I have other projects to do this weekend, so I’m taking off.
Moderation may be minimal or non-existent at times, so if your comment takes a long time to appear, don’t take it personally. In the meantime, please consider this poll.
I can’t fit the entire question into the poll header, so here it is in full:
If one existed, would you join a professional organization dedicated to offering an alternate to organizations like the American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, etc if this organization offered a peer reviewed journal, reasonable dues, and a healthy dose of climate skepticism rooted in science?
This stems from a conversation I had about three weeks ago, and this weekend seemed like a good time to ask the question.
http://libweb5.princeton.edu/visual_materials/maps/websites/northwest-passage/maps.htm
polistra says:
May 5, 2012 at 4:33 pm
“(2) O’Sullivan’s Law.”
Hey, thanks. I didn’t know that but inferred it myself. “Any institution that is not explicitly right wing will become left wing over time. ”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/02/osullivans-first-law-in-action.php
I currently track its progression at the German Pirate Party.
vukcevic says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:10 pm
I noticed you have some traction with your ideas at RC. I urge you to be careful on that side of the fence. Certainly do not give up on us over here.
Empirical Vs IPCC model projections => http://bit.ly/IBTfhI
clipe says:
May 5, 2012 at 4:37 pm
“Remarkably, the answer to both questions may be yes, says University of Bristol historian Evan Jones, one of the British scholars working with Guidi-Bruscoli and founder of the Cabot Project research initiative, funded in large part by Canadian philanthropist Gretchen Bauta of the Weston family retail dynasty.”
Is this Evan Jones of WUWT? fame?
Marlow Metcalf says:
May 5, 2012 at 3:34 pm
My cure for all things wrong in the ocean and how to prevent the next Great Dying.
Some where on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico we build a pipeline that goes to the Gulf Stream and down to the depth of 5,000′+.
Then put millions of pin holes in several miles of pipe and place it across the stream.
Then pump in 50+ barrels of air per minute. The water pressure will keep the air in the water like carbonated soda.
The current will carry the aerated water around the world. The oxygen will help the fish and other critters and aerobic biodegrading. The nitrogen will help the teeny tiny plant life. This will increase the bottom of the food chain and cleanup pollution. We should also do this with lakes and rivers.
Wow! I am so smart.
Or am I trolling?
I’m never sure.
_______________________
Martin! All that can be said is “Well, how nice!”
The aeration pipes would need to be perforated only along the top surface, otherwise, they would slowly eat their way to China and give them all of the economic advantages to be derived from such a bold scheme, all the while giving the planet a bad case of gastritis, or something.
The pumped air would also have to be free from any of the many weird chemical compounds made by man and or any pollen from GM crops which had been created in part with fish- brain DNA.
We don’t want to turn “Cloverfield” into yet another sci- fi movie from which fantasy futures morph into reality.
I’m Sorry, MARLOW… didn’t mean to call you Martin.
We are told we are on the verge of a new el Nino. However, a tentative visual impression from the animation of the last 30 days equatorial Pacific temperatures suggests the proto-el Nino east Pacific warming is just about to be cut off by new Peruvian coast cold upwelling:
http://www7320.nrlssc.navy.mil/global_ncom/glb8_3b/html/anims/eqp/sst30d.gif
Just an impression – a new cold tongue beginning – however time will tell.
A new peer review format is desperately needed to put science back on track towards truth, invention and discovery and away from grant-grubbing politics.
The usual suspects have banded together with oudles of UK government funding and formed
UK Climate Projections (UKCPO9):
“The maps, graphs and key findings for UKCP09 are a quick way to see projected changes in the UK climate at a national and regional level. All use the three UKCP09 emissions scenarios, three 30-year time periods (2020s, 2050s & 2080s) and a range of probability levels (10, 33, 50, 67 & 90%) to show the spread of possible outcomes.
Use the maps, graphs and key findings to:
communicate the main results of UKCP09;
raise awareness about climate change;
consider climate changes at a national or regional level; and
introduce the concept of probabilistic climate projections.”
http://ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk/21708
NOAA is hiring magicians now
http://phys.org/news/2012-05-noaa-sought-magician.html
Skeptikal says:
May 5, 2012 at 11:52 am
I’m not a professional, so I don’t think I should cast a vote… but it sounds like a great concept.
——————————–
I don’t think you need to be a pro to join some scientific organizations.
I once heard of a dog joining the Union of Concerned Scientists or some such organization.
I don’t know if the science is good but…
The debate on the cause and the amount of global warming and its effect on global climates and economics continues. As world population continues its exponential growth, the potential for catastrophic effects from climate change increases. One previously neglected key to understanding global climate change may be found in examining events of world history and their connection to climate fluctuations.
Juxtaposed in the same paper.
Throughout history, global warming has brought prosperity whereas global cooling has brought adversity.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12433.full
Although, the dog never told me what they were concerned about.
No, No and No.
1. I’m not interested in a journal with a “healthy dose of skepticism”. I’m interested in a journal with a healthy dose of quality analysis and commentary.
2. Peer review doesn’t work. How can any system predicated on peers reviewing each other’s science possibly work over the long haul? I diss your paper because it is wrong, but risk you dissing mine because you want to get even. So maybe I go light on the criticism, or decline to review at all…. and so it goes.
3. Peer review breaks down like any other peer group, into cliques. A determined clique with a common agenda can hijack the process and exclude contrary opinion. Want examples? Look at all the complaints upthread from people who have cancelled subscriptions and memberships in disgust.
I don’t know what alternative might be better, but this one doesn’t work.
A PS. WordPress changed the settings to automatically notify of comments.
My email is clogged enough already!
DaveE.
[REPLY: Obviously a highly demanded “feature”. Most e-mail clients allow you to create a rule for dealing with certain kinds of spam. Right click on a message and see if it doesn’t give you the option to “create a rule”. -REP]
>>>>>>>
DaveE – if you scroll down to the bottom you can “uncheck” notify me.
REP – yes you can make a rule. Shouldn’t have to. Sometime legit email gets stuck in the wrong place and the more garbage you have, the harder it is to sort through it to find the legit one. And sometimes you build a rule and it affects emails you actually wanted. WordPress ticked me off by forcing me to “login” in order to post a comment (so I switched email accounts) now they send me email notifications I never asked for and it is upon me to uncheck the option? That’s negative option billing and despite no money being involved, it p*sses me off just as much.
[REPLY: Yeah, me too. I think Anthony is working on it, but we’re stuck with this “feature” for the moment. It’s not anything WUWT wanted or did. Please be patient. -REP]
jon shively says:
May 5, 2012 at 12:08 pm
No, I would not. A scientific journal should favor seeking scientific trurth and not promoting a favored position on a political issue implied by the science. We need to support those organizations that care about the truth revealed by use of scientific principles and their correct application and that do not promote one side of the climatology.
—————–
jon
I noticed you didn’t offer any names or suggestions as to which journals we should be looking to for some “revealed truth” and “scientific principles.”
Most likely not a good idea at WUWT………..we pay attention.
Forgot to mention.
Published online before print October 24, 2000, doi: 10.1073/pnas.230423297 PNAS November 7, 2000 vol. 97 no. 23 12433-12438
I must admit I was shocked by the Heartland ad campaign but Miranda Devine writes an excellent summary of it here.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/mirandadevine/index.php/heraldsun/comments/heartland_faces_the_heat/
I’ll take the opportunity of this open thread to ask you to:
Please add your computer’s unused power to the efforts to find cures for Alzheimer’s and many other diseases which result when the proteins in our bodies are malformed, or are said to mis- fold.
The volunteer participants in Stanford’s “Folding@Home” project add their computer’s unused processing power to what is by far the world’s most powerful distributed supercomputer.
http://folding.stanford.edu/English/HomePage
We already have it: Fox News and votes are counted by the ratings. The Medium is the Message: the Fearmonger in Chief apparently refuses to appear on Fox.
I’m still trying to understand why the Atlantic PDO, and ENSO have anything to do with the heat content of the earth+atmosphere.
I could imagine warmer poles could shed more heat, but how do these shed heat? Or are they merely moving heat around?
– eco-fascist quotes –
“The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.” -H. L. Mencken
“It’s time for climate change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies. Not necessarily on the forehead; I’m a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest…” — Leftist Journalist Richard Glover, Sydney Morning Herald, June 6 2011
“Isn’t the only hope for this planet the total collapse of industrial civilisation? Is it not our responsibility to ensure that this collapse happens?” – Maurice Strong, ex UNEP Director
“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” — John Davis, Earth First editor
“A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect.” — Richard Benedik, UN functionary
“However it is achieved, a thorough reorganisation of production, consumption and distribution will be the end result of humanity’s response to the climate emergency and the broader environmental crisis.” — Walden Bello, Director of the leftist Focus on the Global South
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We’re basing them upon the climate models.” — Chris Folland, UK Meteorological Office
“Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth, we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful.” — David Frame, Oxford U climate modeler
Re: “If one existed, would you join a professional organization dedicated to offering an alternate . . . if this organization offered a peer reviewed journal, reasonable dues, and a healthy dose of climate skepticism rooted in science?”
Yes
For those disagreeing above, I read “a healthy dose of climate skepticism rooted in science” as the essence of the scientific method as applied to climate science – rather than having an society executive making political statements. Science is inherently skeptical – one needs to show evidence that a hypothesis is statistically different from the null hypothesis – e.g., of natural variations.
Lucia Liljegren at the Blackboard shows that the median of the IPCCmodels of 0.2C/decade is now outside the two sigma bounds of the 30 year temperature trend.
That tells me that the IPCC modls are missing major physics and/or have model parameters severely off.
mfo says:
May 5, 2012 at 6:04 pm
A new peer review format is desperately needed to put science back on track towards truth, invention and discovery and away from grant-grubbing politics.
I just received this email:
[start quote]
As you know, only the 8% of the Scientific Research Society’s members agreed that ‘peer review works well as it is'(Chubin and Hackett, 1990; p.192). Consequently, we invite you to participate in identifying means to improve Peer Review effectiveness.
***********************
Call for Participations through any of the following three ways to contribute in the improvement of Peer Review processes:
• Research Blogging, and/or
• Submitting an abstract and CV to a Conference Special Track (submission deadline: May 18, 2012), and/or
• Submitting an article to the Journal on systemic, Cybernetics and Informatics (JSCI)
***********************
Details at http://www.peer-reviewing.org/pr12 (Where authors and articles referenced in this are included among a larger list of references)
***********************
An exponentially increasing number of studies and experience-based editors’ opinions are clear and explicit about peer review weaknesses and failures. The following affirmations are a very small sample (Many more can be found at the references included in the above mentioned URL)
***********************
“A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.” (Horrobin,2001) Horrobin concludes that peer review “is a non-validated charade whose processes generate results little better than does chance.”
“If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market” affirmed Drummond Rennie (Smith, 2010, p.1), deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association and who intellectually provided support for the international congresses of peer review that have been held, since 1989, every four years. If peer review was a drug, he added, it “would not get onto the market because we have no convincing evidence of its benefits but a lot of evidence of its flaws.” (Ibid)
Few days ago, Carl Zimmer (2012) reported in the New York Time that, according to a study made by PubMed data base, the number of articles retracted from scientific journals increased from 3 in 2000 to 180 in 2009. 6000% of increment in 10 years! This “Sharp Rise in Retractions Prompts Calls for Reform.” (Ibid)
But, “Peer Review is one of the sacred pillars of the scientific edifice” (Goodstein, 2000), it is completely necessary as quality assurance for Scientific/Engineering publications, and “Peer Review is central to the organization of modern science… why not apply scientific [and engineering] methods to the peer review process” (Horrobin, 2001).
This is the purpose of this call for participation via 1) blogging, 2) submitting an article to the Special Track on Peer Reviewing: PR 2012, and/or 3) submitting an article to the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics, and Informatics. More details for each of these three ways of participating can be found at http://www.peer-reviewing.org/pr12.
Sincerely,
PR 2012 Organizing Committee
[end quote]
P.E. murph
yes, and like others above say, you don’t need to include a healthy dose of climate skeptic outcomes. whatever, it must be scientific with a healthy dose of empirical evidence (raw data), total transparency, such as modeling derivations and assumptions, computer program listings and results.