OMG at least one BEST paper has passed peer review

[IanC]

In the first issue of a new Indian journal with severe credibility problems.

What the hell?

 

[SSDD]

You have to wonder how badly this is going to turn out for him. Curry has put as much distance between herself and this potential debacle as humanly possible.

 

[IanC]

what does it say about the BEST papers when mainstream journals which presumably would be fighting over the privilege of publishing, are bypassed and an unknown journal is chosen? something smells very fishy.

JGR Atmospheres was the journal of record when BEST announced that the papers were going to peer review.

 

[IanC]

so no one wants to bring up the obvious reason why Muller would choose a fourth rate journal ?





could there be a time deadline that they are trying to beat? obviously the original journal that the BEST papers were submitted to was dragging its feet on publishing important documents that were bound to be widely cited but vulnerable to criticism on methodology.






the next (and perhaps last) IPCC report is due out this year! Muller couldnt stand the idea that his baby was going to be shut out of the biggest show in town. unlike the last report which took heavy flak for accepting papers that werent yet published (and in a few cases, never published) the AR5 is actually going to comply with the rules on deadlines this time.

Muller is willing to put up with short term ridicule to insure that his work gets into AR5. just my opinion of course but I cannot see how it was not an important consideration in choosing the lowest ranked journal in the world simply because it has the shortest turnaround time and the flimsiest peer review.

 

[IanC]

another year has gone by.

does anyone know if the other BEST papers have been published yet?

 

[SSDD]

another year has gone by.

does anyone know if the other BEST papers have been published yet?

None that I am aware of....of course the warmist wackos still tout Best as if it were a legitimate piece of research.....well, at least as legitimate as the rest of the bunk they post as evidence to support their position.

 

[flacaltenn]

They need more money from the Koch Bros to hire the slave Grad Student labor to defend and revise the submissions.. ??????

No sponsor -- no workie???

 

[mamooth]

Muller had trouble getting published because there wasn't anything original about his work. It had all been done many times before. "Denialist who switches sides" might make media headlines, but it doesn't get past peer review, as originality is one of the requirements.

 

[westwall]

Muller had trouble getting published because there wasn't anything original about his work. It had all been done many times before. "Denialist who switches sides" might make media headlines, but it doesn't get past peer review, as originality is one of the requirements.

Especially when one considers he was never a "denialist", and was instead a committed AGW supporter from the get go as all of his prior work demonstrate.......oh.... it also appears his work is shit....that might have an effect as well.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. These are the very same people that were informing us how we were going to be crushed by the BEST report when it was finished. And that includes you, Ian.

 

[westwall]

LOL. These are the very same people that were informing us how we were going to be crushed by the BEST report when it was finished. And that includes you, Ian.

I don't recall anyone saying that BEST papers would crush the AGW fraudsters. My recollection is we were hopeful that the papers would finally do away with the shenanigans that had beset climatology for so long. However, Muller's warmist piety reared its ugly head and he published more crapola.

That's why they haven't been seen........... They're shit, and he knows it.

 

[Abraham3]

I found the following Guardian article about Muller and BEST. It's worth a read.

'There's plenty of room for scepticism' ? climate study author Richard Muller | Environment | theguardian.com

And then there's Wikipedia.

From Berkeley Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The team's preliminary findings, data sets and programs were made available to the public in October 2011, and their results have been published as peer-reviewed scientific papers beginning in December 2012.[8][9][10] [However, the hyperlinks in these three references do not work - here is the journal's home page [ http://www.scitechnol.com/geoinformatics-geostatistics-an-overview.php ]] The study addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics including urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias. The Berkeley Earth group concluded that the warming trend is real, that over the past 50 years (between the decades of the 1950s and 2000s) the land surface warmed by 0.91±0.05°C, and their results mirrors those obtained from earlier studies carried out by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Hadley Centre, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Surface Temperature Analysis, and the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The study also found that the urban heat island effect and poor station quality did not bias the results obtained from these earlier studies.[11][12][13][14]

References

8) Rohde, Robert; Muller, et al., Richard A. (2013). "A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011". Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1 (1). doi:10.4172/gigs.1000101. edit
9) Rohde, Robert; Muller, et al., Richard A. (2013). "Berkeley Earth Temperature Averaging Process". Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1 (2). doi:10.4172/gigs.1000103. edit
10) Wickham, Charlotte; Rohde, Robert; Muller, et al., Richard A. (2013). "Influence of Urban Heating on the Global Temperature Land Average using Rural Sites Identified from MODIS Classifications". Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1 (2). doi:10.4172/gigs.1000104. edit
11) Black, Richard (2011-10-21). "Global warming 'confirmed' by independent study". BBC News. Retrieved 2011-10-21.
12) "Climate change: The heat is on". The Economist. 2011-10-22. Retrieved 2011-10-22.
13) "Cooling the Warming Debate: Major New Analysis Confirms That Global Warming Is Real". Science Daily. 2011-10-21. Retrieved 2011-10-22.
14) Sample, Ian (2011-10-20). "Global warming study finds no grounds for climate sceptics' concerns". The Guardian. Retrieved 2011-10-22.

 

[Abraham3]

and here

A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011 | Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview

"Received: September 24, 2012 Accepted: December 02, 2012 Published: December 07, 2012"

is a link to BEST's peer reviewed work

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. These are the very same people that were informing us how we were going to be crushed by the BEST report when it was finished. And that includes you, Ian.

I don't recall anyone saying that BEST papers would crush the AGW fraudsters. My recollection is we were hopeful that the papers would finally do away with the shenanigans that had beset climatology for so long. However, Muller's warmist piety reared its ugly head and he published more crapola.

That's why they haven't been seen........... They're shit, and he knows it.

In other words, a real scientist gave an honest report of his findings, and they do not agree with your idiotic politics.

 

[Abraham3]

Everything the BEST team did is in the public record. If you want to contend that dishonesty and unwarranted data manipulation are behind AGW, then this is the perfect place to prove it.

Put up or shut up. All of you.

 

[westwall]

LOL. These are the very same people that were informing us how we were going to be crushed by the BEST report when it was finished. And that includes you, Ian.

I don't recall anyone saying that BEST papers would crush the AGW fraudsters. My recollection is we were hopeful that the papers would finally do away with the shenanigans that had beset climatology for so long. However, Muller's warmist piety reared its ugly head and he published more crapola.

That's why they haven't been seen........... They're shit, and he knows it.

In other words, a real scientist gave an honest report of his findings, and they do not agree with your idiotic politics.

Not at all. They don't agree with reality. Politics I don't care about, that's your purview. You need the politics to enforce your BS laws on people so that asshats like Goldman Sachs can make money for nothing.

 

[Abraham3]

In the first issue of a new Indian journal with severe credibility problems.

What the hell?

Where did you hear that this was a new Indian journal with severe credibility problems? And when you've identified the source of that opinion, perhaps you could provide some actual evidence to support the accusation.

http://www.scitechnol.com/aboutus.php

 

[IanC]

and here

A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011 | Geoinformatics & Geostatistics: An Overview

"Received: September 24, 2012 Accepted: December 02, 2012 Published: December 07, 2012"

is a link to BEST's peer reviewed work

Abe - this is what was said about the journal before one of the BEST papers was published in Volume One, Issue One. OMICS Publishing Launches New Brand with 53 Journal Titles | Scholarly Open Access

I dont know what happened with the peer review when the BEST papers were originally submitted to a recognized journal, all I know is that they didnt get published there.

you dont think it is fishy that only one of the four(?) papers has been published, and even that one in a brand new pay-for-publish journal, but I do. we are three years down the road from when BEST was put in the public eye by press release.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Let's all agree that we're with a period of little warming called the pause.

 

[Abraham3]

I believe up to this point it has been called a hiatus. However, as I have pointed out too many times now, the radiative imbalance at the ToA, as directly measured by satellites since 2001, has continued to increase. By direct measure, global warming: the accumulation of infrared energy by greenhouse gases continues and continues to grow. I'm terribly sorry if that energy is not showing up as it did prior to 1998~2000, but it very much appears that something has changed. It may be that the Earth's climate has reached some threshold that has significantly altered the process of heat distribution or simply that multiple effects of random, natural variation have teamed up to produce this change. The resemblance to the 1941-1979 hiatus, though today's is of significantly lesser magnitude, tells me that this phenomenon is within the natural variation of the Earth's heating. Matthew, have you had a good look at what global temperatures did between 1941 and 1979? The common wisdom seems to be that the cooling was due to aerosols thrown into the air by explosives used during Word War II. But look closely at the timing and try to imagine the actual, absolute magnitude of that aerosol load. How would it compare with, say, Mt Pinatubo or Eyjafjallajokul, for the mass aerosolized and particularly for the altitudes to which those masses were driven. How many WWII explosives threw material into the stratosphere?

I have another idea. Look at the rate of warming in the three decades prior to 1941. Look familiar?