Guest post by Michael A. Lewis, Ph.D
In a New Year’s Day post, Anthony mounted the Abstract from a Paper titled Warming Power of CO2: Correlations with temperature change. Subsequent comments raised some questions about the Journal citation, International Journal of Geosciences, and the publisher, Scientific Research Publishing.
A commenter wrote that he (or she) had called the listed number for SRP and had not received an answer. I had the same experience. I wrote to the author, Professor Paulo Cesar Soares, and received a nice reply saying that yes he is a retired professor and researcher at the Federal University of Paraná, and he did write the article and published with SRP because they have free access to all Journal articles available to researchers and students alike.
So, the article can be judged on its own merits, and the legitimacy of SRP can be judged on the quality of articles it dispenses.
===================================================================
Note: the journal’s first edition can be seen here (PDF)
I would note the list of the editorial board members on Page 2 – Anthony
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Re : dbleader61
I think he is being unfairly berated in these posts.
Read him again. He’s asking, thats all.
I think we have seen the gist of this paper before, in that you look at the changes in CO2 and the changes in temperature and look for correlation. This method amplifies a noisy signa when what you want to do is minimize the effects of noise.
Plotting annual averages for CO2 vs annual averages for temp (from whatever source available) for the last 50 years, using a scatter plot in excel, will show that temperature correlates very well with CO2.
Try it in excell before you slam me. Use Spencer’s temperature data if you like.
dbleader61 says:
January 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm
“I would note the list of the editorial board members on Page 2 – Anthony”
Sorry Anthony. I am a little thick today. I do note the prevalence of Chinese scientists, as well as Russian, South American, and scientists that apparently don’t prescribe to alarmism as a tenet of good science. These are all relative “unknowns” vis a vis Hansen, Jones, and Mann. Is that what you wanted us to note?
REPLY: Only that it has one, as any proper journal would, and I’ll point out that the US no longer has a monopoly on climate science, in fact it lags much of the world now. It also doesn’t look like it will get any better. If your point is that you think that a new journal on Geosciences must have well known celebrity scientists to be of any value, then I pity your distorted view of science journals. – Anthony
Russian agricultural and associated genetics work lagged the rest of the world when the whole field was politicised by lysenkoism. Climate science in the west will be no different, it too will fall behind while it remains locked into mediocrity driven by political needs.
I can’t download the PDF file, it says it is damaged and can’t be repaired. Someone else had the same problem, is there a trick to getting access?
I have the same problem. Can’t download the file. Says it is damaged and can’t be repaired.
I upgraded to Adobe Reader X (i.e. 10) recently and have had some trouble opening some pdfs online. I haven’t gotten that error message, though. When I tried opening the most recent one I had trouble with in Adobe Reader 9 (on my Windows XP Mode XP desktop) instead it opened fine. Perhaps you’re experiencing that or a related issue.
I had no problem downloading it on Windows Vista and Firefox.
Peer review? How about starting with a proof-read first! Step up… anyone with $800 can suddenly be a published scientist.
About SCIRP:
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100113/full/463148a.html
http://improbable.com/2009/12/22/strangest-academic-journals/
Check SCIRP’s ‘editor-in-chief’s’ current association with Bentham, another vanity publisher:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-crap-paper-accepted-by-journal.html
http://culturematters.wordpress.com/2008/07/04/a-new-model-for-open-access-the-pyramid-scheme/
Any particular reasons why this so-called open access journal wouldn’t be listed within DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals). Or why SCIRP isn’t a member of OASPA (Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association). Does it have anything to do with having to meet such prickly untoward requirements… such as peer review? Just sayin.
File opens, no probs, on my PC in Australia. No messages/warnings attached. Download rate was slow, that’s all.
Seems like your home/work system has a problem, maybe security settings.
To quote Frank Zappa…
“…a penguin in bondage….boing……”
Ed Moran says:
January 13, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Re : dbleader61
“I think he is being unfairly berated in these posts.
Read him again. He’s asking, thats all.”
I agree Ed. I thought when I read Anthony’s reply that it was a little harsh! Maybe the end of a tough day!
no problem downloading/reading…. but then again I dumped Adobe as over the years it turned into an excessively bloated resource hog. I’m very happy using Foxit 3.3.1.
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/downloads/
btw… Adobe was a real bugger to completely uninstall.
Try Foxit Reader; I had no trouble with the d/l and opening of the document. Foxit has a few issues of its own (seems to blow up recently with “Markup” errors when the document is copy/paste blocked), but overall is less hassle than Adobe, IMO.
The publisher’s web site is registered to Beijing Innovative Linkage Technology Ltd.
of Wuhan, China, which might explain the abundance of Chinese scientists.
It also might explain why no one answers the phone when you call. They’re all home in bed.
@ur momisugly peetee
Until you admit that “peer review” as practised by Jones, Hansen, Schmidt, Mann et al, is biased, unscientific, and totally fabricated, please don’t clutter up the threads here and elsewhere
Peer review is what happens when the hypothesis is opened for discussion, as happens in WUWT
Please provide your hypothesis about anything.
People are waiting to discuss your ideas
This journal is not bad because it has a low impact factor, it is so because it’s not even listed as a peer-reviewed journal by ISI Thompson…
As already mentioned, anyone can just start a so-called scientific publication with some money, by attracting some low-profile scientists with a generous proposition to enter the editorial board.
It is good to see however that this is not enough to be considered a peer-reviewed journal.
“jrwakefield says:
January 13, 2011 at 2:06 pm
I do note the prevalence of Chinese scientists, as well as Russian, South American,
Is that infering that those scientists are less capable than US and UK scientists?”
And neglecting that often trained by these scientists?
People who are amazed that scientists outside the EU and USA are publishing papers, show to me that there is still a huge amount of snobbery, if not unconscious racism, going on in our science labs at our universities.
Little anecdote from some year back happening in my lab:
One post-grad came from Nigeria, doing an M.Sc. on freshwater snails. He’d been educated under appalling conditions, but he had a proper scientific attitude, and a wonderful mind. His project showed he’d understood the scientific method perfectly, and he worked his socks off, doing everything himself, even getting down and dirty cleaning his tanks etc.
And then there was another post grad, doing a Ph.D in cell biology. He was English, he knew everything better than the other post grads, right after having done his first degree. He never cleaned up his stuff. The worst was that he had no clue about the decimal point. He kept transcribing 10 to the power of -6 with 6 zeros following the decimal point. Precision, especially when dealing with very small amounts, was b*llocks to him, admonition was constantly disregarded.
People like him are the reservoir from which those with that snobbish attitude described above (‘not in Nature? Gotta be junk’) are recruited.
It does seem incongruous that a US site that frequently slams what it views as ‘liberal’ views and ‘socialist’ views (often not distinguishing the two) would promote a chinese/russian publication. Times have changed and new alliances are formed, I guess.
Rob Vermeulen says:
January 14, 2011 at 1:42 am
This journal is not bad because it has a low impact factor, it is so because it’s not even listed as a peer-reviewed journal by ISI Thompson
Rob, how to completely misunderstand everything. A journal’s badness (or goodness) is not a function of whether ISI chose to list it – about a third of scientific journals are listed by ISI, (and as a function of that listing, have an impact factor) are we to infer that the other two thirds are all bad, worthless, that the publishers, editors, reviewers, contributors, readers are all wasting their time and/or engaged in some complex fraud upon the world at large. Rob, not being listed in ISI really does not mean a journal is not peer reviewed, it just means its not listed in ISI. And, in passing, we can assess the worth of ISI’s ranking when it gives high impact to journals which are prepared to publish the work of the likes of Michael Mann, a clear fail in any discipline apart from climate science. Where ISI have been very successful is in persuading the academic community (in particular library journal buyers and thise academics seeking career advancement) that its ranking and indexing really matters. Actually, it doesn’t.
In reply to Bob at 6:46PM:
So both are going up. Big deal. The point I tried to make is the ice cores show no such correlation over 400,000 years, as compared to your 100 years. The most basic evidence for the assumption of CO2 forcing is entirely lacking in the cores. All we see is the ineptly interpreted correlation where CO2 and T are “forced” in response to ice sheet extension.
Anthony’s reply to dbleader61 January 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm:
I’ll point out that the US no longer has a monopoly on climate science, in fact it lags much of the world now. It also doesn’t look like it will get any better.
Come on Anthony, you have to know that NY Times (ugh!) piece is nothing more than a cry of, “We want more money!” As if they don’t have enough already. I have never, ever seen a useful or true climate prediction from any source. The science is crap and so are the models.
http://climatequotes.com/2011/01/08/how-can-climate-scientists-spend-so-much-money/
On the education side, if you remove a couple particular minorities from the studies of US education, we are right up there at the top. And much of the problem with those minorities when it comes to education cultural, and has nothing to do with the schools. And I say that as someone who thinks public schools should be abolished and we go to a tuition voucher system.
[Strong words, strong opinions. Are you sure you want to keep them published as your thoughts? Robt]
Strong words, strong opinions. Are you sure you want to keep them published as your thoughts? Robt
I assume you are referring to my comment about a couple of particular minorities. I refuse to be a part of the insidious lies of political correctness Robt. The facts are the facts and I am not making this up because I have a problem with someone’s skin color. I don’t. Those same minorities also have outliers on their bell curves who are top students, but until they overcome the cultural issues that are holding them back they will remain at the bottom. It’s their choice, and I wish them the best for them and their children.
For those with trouble downloading the pdf, try installing Foxit Reader to replace Adobe. It’s free and a lot quicker to kickstart.
dbleader61 says: January 13, 2011 at 1:01 pm
I wondered if that was someone Anthony has already crossed swords with. If you’re overloaded Anthony is there anything we can do to help?
BTW this looks like a great sideways move, a new journal with competent staff from places not mired in AGW, minus The Team, kicks off to one of the missing papers that skeptics know we need to see.
Wow the CO2 can now stay in the atmosphere for tens of thousands of years; not just 200 years like it used to. So howcome the north polar CO2 drops catastrophically by 18 ppm in just five months; and does so every single year. So when was the last time that the atmosphere was free of CO2, if it only lasts 10,000 years now ?
Shows you how rong you can be; I always thought that CO2 and H2O were both PERMANENT components of the earth atmosphere; and they both vary with various and sundry emissions and uptakes; according to the usual Physical and Chemical laws (bio too). Of course there is always more H2O than CO2 even at the worst of times and places; well there was a whole bunch of CO2 over the Bay of Naples in 79 AD; but I wouldn’t be surprised if there still wasn’t a lot more H2O. We know there was plenty, because it made all that quickcrete marbles out of the ashes.
But it’s good to know that the CO2 will stay for 10,000 years or so, because what would we do for food, if that doesn’t stay there ?
Is there no end to the grasping at straws these guys try. The longer that they can project into the future, the inevitability of our demise; the less point there is in wasting ANY resources trying to stop what already is unstoppable. We certainly should stop wasting resources on further study; since the science is already settled, and both the late Sephen Schneider, and now Kevin Trenberth; say it is incontrovertible or whatever the euphemism for finality is these days.