![PeerReviewCartoon[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/peerreviewcartoon1.jpg?quality=83)
Eric Worrall writes: The Guardian, a green UK newspaper, has published a fascinating article about the shortcomings of peer review – and praised the growing new model of open review, in which papers are pre-published on the internet, giving anyone an opportunity to comment. Naturally the Guardian author was not talking about global warming, which in Guardian circles remains settled science which cannot be questioned, but the point is well made, and well worth reading.
According to The Guardian;
“some scientists would prefer … that results are announced only after they have passed peer review, ie been checked by experts and published in a reputable journal.
There are many reasons why this will no longer wash. Those days of deference to patrician authority are over, and probably for the better. We no longer take on trust what we are told by politicians, experts and authorities. There are hazards to such scepticism, but good motivations too. Few regret that the old spoonfeeding of facts to the ignorant masses has been replaced with attempts to engage and include the public.
But science itself has changed too. Information and communications technologies mean that not only is it all but impossible to keep hot findings under wraps, but few even try. In physics in particular, researchers put their papers on publicly accessible pre-print servers before formal publication so that they can be seen and discussed, while specialist bloggers give new claims an informal but often penetrating analysis. This enriches the scientific process and means that problems that peer reviewers for journals might not notice can be spotted and debated. Peer review is imperfect anyway – a valuable check but far from infallible, and notoriously conservative.”
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/26/scientists-gravitational-waves-science
The Guardian article then discusses the super luminal neutrino issue from 2011, a successful example of the application of open review, and provides this gem of a conclusion;
“How much more informative it [open review] was than the tidy fictions that published papers often become.”
Related: Recently, The Open Atmospheric Society was announced, with a goal of open peer review.
Has everyone missed it? The INVERSE correlation between CO2 and the Guardian’s circulation.
CO2 is OBVIOUSLY destroying the Guardian. They need to have MORE WINDMILLS AND SOLAR COLLECTORS, promptly, before they become extinct.
Apparently The Guardian et al. do not understand the essential, primary –indeed, sole– scientific purpose of so-called Peer Review: Not to pass on the truth or falsity of an empirical hypothesis, for only Nature can do that, but to assure that, first, an assertion at-issue is not in prima facie violation of basic principles –no anti-entropic, paranormal, supernatural exegeses need apply– and second, that all analytical procedures, pro-and-con empirical evidence plus relevant documentation are complete, consistent, reported without resort to spurious “adjustments”, ideological bias, wishful thinking.
One glance at any deviant Warmist “paper” will blast these criteria on every count. The fact that backscratching grant-mongers routinely parrot each others’ coprophagous views is not a recommendation but an index of corruption so ingrained, pervasive, that no-one associated with these puerile poseurs in any way retains a shred of personal or professional, never-mind “scientific”, credibility.
The objective is to find the truth (which may be somewhat different that even we think) and hand our kids/grandkids a better world. Anthony did eggzakly the right thing and the Serendipity Surprise was in his meetings later.
We should not try to destroy the Gores/Manns etcetc. But we’ve also found that the Paleo stuff (70 million yrs. of iceball at 4000-12,000 ppm CO2) has no traction as does not 18 yrs. of ‘no-temp.-change’ or ‘minimal real sea-level rise.’ It’s also worthless going after things like 10.10org with their splattered children except to offer to pay their way to meet up with their kindred ISIS. We have to find things which resonate with us and ordinary folks. We are all feeling beings who think, not t’other way round.
Looking @ur momisugly ‘warmer’ sites, some of them are clearly ‘bought-and-paid-for’ but others really believe the warmista-stuff. Debate will not do it. The bedmap2 data is interesting, especially since the ‘warmers’ say, “yes, the ice in Antarctica is increasing in extent, but is thinner, so still a net loss.” We should push for another such survey in a year. We need hard, incontrovertible data. Annddd… can we put our heads together and come up with simple, obvious experimental ways to show it’s nonsense?
At the end of ICCC9, I suggested to Joe Bast that we invite the Gores/Manns etc. to submit their stuff to a judge and we’d do the same. Ifn they decline, we just use their published works. The judge would highlight conflicting evidences [HADCRUT-goalpost-moving?] and would render 1 of 4 opinions The evidence is strongly in favor of/against cAGW or the evidence leans to or away from same. The judge would be a plain-vanilla or a self-aware, supercomputer.
AR5 final draft p.7: “Due to a low level of scientific understanding there is low confidence in attributing the causes of the observed loss of mass from the Antarctic ice sheet since 1993.” Translation: We have no clue what’s going on down there. But certainty begins at Punta del Fuego, right? Riiight.
The Guardian article is a great gift: We might (gently) ask them if this sentiment also applies to ‘Global Warming’ and if not, why not.
Is this the Guardian starting a very wide and slow 180 degree about turn?
The ivory towers are falling down. Falling down. Falling down. The ivory towers are falling down.
The Guardian is a useless rag that transplants articles from other rags. The Alaska/Florida piece first appeared in the New York Times. To all dead tree press scribblers, be careful what you wish for: You might be posted to Alaska. http://www.adn.com/article/20130630/bloodletting-worsens-during-alaskas-legendary-mosquito-infestation
rtj1211 September 28, 2014 at 7:06 am
That’s probably print runs
=====================
It is. However, that’s what matters, as they have no paywall online (yet), hence the GMG’s revenues are spiralling downwards. Whilst Rusbridger’s salary spirals ever upwards.
Opinionated Bloggers may be useful as indeed they are in their sphere but they are no substitute for your peers. Those that compete with you to discover first, for the same funding and academic posts. They know your strengths and weaknesses and from the semi anonymity of the peer review process will happily shoot you down should you fail in rigour. Ain’t no old boys network of back-slappers or idea buggins’ turn in my area of Science. Thankfully
Open review is review by everyone or anyone. Peer review is review by a small subset. There is a possibility of bias in creating the subset. Which is more likely to uncover mistakes? The challenge is to create a proper mode of organization for open review.
Just to reassure you all
In an article the other day stating that the greens should give up on black Carbon and focus on CO2 as the primary driver of global warming, I posted (as Strativarius) that RSS is on 18 years now and easily passes the ‘Santer’ test.
5 minutes later it was removed
I was obviously off-message
It’s funny that the Guardian has been mentioned, and yes, it’s about as sad and prehistoric as it gets> it’s as though they’ve gone back thirty years to when the scam started and it’s readers have ignored all the latest facts like no warming since 1998. It’s difficult if you try telling any of their readers about the facts
I had a three day online argument with a warmist after entering a comment on a Guardian climate article about Alaska becoming the new Florida! He sent me links to sites with all his ‘evidence’ and didn’t see a problem when I pointed out that all his websites were run by environmental activists. He thought it was stupid when I mentioned that science was meant to be neutral and stick to the facts. He then tried to get the upper hand by suggesting that his evidence was imperial as he had quoted the Royal Society in his argument. Again, he didn’t like it when I pointed out that the former chairman Lord Rees was an environmental activist. And again, he didn’t see a problem with this.
As you’ll all know, it’s very difficult to debate with a warmist becuase they see nothing wrong with a one sided and purely environmental activist agenda.