I’ll be offline most of this weekend, as I got virtually no work done for myself this week thanks to the BEST “PR before peer review shenanigans” and the compliant cadre of barking media lapdogs that followed with tails-a-wagging looking for a sound bite.
Discuss topics on science, weather climate, etc here quietly amongst yourselves. don’t make me come back here.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sorry but the peer review process is broken. As Lucy said previousely, ” When McIntyre has a problem with a paper WHAT is the resounding plea: “write a paper, mr Fraudit. do your own science steve.”
When Ross writes a paper what do they say: “we can redefine peer review”
And Trenberth calls skeptics the lazy ones.
Throughout the emails one consistent pattern of behavior emerges. Dodge.
“we can say they are lazy” “we can have an independent bucnh of boys from CRU say the work is solid”, ”we can redefine the peer review” “delete the mails” “we can pass on everyth tenth line of code” “you should show your FIOA officer their web site.” “we should collect a file on the editor.”
“we should boycott the journal.” “we can say keith never got anything.”
The list goes on and on and on. This is not evidence of Naivete. It is evidence of obstruction, of gaming the system. You see the same behavior in the inquiries.
Found an interesting article on psychology, and thought it was relevant to science in general, and climate science in particular.
Exerpt:
I coined the term “illusion of validity” because the confidence we had in judgments about individual soldiers was not affected by a statistical fact we knew to be true — that our predictions were unrelated to the truth. This is not an isolated observation. When a compelling impression of a particular event clashes with general knowledge, the impression commonly prevails.
Artile:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/23/magazine/dont-blink-the-hazards-of-confidence.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all