Comments on: Peer review

By: Hansen again

Hansen again — Fri, 04 Jun 2010 10:04:48 +0000

[...] a proper scientist is always sceptical and an interesting article on your beloved peer review Peer review at Catallaxy Files "That government is best which governs least." "This is a sharp Medicine, but [...]

By: The repeated use of the argument from authority by environmentalists « Tim R

Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:50:04 +0000

[...] The repeated use of the argument from authority by environmentalists 23 02 2010 H/T Catallaxy blog. See http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/02/22/peer-review/ [...]

By: dover_beach

dover_beach — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 02:08:01 +0000

Data collection is not highly corruptible. Not when it is simple like thermometers and has been collected from a wide variety of sources over about 400 years. You can’t say that measurements of temperature taken continuously in central England over a period of centuries were corrupted by a moral and political argument we’re having now.

No one is saying that those who collected data three centuries earlier were corrupted by contemporary moral or political considerations, JM. But speaking of central England temperatures:

The Central England data show nothing unusual about the evolution of current temperatures. And because there is really nothing special about Central England, it’s reasonable to expect that no place in the world is experiencing anything unusual in the modern era, in comparison with other epochs since 1659.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/warming-trends-in-england-from-1659.html

Now. Were Kelvin, Planck and Einstein corrupted by our modern problem with CO2? You’ve gotta be kidding me.

What utter nonsense. Radiative physics and thermodynamics do not exhaust climate science, JM. The models are likely to be wrong even if many of the physical relationships, etc. they piggy-back on are right because they are likely to be wrong in respect of those other relationships, etc. of which Kelvin, Planck, and Einstein had nothing to say.

And today I’ll do the same with today’s senior scientists who are reviewed by their senior colleagues.

This is disingenuous tosh. What you need to do, JM, is to compare the work of people like Koutsoyannis, Pielke, etc. who are themselves senior scientists in their field with the work of their alarmist senior colleagues rather than mouthing on about Watts. You really must lack confidence in your chosen “senior scientists” if you only ever compare them with Bolt or Watts.

By: Peter Patton

Peter Patton — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:09:38 +0000

Oh, I forgot the little prat’s conclusion to his Own Goal 101 lecture.

Until then, they’re just crank denialists who no more deserve to apply to themselves the noble labels of skeptics (Gallileo, Copernicus, Columbus) or dissenters (Mandela, Gandhi, Walesa) than do the dust bunnies under my bed.

By: Peter Patton

Peter Patton — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 01:06:46 +0000

And what happens when your "peers" are Media Studies and 'Education' types? Well, you get people arguing that Galileo was in error, not a "dissenter," the sun really does circle the earth. Enjoy. "Dissent" is possible only in matters of opinion, politics, ethics, philosophy, etc. It is impossible in principle to "dissent" from fact. If I wish to assert that the sun did not rise this morning, that is error, not "dissent".

By: JM

JM — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:28:59 +0000

Dave I’m actually a bit envious of your boundless faith and optimism in science and scientists. Here's why That's the microwave radiation from the Big Bang. The solid line is theory. All the tiny little dots on the line that you can barely see because they fit so well, are the empirical data. Science works.

By: JM

JM — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:25:35 +0000

errors are made

Yes Dave, they are, and they have many sources. We know they’re there, even if we can’t identify them all.

That’s why we have statistical methods to analyse their magnitude and give confidence levels on our conclusions. Regardless of the underlying errors and their source.

none of those men predicted global warming

True enough. But global warming was predicted empirically before them, their work explained the mechanism (aka theory) even if they didn’t realize it.

By: daddy dave

daddy dave — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:22:16 +0000

As an aside, JM, I’m actually a bit envious of your boundless faith and optimism in science and scientists.

By: daddy dave

daddy dave — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:19:08 +0000

JM,
The bottom line is that I am far more cynical than you, and far more pessimistic about the ability of the bulk of scientists working today to produce clean, unbiased, easily replicable findings.
.
I can indulge naivete, but you’re in error in a couple of ways. First,
Data collection is not highly corruptible. Not when it is simple like thermometers and has been collected from a wide variety of sources over about 400 years. You can’t say that measurements of temperature taken continuously in central England over a period of centuries were corrupted by a moral and political argument we’re having now.
.
I don’t say that. However, even seemingly simple data collection operations can have hidden complexities, especially when they are on a large scale. Measurements fail, or get collected at the wrong time; errors are made in transcription; adjustments are made using secondary data sources that are less reliable… and so on.
.
In short: data is hugely corruptable. I’m not going to do any further selling of this fact. We’ll simply have to agree to disagree, because if you don’t understand that, then you’re not even at first base in understanding how real science works.
.
The theory is similarly not corruptible. The basis for the energy balance argument that I usually mount hinges on two things:-
.,
However, none of those men predicted global warming. This tells us that there are additional steps between their solid theoretical work and the AGW hypothesis.
.
And today I’ll do the same with today’s senior scientists who are reviewed by their senior colleagues.
.
I’m confident your view on this will change over the coming decade.

By: Semi Regular Libertarian

Semi Regular Libertarian — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 12:16:04 +0000

“Data collection is not highly corruptible.”

Okay, so why did they cherrypick 1/36 trees in Yamal?