Tag Archives: Peer review

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

About these ads
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

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

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

New peer reviewed paper shows only 36% of geoscientists and engineers believe in AGW

From Forbes writer James Taylor: Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in … Continue reading

Posted in 97% consensus | Tagged , , | 124 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

Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper

Tonight, I’m surprised to find that Gleick, who stole documents under a false identity, and then likely forged a fake memo sent to MSM outlets is apparently still on the editorial review board of the Institute of Physics (IOP), Environmental … Continue reading

Posted in 97% consensus, Fakegate | Tagged , , , , , , , | 67 Comments

Quote of the Week – marketing the consensus before it’s ’97% Cooked’

In the SkS forum discussion about how to create this 97% consensus paper, there was a lot of discussion about how to market it. As far as methodology, quality control, etc. goes, not so much, which just goes to show … Continue reading

Posted in 97% consensus | Tagged , , , , , , , | 59 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

The Collapsing ‘Consensus’

 Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley Environmental Research Letters ought to have known better than to publish the latest anti-scientific propaganda paper by John Cook of the dubiously-named Skeptical Science website. Here are just a few of the solecisms … Continue reading

Posted in Consensus | Tagged , , , , , , , | 102 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

Quote of the week – solving the peer review integrity issue

A poll follows. Over at Bishop Hill, he’s listed some quotes from Geoffry Boulton on scientific integrity that I found interesting. He writes (with apologies for posting in full, I couldn’t see any way to excerpt this short article): ============================================================== … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , | 95 Comments

ATI’s FOI request to the University of Arizona ‘excessively burdensome’

Chris Horner writes in with this news, I had to chuckle at some of the language UofA used in the reply, seen below, as if Malcolm Hughes and Jonathan Overpeck had to sit in the scribe room on hard wooden … Continue reading

Posted in FOI | Tagged , , , , , , | 39 Comments

Update on Watts et al. 2012

My sincere thanks to everyone who has provided widespread review of our draft paper. There have been hundreds of suggestions and corrections submitted in comments and in email, and for that I am very grateful.  That sort of input is … Continue reading

Posted in Watts et al 2012 | Tagged , , , , | 81 Comments

Why the BEST papers failed to pass peer review

Whoa, this is heavy.  Ross McKitrick, who was a peer review referee for the BEST papers with the Journal of Geophysical Research got fed up with Muller’s media blitzing and  tells his story: excerpts: In October 2011, despite the papers … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 107 Comments

More on Koutsoyiannis and the homogenization of temperature data – plus some comments on blog review

First, correcting an error that originated with the blog The Hockey Schtick about not giving appropriate credit. Marcel Crok writes on De staat van het klimaat One of the basic principles of blogging is to give credit when credit is … Continue reading

Posted in Peer review | Tagged , , , , , , , | 35 Comments

Forcing or Feedback?

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach I read a Reviewer’s Comment on one of Richard Lindzen’s papers today, a paper about the tropics from 20°N to 20°S, and I came across this curiosity (emphasis mine): Lastly, the authors go through convoluted … Continue reading

Posted in Albedo, clouds, feedbacks, Peer review | Tagged , , | 87 Comments

The Journal Science – Free the code

In my opinion, this is a testament to Steve McIntyre’s tenacity. Via the GWPF: At Last, The Right Lesson From Climategate Fiasco Monday, 16 April 2012 11:21 PhysOrg A diverse group of academic research scientists from across the U.S. have … Continue reading

Posted in Climategate | Tagged , , , , , , | 248 Comments

Two opinions on the state of science publishing

I’ve been made aware of two different opinions on state of science publishing as it relates to peer review and the pressure to publish even faster due to the Internet and all of its “instalaunch” tools. First, in Nature, a … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | 93 Comments

Paging Mike Mann – your dendrochronologist will see you now

Tom Nelson has another Climategate 2 email well worth reading Dendrochronologists get spanked by guy with expertise in tree physiology and wood anatomy ClimateGate Email 1738 “However, there are bounds to dendrochronology, as there are to every field of investigation, … Continue reading

Posted in Michael E. Mann, Paleoclimatology, Peer review, Post-normal science | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 148 Comments