"Peer Review" now a Dead Letter

[westwall]

There is not a single element of truth in your entire statement, unsurprising given the source, but you have moved beyond mere distortion and twisting into the complete fabrication of bald lies. Not that you were above such before, but there is a definite smell of desperation in their current bald application.

Take a look at all the studies you have posted. Please note the percentage of those studies that are based on computer models. Get back to me when you have completed the review.

I have no reason to believe that the percentage of studies employing computer modelling for one aspect or another of those particular studies is any different from the percentage of scientific studies that utilize some aspect of computer modelling in other fields of research. If you feel that there is a significant difference in this regard please present your evidence.

One distorted example from a fringe internet political blog is hardly compelling evidence of what you assert. I look forward to reviewing your findings, data and methodology.

C'mon dude. Do a little work here. A simple literature review is a simple thing to do. Pick 25 studies at random and tell us how many are based wholly on modeling.

 

[Trakar]

Take a look at all the studies you have posted. Please note the percentage of those studies that are based on computer models. Get back to me when you have completed the review.

I have no reason to believe that the percentage of studies employing computer modelling for one aspect or another of those particular studies is any different from the percentage of scientific studies that utilize some aspect of computer modelling in other fields of research. If you feel that there is a significant difference in this regard please present your evidence.

One distorted example from a fringe internet political blog is hardly compelling evidence of what you assert. I look forward to reviewing your findings, data and methodology.

C'mon dude. Do a little work here. A simple literature review is a simple thing to do. Pick 25 studies at random and tell us how many are based wholly on modeling.

Your assertion, support what you claim. Tell you what come up with a good way to randomly select studies from four seperate fields (say industrial chemistry, nuclear physics, petrogeology, and in tribute to your avatar, supersonic aerodynamics) randomly select 25 papers from each of these and from climatology perform your analyses and demonstrate to me how much more dependent upon computer modelling climatology is than these other four fields of study

present your evidence and then I'll either accept it or have demonstrate the flaws I find to refute it

 

[flacaltenn]

I assumed you quoted the relevant portions. Did you not?

Now that's funny.. You're relying ON ME to summarize it for you? I don't know, i took some notes while I was reading it.. Ever occur to you that reading original source is usually best?...

Funny you should mention that,...or should I have said "ironic"?

We all have day jobs -- don't we? Well maybe not OopyDoo, he might have a night job staring into the heavens.

And it has to be really really central to my understanding of the topic to spend the time. In this case -- it was a VERY RARE look behind the curtains of an EXTREMELY controversial and politicized process. Thoroughly enjoyed the vindication.. Looking forward to the Mann update on the Hockey Stick in the NEXT IPCC report -- or an update on those Himalayan glaciers from another Master's thesis..

 

[Oddball]

We all have day jobs -- don't we? Well maybe not OopyDoo, he might have a night job staring into the heavens.

And it has to be really really central to my understanding of the topic to spend the time. In this case -- it was a VERY RARE look behind the curtains of an EXTREMELY controversial and politicized process. Thoroughly enjoyed the vindication.. Looking forward to the Mann update on the Hockey Stick in the NEXT IPCC report -- or an update on those Himalayan glaciers from another Master's thesis..

...or from an enviroloon advocacy magazine....It's all good with the warmists.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Take a look at all the studies you have posted. Please note the percentage of those studies that are based on computer models. Get back to me when you have completed the review.

I have no reason to believe that the percentage of studies employing computer modelling for one aspect or another of those particular studies is any different from the percentage of scientific studies that utilize some aspect of computer modelling in other fields of research. If you feel that there is a significant difference in this regard please present your evidence.

One distorted example from a fringe internet political blog is hardly compelling evidence of what you assert. I look forward to reviewing your findings, data and methodology.

C'mon dude. Do a little work here. A simple literature review is a simple thing to do. Pick 25 studies at random and tell us how many are based wholly on modeling.

So I guess Trakar is your phd student now?

 

[skookerasbil]

Now that's funny.. You're relying ON ME to summarize it for you? I don't know, i took some notes while I was reading it.. Ever occur to you that reading original source is usually best?...

Funny you should mention that,...or should I have said "ironic"?

We all have day jobs -- don't we? Well maybe not OopyDoo, he might have a night job staring into the heavens.

And it has to be really really central to my understanding of the topic to spend the time. In this case -- it was a VERY RARE look behind the curtains of an EXTREMELY controversial and politicized process. Thoroughly enjoyed the vindication.. Looking forward to the Mann update on the Hockey Stick in the NEXT IPCC report -- or an update on those Himalayan glaciers from another Master's thesis..

Oooopydoo is a chick I think dude......

 

[westwall]

I have no reason to believe that the percentage of studies employing computer modelling for one aspect or another of those particular studies is any different from the percentage of scientific studies that utilize some aspect of computer modelling in other fields of research. If you feel that there is a significant difference in this regard please present your evidence.

One distorted example from a fringe internet political blog is hardly compelling evidence of what you assert. I look forward to reviewing your findings, data and methodology.

C'mon dude. Do a little work here. A simple literature review is a simple thing to do. Pick 25 studies at random and tell us how many are based wholly on modeling.

So I guess Trakar is your phd student now?

I would never have consented to be his advisor. I demand ethical behavior.

 

[RollingThunder]

C'mon dude. Do a little work here. A simple literature review is a simple thing to do. Pick 25 studies at random and tell us how many are based wholly on modeling.

So I guess Trakar is your phd student now?

I would never have consented to be his advisor. I demand ethical behavior.

How ironically hypocritical of you, you lying fraud.

 

[Old Rocks]

C'mon dude. Do a little work here. A simple literature review is a simple thing to do. Pick 25 studies at random and tell us how many are based wholly on modeling.

So I guess Trakar is your phd student now?

I would never have consented to be his advisor. I demand ethical behavior.

You demand that which you have never demonstrated.

 

[skookerasbil]

If I hear this gay "peer review" once more..............every AGW asshole introduces himself in any public setting by first stating, "Hi there.......Im a big peer review guy" even if they're ordering an ice cream cone at Carvel!!


There is so much fraud in the peer review process, its laughable. Its all rigged............

But dont take my word for it.............What is the future of peer review? Why is there fraud in science? Is plagiarism out of control? Why do scientists do bad things? Is it all a case of:

 

[skookerasbil]

A brilliant piece on "peer review" here................

He also pointed out that peer review has been criticized for being used by the scientific establishment “to prevent unorthodox ideas, methods, and views, regardless of their merit, from being made public”


He also pointed out that peer review has been criticized for being used by the scientific establishment “to prevent unorthodox ideas, methods, and views, regardless of their merit, from being made public”



OOOoooooops!!!



peer review is, of course, necessary to perpetuate the science the scientists WANT to perpetuate!!! Only the hopelessly duped think otherwise............



My field has the same BS going on..............years ago, I even showed up for a conference to present a poster board on my reasearch and because my board didnt exactly meet the field's "standard" I got tossed. You wanna be in the club, you do everything the club says or you're out.

Peer review is established to marginalize questions from a naive public..........very effective, but BS just the same

 

[westwall]

So I guess Trakar is your phd student now?

I would never have consented to be his advisor. I demand ethical behavior.

You demand that which you have never demonstrated.

So says the unethical polluting whore who works for EVRAZ (go ahead folks look up the company that olfraud works for), you make claims about how I lie and yet you never seem to be able to point to one.

 

[RollingThunder]

I would never have consented to be his advisor. I demand ethical behavior.

You demand that which you have never demonstrated.

So says the unethical polluting whore who works for EVRAZ (go ahead folks look up the company that olfraud works for), you make claims about how I lie and yet you never seem to be able to point to one.

I've actually pointed out a great many lies of yours over the years, walleyedretard, but you are in deep denial about that too it seems. The fact is, you're either a paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry, knowingly spewing their lies and propaganda, or you're an incredibly stupid and very ignorant nutjob, greatly afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[westwall]

You demand that which you have never demonstrated.

So says the unethical polluting whore who works for EVRAZ (go ahead folks look up the company that olfraud works for), you make claims about how I lie and yet you never seem to be able to point to one.

I've actually pointed out a great many lies of yours over the years, walleyedretard, but you are in deep denial about that too it seems. The fact is, you're either a paid stooge for the fossil fuel industry, knowingly spewing their lies and propaganda, or you're an incredibly stupid and very ignorant nutjob, greatly afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Really? Show us one.

 

[polarbear]

Your assertion, support what you claim. Tell you what come up with a good way to randomly select studies from four seperate fields (say industrial chemistry, nuclear physics, petrogeology, and in tribute to your avatar, supersonic aerodynamics) randomly select 25 papers from each of these and from climatology perform your analyses and demonstrate to me how much more dependent upon computer modelling climatology is than these other four fields of study

present your evidence and then I'll either accept it or have demonstrate the flaws I find to refute it

In Chemistry You are not awarded a patent unless the process you published can be repeated with the same results by somebody else. Doesn`t matter which filed, industrial or research. Same thing holds true for any physics thesis and that`s why along with math these are called the "hard" (facts) sciences. As far as computer modeling flight characteristics is concerned that is not even by a long shot the same as computer modeling "climate" and the engineers who write the software to simulate costlier wind-tunnel and mock up models know what they are doing. Yet none of them would commit $billions to actually build a prototype without verifying the computer simulation with a mock-up in a wind tunnel.
Show me one "computer climate model" that actually incorporates solar activity instead of just plugging in a constant number and multiplying by 2/3 to "adjust" for curvature and solar elevation by latitude and time....and later does not drag Chinese CFC spraying etc by the hair to "explain" the discrepancies.
Within the last 30 days we had 3 of these:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONh1EhOUu58&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1&feature=plcp"]Solar Flare - YouTube[/ame]

NASA - Solar Activity Can Affect Re-Entry of UARS Satellite

The number of photons at the higher energies can increase by up to 100 times or more within a few minutes due to a single flare, and can then last up to a day before returning to pre-flare levels.
a large flare, categorized as an X1.4 class flare, peaked on September 22 at 7:01 AM ET. The output of this particular flare could increase the drag on satellites at heights of 300 miles by up to about 50%, but at UARS' current altitude of about 110 miles, it will only experience a change in drag of under 1%

Even without a flare up every sun spot rim emits ~ 4 to 6 times the amount of energy as the rest of the sun`s surface.

And we are supposed to park our cars because..:
Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications

Our climate model, driven mainly by increasing human-made greenhouse gases and aerosols, among other forcings, calculates that Earth is now absorbing 0.85 ± 0.15 watts per square meter more energy from the Sun than it is emitting to space.

Yeah and he "calculated among other forcings" the Chinese aerosol effect which makes nonsense out of all his previous "calculations"
Just how would a "climate scientist" even calculate by how much air should warm up with the few watts IR CO2 can absorb in the narrow band for C-O bond stretching an scissoring. You can`t just use so many watt seconds and the specific heat of an Oxygen/Nitrogen and water vapor mixture to calculate what the TEMPERATURE would be. The only time you can convert watt seconds to a temperature increase is you dis-allow every other thermodynamic process such as expansion....unless you treat air as if it was a block of metal.
Thermal energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thermal energy is the part of the total internal energy of a thermodynamic system or sample of matter that results in the system temperature.[1] This quantity may be difficult to determine or even meaningless unless the system has attained its temperature only through heating, and not been subjected to work input or output, or any other energy-changing processes.

Gee, I wonder by how much they are off with their "climate models" without even considering what`s happening on the other 7/10 of the globe`s surface which is water that evaporates and represents a much larger heat output than what air does when it expands. During a flare it does so, that the atmosphere swells up to the extent that it can increase the drag on satellites in a 300 mile high orbit:

...peaked on September 22 at 7:01 AM ET. The output of this particular flare could increase the drag on satellites at heights of 300 miles by up to about 50%,

"Climatology air" does not expand, pick up moisture, rise to altitudes of > 40 000 feet a.g.l. condense and dissipate the H2O condensation heat energy outwards...it manages to bombard a black-body planet through the same ~300 ppm CO2 air which "traps" only photons in one direction.

So You tell me what kind of "peer review" it was that never noticed this lunacy..!

 

[westwall]

Your assertion, support what you claim. Tell you what come up with a good way to randomly select studies from four seperate fields (say industrial chemistry, nuclear physics, petrogeology, and in tribute to your avatar, supersonic aerodynamics) randomly select 25 papers from each of these and from climatology perform your analyses and demonstrate to me how much more dependent upon computer modelling climatology is than these other four fields of study

present your evidence and then I'll either accept it or have demonstrate the flaws I find to refute it

In Chemistry You are not awarded a patent unless the process you published can be repeated with the same results by somebody else. Doesn`t matter which filed, industrial or research. Same thing holds true for any physics thesis and that`s why along with math these are called the "hard" (facts) sciences. As far as computer modeling flight characteristics is concerned that is not even by a long shot the same as computer modeling "climate" and the engineers who write the software to simulate costlier wind-tunnel and mock up models know what they are doing. Yet none of them would commit $billions to actually build a prototype without verifying the computer simulation with a mock-up in a wind tunnel.
Show me one "computer climate model" that actually incorporates solar activity instead of just plugging in a constant number and multiplying by 2/3 to "adjust" for curvature and solar elevation by latitude and time....and later does not drag Chinese CFC spraying etc by the hair to "explain" the discrepancies.
Within the last 30 days we had 3 of these:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONh1EhOUu58&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1&feature=plcp"]Solar Flare - YouTube[/ame]

NASA - Solar Activity Can Affect Re-Entry of UARS Satellite

The number of photons at the higher energies can increase by up to 100 times or more within a few minutes due to a single flare, and can then last up to a day before returning to pre-flare levels.
a large flare, categorized as an X1.4 class flare, peaked on September 22 at 7:01 AM ET. The output of this particular flare could increase the drag on satellites at heights of 300 miles by up to about 50%, but at UARS' current altitude of about 110 miles, it will only experience a change in drag of under 1%

Even without a flare up every sun spot rim emits ~ 4 to 6 times the amount of energy as the rest of the sun`s surface.

And we are supposed to park our cars because..:
Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications
Yeah and he "calculated among other forcings" the Chinese aerosol effect which makes nonsense out of all his previous "calculations"
Just how would a "climate scientist" even calculate by how much air should warm up with the few watts IR CO2 can absorb in the narrow band for C-O bond stretching an scissoring. You can`t just use so many watt seconds and the specific heat of an Oxygen/Nitrogen and water vapor mixture to calculate what the TEMPERATURE would be. The only time you can convert watt seconds to a temperature increase is you dis-allow every other thermodynamic process such as expansion....unless you treat air as if it was a block of metal.
Thermal energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thermal energy is the part of the total internal energy of a thermodynamic system or sample of matter that results in the system temperature.[1] This quantity may be difficult to determine or even meaningless unless the system has attained its temperature only through heating, and not been subjected to work input or output, or any other energy-changing processes.

Gee, I wonder by how much they are off with their "climate models" without even considering what`s happening on the other 7/10 of the globe`s surface which is water that evaporates and represents a much larger heat output than what air does when it expands. During a flare it does so, that the atmosphere swells up to the extent that it can increase the drag on satellites in a 300 mile high orbit:

...peaked on September 22 at 7:01 AM ET. The output of this particular flare could increase the drag on satellites at heights of 300 miles by up to about 50%,

"Climatology air" does not expand, pick up moisture, rise to altitudes of > 40 000 feet a.g.l. condense and dissipate the H2O condensation heat energy outwards...it manages to bombard a black-body planet through the same ~300 ppm CO2 air which "traps" only photons in one direction.

So You tell me what kind of "peer review" it was that never noticed this lunacy..!

Welcome back PB! You are of course correct. In the world of F1 racing there was one team that actually tried to design their car using nothing but CFD programs and models. Unsurprisingly it was the last car on the grid.

What was truly funny is it didn't even have a large enough fuel tank to finish a race at the beginning of the race season! When they were finally confronted by real aerodynamics it was found their computer models were inadequate. Where have we heard that before?

Additionally while the program wasn't the most expensive on on the grid (McLarens system cost well over 50 million pounds) it did cost over 10 million pounds which is far, far more than any computer model for climate change cost. And just like they fail when compared with real world observations so did it.

Oh yeah, the team was owned by Richard Branson!

 

[daveman]

Your assertion, support what you claim. Tell you what come up with a good way to randomly select studies from four seperate fields (say industrial chemistry, nuclear physics, petrogeology, and in tribute to your avatar, supersonic aerodynamics) randomly select 25 papers from each of these and from climatology perform your analyses and demonstrate to me how much more dependent upon computer modelling climatology is than these other four fields of study

present your evidence and then I'll either accept it or have demonstrate the flaws I find to refute it

In Chemistry You are not awarded a patent unless the process you published can be repeated with the same results by somebody else. Doesn`t matter which filed, industrial or research. Same thing holds true for any physics thesis and that`s why along with math these are called the "hard" (facts) sciences. As far as computer modeling flight characteristics is concerned that is not even by a long shot the same as computer modeling "climate" and the engineers who write the software to simulate costlier wind-tunnel and mock up models know what they are doing. Yet none of them would commit $billions to actually build a prototype without verifying the computer simulation with a mock-up in a wind tunnel.
Show me one "computer climate model" that actually incorporates solar activity instead of just plugging in a constant number and multiplying by 2/3 to "adjust" for curvature and solar elevation by latitude and time....and later does not drag Chinese CFC spraying etc by the hair to "explain" the discrepancies.
Within the last 30 days we had 3 of these:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONh1EhOUu58&list=UUvj7dbOY14kt_MFIR1Y1iwA&index=1&feature=plcp"]Solar Flare - YouTube[/ame]

NASA - Solar Activity Can Affect Re-Entry of UARS Satellite
Even without a flare up every sun spot rim emits ~ 4 to 6 times the amount of energy as the rest of the sun`s surface.

And we are supposed to park our cars because..:
Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications
Yeah and he "calculated among other forcings" the Chinese aerosol effect which makes nonsense out of all his previous "calculations"
Just how would a "climate scientist" even calculate by how much air should warm up with the few watts IR CO2 can absorb in the narrow band for C-O bond stretching an scissoring. You can`t just use so many watt seconds and the specific heat of an Oxygen/Nitrogen and water vapor mixture to calculate what the TEMPERATURE would be. The only time you can convert watt seconds to a temperature increase is you dis-allow every other thermodynamic process such as expansion....unless you treat air as if it was a block of metal.
Thermal energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Gee, I wonder by how much they are off with their "climate models" without even considering what`s happening on the other 7/10 of the globe`s surface which is water that evaporates and represents a much larger heat output than what air does when it expands. During a flare it does so, that the atmosphere swells up to the extent that it can increase the drag on satellites in a 300 mile high orbit:

...peaked on September 22 at 7:01 AM ET. The output of this particular flare could increase the drag on satellites at heights of 300 miles by up to about 50%,

"Climatology air" does not expand, pick up moisture, rise to altitudes of > 40 000 feet a.g.l. condense and dissipate the H2O condensation heat energy outwards...it manages to bombard a black-body planet through the same ~300 ppm CO2 air which "traps" only photons in one direction.

So You tell me what kind of "peer review" it was that never noticed this lunacy..!

Welcome back PB! You are of course correct. In the world of F1 racing there was one team that actually tried to design their car using nothing but CFD programs and models. Unsurprisingly it was the last car on the grid.

What was truly funny is it didn't even have a large enough fuel tank to finish a race at the beginning of the race season! When they were finally confronted by real aerodynamics it was found their computer models were inadequate. Where have we heard that before?

Additionally while the program wasn't the most expensive on on the grid (McLarens system cost well over 50 million pounds) it did cost over 10 million pounds which is far, far more than any computer model for climate change cost. And just like they fail when compared with real world observations so did it.

Oh yeah, the team was owned by Richard Branson!

In case of a discrepancy between AGW climate models and reality -- reality is wrong.

 

[polarbear]

In case of a discrepancy between AGW climate models and reality -- reality is wrong.

Yeah,....and a record cold winter was "just the weather" but a 1 month heat wave is "further evidence".
@Westwall..Finally we got our 3G wireless service back. The "Rez" had their own server but the tower got hit by lightning. Now I`m with Rogers, they put one up ~ 200 meters from my house.
When I opened my G-mail inbox it was full to the brim from ex-colleagues and friends from Germany telling me what a(n) (energy) hell hole Merkel made out of Germany after the decision to shut down nuclear power...while Japan which served as a "reason" put theirs back on line. The "left" has been using the phrase that the "need is the mother of invention" beyond the limits of what`s reasonable. Sounds familiar ?...even here..! Some "Gruene" and "Sozial Demokraten" even mention what Germany managed to do during the Nazi era, which was till now as politically incorrect as you could get. But forget that the "Blechhammer Project" which made synthetic gasoline and diesel from coal burnt a lot of coal in the process and could not have been done with solar & windmills making H2 as a fuel. It`s almost as if Germany is going full circle and the only difference is that we went from "National Sozialismus "(Nazi) to "International Sozialismus" (E.U) and that the new "Fuehrer" is a woman instead of a man. Because this bitch was one of Putin`s girl friends while he was still the KGB head most Germans call the E.U. the EUSSR.