Category Archives: Peer review

Journal takes Lewandowsky and his supporters to task on ‘threats’ over retracted ‘Recursive Fury’ paper.

This will be a top sticky post for a day, new stories will appear below this one Dana Nuccitelli, the Guardian, Joe Romm, and other overly emotional climate propagandists should heed this message, you’ve been put on notice in a … Continue reading

About these ads
Posted in Lewgate, Peer review, Stephan Lewandowsky | 157 Comments

Lewandowsky paper flushed, then floated again

Today has been entertaining to say the least. On Twitter, Ben Pile of Climate Resistance has been telling us all about how he learned that the Lewandowsky-Cook Paper#2 – titled ‘Recursive Fury’, which detailed all manners of conspiratorial ideation theory, … Continue reading

Posted in Bad science, Peer review, Ridiculae, Stephan Lewandowsky | 123 Comments

Monckton says he’ll take over the shuttered Pattern Recognition in Physics Journal

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 … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | 236 Comments

The Copernicus-PRP fiasco: predictable and preventable

Post on the Copernicus – Tallbloke fiasco please advise Continue reading

Posted in Opinion, Peer review | 465 Comments

The ‘planetary tidal influence on climate’ fiasco: strong armed science tactics are overkill, due process would work better

UPDATE: 1/19/14 2;30 PM PST There is an update to this post here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/19/the-copernicus-prp-fiasco-predictable-and-preventable/ Comments on this thread are now closed, continue there. – Anthony While a journal is forced to self destruct by external pressure from “team climate science”, … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , | 272 Comments

New study claims low solar activity caused “the pause” in global temperature – but AGW will return!

This is on a tip from Dr. Leif Svalgaard, WUWT’s resident solar expert. It was just published in the journal Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, and is open access. I found this study’s conclusion a bit amusing, because there are numerous … Continue reading

Posted in Climate News, ENSO, Hiatus in Global Warming, Peer review, Science, Solar | Tagged , , | 180 Comments

Peer Review; Last Refuge of the (Uninformed) Troll

Current peer review science, by attempting to explain away model failure, in fact confirms that the science is wrong Guest essay by David M. Hoffer It has become a favorite tactic amongst trolls to declare their belief in peer reviewed … Continue reading

Posted in Modeling, Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 244 Comments

Thanks, I’ll pass

People send me stuff. I got this email today with the subject: Publish Your Research Paper And then I read the image that was the advertisement for the new journal. Yo, I’m invited to contribute “resarch”.

Posted in Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , , | 59 Comments

The Vast Majority of Raw Data From Old Scientific Studies May Now Be Missing

From the people that know how to save and care for things of importance, comes this essay from The Smithsonian: One of the foundations of the scientific method is the reproducibility of results. In a lab anywhere around the world, a … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , , | 144 Comments

Science self-corrects: bogus study claiming Roundup tolerant GMO corn causes cancer to be retracted

Whoo boy. This sounds like a familiar climate episode. Andrew Revkin tips me to this retraction of a paper that got screaming headlines worldwide, and says this along with the photo. (Warning don’t click “continue reading” while eating Thanksgiving dinner).

Posted in Agriculture, Peer review, Post-normal science, Science | Tagged , , , , , , , | 124 Comments

Journals Not Enforcing Their Policies

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach From an interesting post entitled “Trust and Don’t Bother To Verify” on Judith Curry’s excellent blog , I’ve taken the following quote: Journals’ growing insistence that at least some raw data be made available seems … Continue reading

Posted in Bad science, Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , , , | 159 Comments

Why Climate Science is Fallible

Guest essay by Dr. David Deming We live in a scientific age. The sciences are viewed as the only real sources of authoritative information. Knowledge derived from other epistemological systems is regarded as having less credibility. The conclusions of philosophy … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review, Science | Tagged , , | 203 Comments

Gatekeeping at Geophysical Research Letters

Dr. Judith Curry writes: As the IPCC struggles with its inconvenient truth – the pause and the growing discrepancy between models and observations – the obvious question is: why is the IPCC just starting to grapple with this issue now, … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 125 Comments

Limiting scientific debate: A change in the AGU policy on Presenting Alternative Scientific Viewpoints

Guest essay by Roger A. Pielke Sr. In the August 20 2013 issue of EOS both the AGU Statement on Climate Change [ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO340006/pdf ] and my comment on the Statement [ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO340007/pdf ] were published. However, I was not … Continue reading

Posted in Opinion, Peer review, Science | Tagged , , , , | 111 Comments

Peer Evil – the rotten business model of modern science

Guest essay by Abzats. The most exciting period in science was, arguably, 1895-1945. It was marked by discoveries that changed the foundations of modern science: X-rays, quantum mechanics, superconductivity, relativity theory and nuclear energy. Then, compare this with the next … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review, Science | Tagged , , | 158 Comments

The madness of 97% 98% consensus herds

UPDATE: comments welcome on Dr. Richard Tol’s draft paper on this issue, see below. This will be a top post for a day, new posts will appear below this one – Anthony “Men, it has been well said, think in … Continue reading

Posted in 97% consensus, Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 169 Comments

Peer review falls for recycled manuscripts

Margaret writes in tips and notes: More about the failure of peer review— or more precisely its inconsistency in producing reliable assessments of the value of the submitted article http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6577844 Abstract A growing interest in and concern about the adequacy … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | 59 Comments

Is John Cook planning to use systematically biased “correct” survey answers to make unbiased skeptics look biased?

Guest post by Alec Rawls After finalizing a long post on John Cook’s crowd-sourced consensus-rating survey  (to be titled “I take Cook’s survey so you don’t have to”), I submitted my completed survey to Cook’s website and received an automated … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review, Stephan Lewandowsky | Tagged , , , | 52 Comments