Northwest Passage

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

I don't understand what you mean by "flawed peer-review." The objectivity of the process itself (which many critics question) or the results in particular cases?

Does this help?

The Soon and Baliunas controversy involved the publication in 2003 of a review study written by aerospace engineer Willie Soon and astronomer Sallie Baliunas in the journal Climate Research,[1] which was quickly taken up by the G.W. Bush administration as a basis for amending the first Environmental Protection Agency Report on the Environment.

The paper was strongly criticized by numerous scientists for its methodology and for its misuse of data from previously published studies, prompting concerns about the peer review process of the paper. The controversy resulted in the resignation of half of the editors of the journal and in the admission by its publisher Otto Kinne that the paper should not have been published as it was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_a...as_controversy

Or this

Termination of the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics

Copernicus Publications started publishing the journal Pattern Recognition in Physics (PRP) in March 2013. The journal idea was brought to Copernicus' attention and was taken rather critically in the beginning, since the designated Editors-in-Chief were mentioned in the context of the debates of climate skeptics. However, the initiators asserted that the aim of the journal was to publish articles about patterns recognized in the full spectrum of physical disciplines rather than to focus on climate-research-related topics.

Recently, a special issue was compiled entitled "Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts". Besides papers dealing with the observed patterns in the heliosphere, the special issue editors ultimately submitted their conclusions in which they “doubt the continued, even accelerated, warming as claimed by the IPCC project” (Pattern Recogn. Phys., 1, 205–206, 2013).

Copernicus Publications published the work and other special issue papers to provide the spectrum of the related papers to the scientists for their individual judgment. Following best practice in scholarly publishing, published articles cannot be removed afterwards.

In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.

Therefore, we at Copernicus Publications wish to distance ourselves from the apparent misuse of the originally agreed aims & scope of the journal as well as the malpractice regarding the review process, and decided on 17 January 2014 to cease the publication of PRP. Of course, scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community. However, the recent developments including the expressed implications (see above) have led us to this drastic decision.

Check out the authors involved in this "scam."

PRP - Special Issue - Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

And some two thousand years ago the Inuit culture evolved in the most northern part of Greenland which indicates there were open water during summer. Kudos to Curry but what she refers to "wicked problem" is not conclusive either way. To me more convincing of the climate change is the denialist claim of solar minimum cooling the earth instead of warming. So the question remains, why the the ice keeps smelting if we are in a solar minimum?
Besides why not to spare the coal untill we really need it when the next ice age begins?

Are you sure about the history of the Inuit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_Inuit#History

[Exile]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

And some two thousand years ago the Inuit culture evolved in the most northern part of Greenland which indicates there were open water during summer. Kudos to Curry but what she refers to "wicked problem" is not conclusive either way. To me more convincing of the climate change is the denialist claim of solar minimum cooling the earth instead of warming. So the question remains, why the the ice keeps smelting if we are in a solar minimum?
Besides why not to spare the coal untill we really need it when the next ice age begins?

Coal has been in decline in the US for years now, mainly due to the development of less expensive natural gas. This is the main reason why the US has reduced its emissions more than any other country, and its reductions are close to what the entire EU has achieved. The last time I checked the stats anyway. I believe US emissions are up in the past few years, however, because of economic growth (while EU economies remain stagnant).

Curry is the first to admit that the cause of Arctic ice melt is not conclusive either way. But she's an actual scientist with recognized expertise, not an internet poster with non-expert opinions trying to pass them off as scientific truths.

As I understand it, the solar minimum has only recently begun. I don't think its existence is disputed, but its impact on temps is highly controversial. It also represents a minority view; certainly relevant but not dispositive.

I don't logically understand how one can be labeled a "denialist" when we're discussing scientific theories which have not risen to the level of undisputed scientific fact. Does one who accepts mainstream CC science a "denialist" when it comes to the Grand Solar Minimum theory? This is terminology borne of politics not science (or logic).

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Are you sure about the history of the Inuit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_Inuit#History

any other time you would refuse to accept a link to wiki as a valid source .

But I suppose this time it supports your view so it is acceptable ?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Does this help?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_a...as_controversy

Or this



Check out the authors involved in this "scam."

PRP - Special Issue - Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts

It could very well help if you would go through the trouble of providing some context, namely linking these instances of apparent abuse with the objectivity of the peer review process when it comes to alternative, non-mainstream theories of CC. Some might even call it 'analysis.' As it stands now, it's more akin to a conversation with 'The Riddler,' or maybe a game of '20 Questions.' Are you trying to say that all such alternative theories are a 'scam' based on the uncovering of such faulty work? If so, then it's neither logical nor persuasive. If not, then what point are you trying to advance?

As a reminder, the criticism of the peer review process is that it doesn't accept work for review that doesn't support mainstream CC theory. If true, then it's rather disingenuous to try and discredit authors of alternative studies because they don't submit their work for peer review, or are forced to submit their work to publications with less credibility. A forthright discussion about these criticisms might be more effective and educational than merely providing cut & paste links.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Does this help?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_a...as_controversy

Or this



Check out the authors involved in this "scam."

PRP - Special Issue - Pattern in solar variability, their planetary origin and terrestrial impacts

lets see the actual honest peer review of Dr Mann's flawed bristle cone pine tree study
You can't because he refused to allow anyone to see his research which then brings into question his entire hockey stick theory.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Are you sure about the history of the Inuit?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenlandic_Inuit#History

I wrote a paper a few decades ago about the Inuit culture (before internet), so had to read some ten thousand pages of books of the subject. Dunno of more reasent research..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_people

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Exile

Coal has been in decline in the US for years now, mainly due to the development of less expensive natural gas. This is the main reason why the US has reduced its emissions more than any other country, and its reductions are close to what the entire EU has achieved. The last time I checked the stats anyway. I believe US emissions are up in the past few years, however, because of economic growth (while EU economies remain stagnant).

Curry is the first to admit that the cause of Arctic ice melt is not conclusive either way. But she's an actual scientist with recognized expertise, not an internet poster with non-expert opinions trying to pass them off as scientific truths.

As I understand it, the solar minimum has only recently begun. I don't think its existence is disputed, but its impact on temps is highly controversial. It also represents a minority view; certainly relevant but not dispositive.

I don't logically understand how one can be labeled a "denialist" when we're discussing scientific theories which have not risen to the level of undisputed scientific fact. Does one who accepts mainstream CC science a "denialist" when it comes to the Grand Solar Minimum theory? This is terminology borne of politics not science (or logic).

I didn't refer to you or Curry as a denialist.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

lets see the actual honest peer review of Dr Mann's flawed bristle cone pine tree study
You can't because he refused to allow anyone to see his research which then brings into question his entire hockey stick theory.

Mann's hockey stick has been replicated over 3 dozen times by different researchers using different methodologies and different data sets.

Do you want me to post them?

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by TeddyDiver

I wrote a paper a few decades ago about the Inuit culture (before internet), so had to read some ten thousand pages of books of the subject. Dunno of more reasent research..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_people

that entry in wiki leads me to the conclusion that the Thule would be properly also called Inuit .

My Inuit knowledge is from the western side ( old high school girlfriend was Inuit. )

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

A forthright discussion about these criticisms might be more effective and educational than merely providing cut & paste links.

That cut and paste is citation, sorely lacking in your posts.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Mann's hockey stick has been replicated over 3 dozen times by different researchers using different methodologies and different data sets.

Do you want me to post them?

yes I actually do but start a new thread on that subject .
Please also include the credentials of the peers that reviewed the works and their credential status when they did the review.
( many that are " peer " are actually grad students working under the one they are reviewing )

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

That cut and paste is citation, sorely lacking in your posts.

and quite a good bit of cherry picking to .

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

yes I actually do but start a new thread on that subject .
Please also include the credentials of the peers that reviewed the works and their credential status when they did the review.
( many that are " peer " are actually grad students working under the one they are reviewing )

Duh. The peer-review process in anonymous.

Can we see the evidence that supports your assertion in your last paragraph?

[conachair]

Originally Posted by newhaul

really the fact that we are just conning off of the near 100 years of the most active the sun has been in well over 1500 years has nothing to do with it . But our .04% of co2 does???
Sorry but the math just doesn't cut the mustard on that one .

Strange that the thousands of climate scientists around the globe can't make the maths work to explain the rapid warming without another driver......