s code or to write your own from first principles described in the paper or references. Duplicating results from buggy code and error riddled datasets doesn’t progress science.
So the test of the paper is whether it provides the information within itself (or appendix supporting data) to enable other research to verify or refute the conclusions of the work of science.
Janice, what a memory! Thanks so much for the thought. The leak under the slab is fixed, still holes in my floor tile that I’ll never be able to match after many hours searching, so redo the entire bathroom… still hole in the backyard due to the cold, I’m guessing back all together by March, maybe… it really sucks! Have always loved houses on a slab but that’s the one little catch that you never quite consider and I hope no one else gets to experience it. It’s a real time and resource eater.
On the lite side, you know what cued me so fast… thank goodness, that i had a leak while it was still very tiny… the cat my daughter ‘gave’ to me. I’d always been more a dog person. Couldn’t figure out why while reading and pounding out comments on this blog in the next room she seemed to have developed this sudden fascination with the bathroom floor… well, I’ll never again ignore what a pet might be trying to tell you!
Wayne, I’m so sorry about all that mess, but, glad to hear that things are looking up. At least you get a new bathroom floor out of it! A cat helped you. Well, if God could use a donkey to get Balaam back on track, I guess God could use a cat (I’m a dog person, too, heh). Thanks for the compliment, but, it was only because I repeated that prayer several times, I think. Good ol’ repetition! Thank you, so much, for responding. You would not BELIEVE how many people don’t bother. You added a bit of joy to my day.
markstoval says:
January 24, 2014 at 1:46 pm
Gosh, I didn’t realize it was “National Vague Unsupported Attack Week”. Can I play too? Here we go …
Marstoval, I have been very disappointed with you and a few others on this thread. Very disappointed. Of course, I’m not going to actually quote your words or link to any of your statements that I’m disappointed with, but boy, are they disappointing. I’m just going to call your words self-serving, old-womanish tittle-tattle.
Which words are self-serving etc. etc.? Well, I’m not going to say which words, because you wrote them yourself, so I assume you must know which words I’m talking about. Anyhow, I just popped in to tell you how disappointed I am that you did something really bad, but no, I won’t mention what it was.
You see what a load of bollocks you and marcharosa are regurgitating there? There is not one fact in the swill you call a comment, not one citation, not one quote, not one real objection to anything identifiable. There is nothing but slimy, uncited, unquoted, unreferenced attack.
Someone is doing their best to bring WUWT in disrepute, but it’s not me. Even if you don’t have the stones to sign your own name to your tripe, at least have the nerve to quote what I said that has your panties in such a twist.
Gotta say, this National Vague Unsupported Attack Week is da bomb …
w.
Stephen Rasey and Steven Mosher :
I agree with the post by Stephen at January 24, 2014 at 2:13 pm and I respectfully draw the attention of each of you to my post at January 24, 2014 at 3:22 am which is at this link
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/23/monckton-says-hell-take-over-the-shuttered-pattern-recognition-in-physics-journal/#comment-1547478
My post was held in moderation for three hours so you may have missed it.
It concludes saying
Richard
Stephen Rasey says:
January 24, 2014 at 2:13 pm
Stephen, I’m having trouble with your example. Perhaps if you would link to a peer-reviewed map from a scientific cartographical journal it might be clearer, because as far as I know I’ve never seen such a thing. I also don’t understand how a cartographic journal demanding supporting data would prevent a map from being published … sounds like you are mixing science up with business.
In any case, you say:
Even if you can replicate the code from the description in the Methods section, it still doesn’t allow us to determine if there is an error in the work. For example, the only way anyone was ever able to show that Michael Mann’s work was flawed was by examination of his code.
I truly, truly don’t understand people’s reluctance to endorse scientific transparency. And that’s all we’re asking for. As Mosh said, either show us exactly how you did it, nothing hidden, nothing kept secret, or we are justified in ignoring you entirely because if you don’t reveal the data and code as used, you are not presenting scientific results, you are just advertising.
Now, if you want to to that and justify it however you might wish, fine by me. Go for it, Steven, present your claims and hide your code. The choice is yours.
But if you do that, just be prepared to be ignored as being a PR shill rather than a scientist …
w.
That’s it…
😉
“Someone is doing their best to bring WUWT in disrepute, but it’s not me.”
I suppose you could write that screed and not see what you are doing Willis, but throughout the entire thread you have hurled the most foul trash that I have read here in many a moon. But thanks for proving my point.
Beware my friends, there are small minded twits afoot here.
Willis Eschenbach:
There is a dilemma here and it is expressed by you in your post at January 24, 2014 at 4:13 pm.
The dilemma derives from your true statement that says
Yes! Please see my post at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/23/monckton-says-hell-take-over-the-shuttered-pattern-recognition-in-physics-journal/#comment-1547478
and take especial note of the paragraph prefaced by
In the context of your comment, it should not be “jumped over”.
The problem of confidentiality of some data exists in many potential studies of pattern recognition although such a problem would be rare in analyses of patterns in climate data.
Richard
markstoval says:
January 24, 2014 at 5:31 pm
So … once again I get abused by another in the endless list of anonymous internet popups, people who are very unwilling to quote or specify what it is I said that has their knickers in such a twist, but very willing to insult me for something, anything, as long as it’s vague and unspecified.
The problem is, like you they are too cowardly, or too stupid, or too nasty, or in too much of a hurry, or too I don’t know what, to tell us all what it is that has them frothing at the mouth. And so like you, they just babble insults.
All you are doing is flinging mud at the wall and hoping it sticks, markstoval. If you have an issue with something I said, quote it, link to it, specify it exactly. Then tell me just what it is about that particular thing that you don’t like. Then, and only then, can we actually have something to discuss, and I’ll be glad to discuss it with you.
But until then, you’re about as useful as a horsefly.
w.
“So … once again I get abused by another in the endless list of anonymous internet popups”
It was this thread where you have exposed your true personality, and it is much different that what I had thought it was over the many, many times I cheered your contributions. You do some projection there with “too nasty” and the rest. Your two comments to me in the just above are all I need to see. You are a real piece of work and don’t even seem to know it.
I will never again read anything here posted by you without knowing what a real hater and foul little thing you are. Too bad. I just don’t know why you had to lash out at those folks at the Physics journal (and Monckton by extension for wanting to take it on) but I can see that you are real good at dishing it out but sorely poor at the reverse.
You are such a disappointment; but a good reminder not to think folks are decent people just because I happen to agree with their positions most of the time. For that timely reminder, thanks. Other than that, you are lower than your horsefly.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/the-copernicus-prp-fiasco-predictable-and-preventable/#comment-1542005
Right, I’m off to work on my planetary spin-angular momentum calcs. The joy of scientific discovery beats whipping up lynch mobs into a cocked hat for job satisfaction.
===
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/23/monckton-says-hell-take-over-the-shuttered-pattern-recognition-in-physics-journal/#comment-1547806
Tomorrow I return to the coal face with a bundle of calculations on orbital resonance my co-researcher and I are working on
===
An Echo of Narcissus – for reflection by all fans:
http://youtu.be/nICUgpMYGbg
(~ 3 minutes)
@Willis Eschenbach at 4:13 pm
Perhaps if you would link to a peer-reviewed map from a scientific cartographical journal it might be clearer
I said nothing about a cartographical journal. I spoke of the 3000 year old profession of cartography, the art and science of spatially representing in one document many types of information for many sources. The peer review comes from other cartographers, surveyors, navigators, captains and generals using the maps. When the British Admiralty or the US Defense Mapping Agency, create their maps, they use huge amounts of information. But they are under no obligation to release their source data to the public.
Even if you can replicate the code from the description in the Methods section, it still doesn’t allow us to determine if there is an error in the work.
No, what I wrote was:
[Is] it better to debug some author’s code or to write your own from first principles described in the paper or references[?].
The object is not to replicate the code, but to replicate the published procedures with completely different code and libraries. Thereby to attempt to replicate the results with an independent process. This is a far stronger test of the science than inspecting published code and rerunning it.
Successful replication should get reported. Faillure to replicate must get reported for then the differences can be further investigated, including enlisting the first author to evaluate his own code.
I truly, truly don’t understand people’s reluctance to endorse scientific transparency.
You are big on saying, “quote my words“. Where did I express “reluctance to endorse scientific transparency?” What I said to Mosher was, “You must live in a world where you do not have rights to publish data much less demand that others do so.”
When Blankenship, et al. applied for permission to present a paper on the Will K well, they had to face the dilemma of hiding some information. “Yes, you can present the paper. No, you cannot hand out copies of the logs, seismic, and thin sections. In fact, we don’t want you telling people how much this 425 day well cost. ”
You want transparency, Willis? Which alternative would be better?
A. to present the paper under these restrictions of less that full data disclosure,
B. not present the paper at all.
I endorse A. Be thankful for that much transparency.
And that’s all we’re asking for. As Mosh said, either show us exactly how you did it, nothing hidden, nothing kept secret, .
Asking?
Sounds like demands to me. Point #4 is an impossible standard to enforce. It can be used maliciously to demand the retraction of papers for leaving out data of dubious quality, timeliness, control and an honest difference of opinion of relevance.
The rudeness and hostility of the statement that follows point 4 speaks for itself and why I am concerned that such standards could be used maliciously against honest researchers.
I repeat my opinion that completeness of data and code attached to the paper is laudable, but is a red herring. The greater danger is the over filtering of data and the omission of data that should be in the analysis.
or we are justified in ignoring you entirely because if you don’t reveal the data and code as used, you are not presenting scientific results, you are just advertising
That’s your choice. You don’t want to read papers that don’t hand out the author’s family jewels, that’s you choice. Most scientists in competitive industries don’t make that demand. They’ll read. And let’s face it… all papers are advertising in one for or another.
Ah, but if as you advocate that all journals and editors adopt that standard full transparency there will be far fewer papers published and far less overall scientific transparency as a result.
markstoval:
At January 24, 2014 at 6:01 pm you write to Willis saying
Please tell how you can “see” that. Onlookers observe the reverse.
You have only dished out meaningless and unsubstantiated smears which inform about you but say nothing about Willis. Whereas Willis has replied by demanding some – indeed, any – substance for your barrage of insults which he says are no more than a minor irritant comparable to that of a horsefly.
Richard
It looks my last post went into the filter.
There are enough legitimate open access journals out there that do not lend to criticisms of pal-review, people just need to learn how to search.
“Please tell how you can “see” that. Onlookers observe the reverse.”
You speak for all onlookers? Hmmm.
I referred him to this thread and the continual assault on that journal and those who wrote there and then to the nasty, silly comments to me and another poster. It is fine by me if you see it differently as I only wanted Willis to know what I thought and I think he does. I don’t really care if he ever sees what he did or even understands what I said to him. Nor do I much care if you do; as there was enough trashing of that journal by several people here and you can see that or not — your choice.
I do agree with P Gosselin at http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/24/monckton-blasts-prp-journal-shutdown-21st-century-equivalent-of-nazi-era-book-burning-by-a-vicious-campaign/ when he wrote:
… and with the rest of that post about this unfortunate instance of piling on these scientists without us knowing all the facts and with one hell of a double standard. And now Willis took yet another shot at them with his latest post. He could have refrained from mentioning them or that journal again but just could not work up the strength of character to do so.
Believe want you choose to believe my friend; but there was some serious and ugly piling on here at WUWT that left me gobsmacked. I was amazed.
Mods.
Please note that one of my replies has been placed in moderation and I think Richard would like to see it.
Apparently you’re not aware of the vastly silly things most people on this planet have believed in, without evidence, for thousands of years. The dead vine seems to be thriving, unfortunately.
Looking at the front cover of Monkton’s new PRP there is something paradoxical. The images are on a theme of fractals and nonlinear pattern formation. However it is the home of a community of scientists researching the role of planetary cyclical gravitational forcing in earth’s climate. Many (though not all) of these scientists vehemently reject the existence of intrinsic climatic cycles from chaotic nonlinear oscillation. How do such folks feel looking at the front cover?
FWIW I am on record as acceping both possibilities. I think that climate fluctuations are primarily nonlinear dynamics but that it is quite possible that these nonlinear oscillations are periodically forced by astrophysical cyclical inputs.
markstoval:
re your post at January 24, 2014 at 6:41 pm.
No problem. I will look at it tomorrow. I am now going to bed because I don’t have much desire to see anything which may be similar to your other contributions on this thread and certainly not enough to wait up for it.
Richard
Oh please, we dealt with multiple days of outright nonsense and spin. I held back and said so but the zealots wanted to spin and make excuses. For the record I’m still holding back. This could of all been handled much better, like PRP admitting it was a stupid idea to to give alarmists this type of ammunition.
Since when did Roger becoming a scientist? And why is Willis supposed to act like a hypocrite because you believe he should?
“And why is Willis supposed to act like a hypocrite because you believe he should?”
I had no problem with his saying that he did not like some of the papers in that journal. That is acceptable. But it all went way past that; to the point jumping on Lord Monckton over how he should run a journal. As I said elsewhere — will the trashing of those scientists involved be a daily thing now or will it be only a weekly feature at WUWT?
I do hope those of you who got to call ALL those working scientists names and say they did not know how to do science feel all superior about yourselves — some good should come of your pettiness.
Poptech
Calm down! You’re being hysterical!
Maybe because I am in the peer-review journal debate 24/7 I see it more than others but the papers published in what alarmists consider legitimate journals has much more of an effect than anyone realizes – especially with public perception. Lesser known open access journals at worst get snide remarks but are not easily dismissed. Everything alarmists do is to intimidate skeptics from trying to get published so they can claim a false scientific high ground. Their delusional belief is that the only way a skeptic can get published is from some form of corruption and the way PRP handled the review process just plays into their hands. I will say it again, There are enough legitimate open access journals out there that do not lend to criticisms of pal-review, people just need to learn how to search. Skeptics need to look outside of Western views on climate change, it is a big planet. I think a debate that only the West understands science is one that would not be good for alarmists or their mission to tell the world what they can use for energy.
Poptech,
That’s not science.
markstoval:
You begin your meaningless invective at January 24, 2014 at 6:40 pm saying
Your addition of the word “all” alters my factual statement to become your untrue question.
I point you to the word “not”. I think you will find that another useful word for you to use when misrepresenting the statements of others by adding words.
You follow that with a pile of warm, stinking and smelly invective which contains only two asserted facts of which one is irrelevant (i.e. it refers to Willis’ credentials but they say nothing as to whether he is right) and the other is laughably untrue (i.e. Willis “lacks strength of character” because he mentioned the “shuttered” journal which is part of the subject of this thread).
And you conclude with this outrageous nonsense
Belief has nothing to do with it. Evidence does. The PRP-Team did wrong and have displayed no contrition (they broke rules they agreed to accept and thus brought harm on the sceptic community). You have not cited anything Willis has done wrong and you have tried to smear him.
I am not your friend. I choose whom to befriend and my standards are much higher than you suggest.
There was no “piling on”. People tried to recover from some of the damage done by the PRP-Team. And what did not exist could not have been “ugly”.
You may or may not have been “gobsmacked” and “amazed”. The only indication of that is your words and those words are not evidence of anything in the light of your veracity about “serious and ugly piling on here at WUWT”.
Richard
PS I am pleased that I did not wait up to “see” the ordure which I have now replied.
markstoval, wait so Willis cannot give his opinion on how a journal should be run? When did we get into this bizarre territory? Maybe you can create special filter that we can all run our comments through so you can approve them first. <— Good luck with that!
Why are you confusing criticisms with trashing? If you can't handle the heat here please don't ever try to have a debate about this anywhere outside of skeptic land.
You didn't answer my question, in what remote delusional universe is Roger a scientist? Last I checked Roger was a climate blogger who worked in IT. Did readers of his blog not check this out first and how exactly is this my problem? Ah, I see what the problem is, on his site he embellished his credentials, "I’m a qualified engineer and a graduate of the History and Philosophy of Science."
Roger is not a university graduate level engineer, nor does he work as one. He does have legitimate engineer training but it is not the same thing. Why does it not say he works in IT? I say I work in IT all the time.
What it seems like is a bunch of inconvenient truths have been exposed that certain people don't want to hear because they blindly believed things that may not be the whole truth. Again, not my problem.
No, it’s strategy, what gets published is science.
Poptech,
Stick to the science.
Sparks, I stick to anything I feel is relevant.
Poptech,
I would like to think we’re all capable of discussing relevant issues and solving problems, sometimes we all need to take a step back.
markstoval says:
January 25, 2014 at 1:37 am
“Jumping” on Lord Monckton? A quotation of where I “jumped” on him would go a long ways towards other people being able to understand what you are talking about.
As I said in my comment, I am proud to call Lord Moncton a friend of mine, and I deny entirely that I jumped on him. In any case, I didn’t get the memo that he appointed you to guard him against my terribly dangerous words … and in fact, I can think of no one who needs such a guard less than Christopher Moncton does. He’s very capable of defending himself, as many have discovered to their loss. And one of his best qualities is that he would have no hesitation in telling me if he thought I was out of line.
As a result, I fear your claim about what I said to him was simply untrue. I and Mosh both gave him our best advice on the options, challenges and pitfalls of running the journal, advice which he is totally free to disregard …
So what exactly is your issue here, markstoval? Clearly you think I did something horrible … but what? I tried to make sure my friend Christopher understood some of the issues he would be facing … is that a terrible thing?
w.
Poptech says:
January 25, 2014 at 2:08 am
Poptech, while I agree with much of what you say, I don’t understand your concern with credentials, whether Roger’s or anyone else’s. I myself have no credentials at all. My formal science education consists of two introductory level college courses, Physics and Chemistry 101. But that means nothing about a) whether I am a scientist, or b) whether I’m qualified to put forth scientific claims.
The oddity of science is, it doesn’t matter whether E=MC^2 was written on the wall by the janitor or by Einstein. The only important issue is, can it be falsified? Can anyone find anything wrong with the claim? Because that’s all that science it. You put your claim out on the table in the middle of the marketplace, hand around the hammers, and see if anyone can smash your lovely idea to bits. If they can break it, well, science moved forwards, we now know something else that isn’t true. And if they can’t break it, then it is accepted as provisional scientific truth.
But nothing in that process depends on whether Roger has engineering degree A, or engineering degree B. His credentials, mine, yours, none of that matters. I’m not asking anyone to take anything on the strength of my credentials, that’s not how science works. It is an adversarial system that doesn’t depend on paper credentials of any kind. All that matters is, can the hammers smash your idea?
So if you want to pound on something with your hammer, pound on Roger’s science, but don’t pound on Roger. That goes nowhere.
All the best,
w/
Sparks and Poptech:
I write to take the liberty (and the risk) of trying to resolve the dispute between you.
Academic qualifications are an irrelevance to the quality of scientific work; e.g. the Wright brothers had none and Feynman lacked a doctorate. Importantly, it is a matter of record that I have very, very strongly opposed what I see as character assassination by Poptech’s proclamations of individuals’ lack of academic qualifications when considering scientific work.
Some of the PRP-Team (e.g. Morner) had sufficient experience of academic work and peer reviewed publication to understand the incompetence that was being displayed, but they were not the Editor. It is the job of the Editor to manage and to co-ordinate the peer review, its conduct, and its adherence to deadlines. Therefore, any assessment of how this mess happened must consider the pertinent experience and knowledge of the Editor. Tallbloke was the Editor.
There are several questions which need to be addressed in any assessment of why the incompetence was displayed. These questions need to include
Did the Editor have experience in academic publication? No.
Did the Editor have experience from having provided peer reviewed work? No.
Did the Editor have academic qualifications which could have mitigated his lack of experience? No.
Did the Editor acknowledge his limitations and appoint an Editorial Board to provide advice and guidance? Perhaps.
If the Editor did appoint an Editorial Board then who were they? That is not clear.
Was the Editor cautioned and advised by other Members of the PRP-Team whose background and experience may have informed them of the ‘minefield’ the Editor was trying to navigate? If not then why not, and if so then why was the advice ignored? These matters are also not clear.
Each of these questions is pertinent. Hence, Poptech’s consideration of academic qualifications is pertinent in these considerations. But other questions are much, much more important.
Richard
Sparks and Poptech:
Willis has made a comment to Poptech.
I have made a comment addressed to both of you but it is stuck in moderation.
I write to respectfully request that each of you waits until you have read my post before replying to Willis and the subject of his post.
Richard
richardscourtney says:
January 25, 2014 at 3:47 am
I write to take the liberty (and the risk) of trying to resolve the dispute between you.
Do I have a dispute with Poptech, No!
Sparks:
I write to apologise for my mistakenly thinking you had a dispute with Poptech.
I was misled by my reading of your posts at January 25, 2014 at 2:23 am and January 25, 2014 at 3:10 am which said, respectively
and
Clearly, I have misread them. Sorry.
Richard
richardscourtney
Seriously… was it me or that arse**** Poptech? /jk lol
Willis: “So what exactly is your issue here, markstoval? Clearly you think I did something horrible …”
I sure do, and I am very disappointed as I have been a big fan of yours for some long time now.
The heart of the issue is that you pounded all the people involved in the physics journal and kept on doing so. If you had simply stated that you thought they should have done some things differently and listed those things and left it at that, I would have enjoyed reading it — especially since our outlook on most issues scientific is very close. It is that you continued to pound all of them without their ever getting a chance to offer defense. Consider the last post you made. You could have not mentioned the physics journal at all and still posted most of what you did but you still took a shot.
Willis, I can find nothing to prove to me that those people deserve the abuse that was handed them by several here at WUWT. And I am so very disappointed as I thought we were all better than that. Live and learn, eh? Turns out some here are no better than “Dr.” M. Mann when they get the chance.
You can have the last word as I think you understand what I have tried to communicate to you even if you don’t believe that you were aggressively and unnecessarily nasty to the people involved with that physics journal. By the way, can I expect you to mention the scores of alarmist journals that are much worse? Or do we only attack those on our own side?
I will now drop this thread as clearly there is nothing to be gained. Someday when those involved get a chance to explain what happened then perhaps some apologies will be forthcoming and perhaps not. Time will tell.
Gerry says:
January 23, 2014 at 10:54 am
Godwin’s Second Law – when World Nut Daily is linked, it’s time to say goodnight, Gracie.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sometimes the fringe publications are the only place willing to print information the elite do not want printed. – He who OWNS the Press controls the news – and JP Morgan owns a healthy number of printing presses.
The National Enquirer famous for headlines like “TEEN POSSESSED BY ELVIS!” broke the story of Rush Limbaugh’s painkiller addiction, Jesse Jackson illegitimate daughter, and John Edwards’ affair with Rielle Hunter.
At least World Net Daily is a bit more respectable than the National Enquirer.
Gail Combs
?
markstoval (and in the unlikely event that anyone else is interested, them to):
I have provided a complete rebuttal of your tripe including the nonsense which is your post in this thread at January 25, 2014 at 7:16 am.
The rebuttal is in another thread and is here
Richard
You’ve just proven Gerry’s point, Gail. By the Enquirer (or Weekly World News, or WND, or whomever) repeatedly publishing clear nonsense, trying to find the pearls amongst the garbage becomes tedious and largely useless. A journal which does the same would be pretty worthless.
I´m taking a month off reading WUWT and TT….this is getting to be both boring and depressing.
The phrase ¨get a room¨ comes to mind.
All NEW ideas (not belonging to any family of accepted ideas) are “way out there”. It is also the place from which all progress and invention comes from. We must approach all “way out there” ideas with “robust skepticism”, not dismissal. Demand to be convinced, by real evidence backed by accessible data and code. There may be a baby in the bathwater, but how will we ever Know, if the (allegedly flawed) paper, never sees the light of day. Exchanging and adapting others ideas is where all the magic happens. GK
Willis, I in no way meant to imply that Roger should not be able to attempt to publish science or discuss it. My initial complaint was solely on the fact of him being referred to as an “eminent scientist” by Monckton. I then had people trying to justify it in other conversations by saying he was an “engineer”. So I wanted to make that point clear in case it was brought up again here.
Richard, I agree with most of your points. My argument with qualifications has to do with titles (e.g. scientist) that I feel have not been earned, not whether someone has the right to attempt to publish science or discuss it. Just one minor correction, Roger was one of 3 editors of the special edition that included Dr. Morner.
http://www.pattern-recogn-phys.net/special_issue2.html
Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts
Editor(s): N.-A. Mörner, R. Tattersall, and J.-E. Solheim
“Did the Editor have experience in academic publication? No.
Did the Editor have experience from having provided peer reviewed work? No.
Did the Editor have academic qualifications which could have mitigated his lack of experience? No.”
Job qualifications matter, if the editor was simply Dr. Morner who was more than qualified, I would drop this criticism but it is a valid criticism that needs to be brought to people’s attention. Monckton’s statement is what brought it up here.
Poptech:
Thankyou for your reply to me at January 25, 2014 at 1:35 pm.
Especial thanks for the information that Niklas (as he is known to his friends) was a co-Editor. I would have thought much better of him and the information gives me personal sadness.
Richard
Perception in the climate debate: Since I spend much of my time debating in other parts of the Internet my perspective may be more extensive on how these things are perceived than others here, which is why I am surprised no one commented on my Gore scenario.
I have relentlessly seen Lord Monckton brought up as an alarmist punching bag as skeptics bring up Al Gore (deservedly so). I can have a debate on any topic and some alarmist will likely inject Monckton into the conversation as a strawman to the actual argument. There is clearly no comparison between their intelligence with Monckton making Gore look like a incompetent buffoon that he is but this is still a fact of life that is difficult to overcome. So I do not believe his journal will be well received and may go over as well as PSI did. Regardless, I believe Lord Monckton’s written commentary and oratory ability are invaluable in this debate. Since he can take a complex scientific argument and break it down so an average person can grasp and make a convincing argument to them. Skeptics have few great communicators and Lord Monckton is at the top of a very short list. Having him run a journal would be a waste of his God given talents.
* Minor clarification “deservedly so” referred only to Gore.
It is amazing that someone can live in such abject obliviousness to such a blatantly obvious issue. Instead, obsessively concerning himself with an irrelevant argument of intent vs the actual argument of procedural error that lends itself to such easy allegations of “pal-review”.
I am not sure what you know of peer-review as you have never published anything in your life, have no research background (either through education or experience) yet felt qualified to not only be the editor of a special edition but also review other papers.
Some how pointing out these irrefutable facts and then showing the hypocrisy in defending something you previously mocked is now “bullying”.
Also, if you wish to have a discussion of the science, do not fall into traps that so easily allows everyone to question if the peer-review process was legitimate.