The Journal Nature Requires Reproducibility In Submitted Papers

[usmbguest5318]

You want to have a discussion about the speciousness of scientific research, and I'm willing (for now at least) to engage with you in that discussion. Great, but you need to step up the strength of your claims and supporting arguments....that is unless you don't want to discuss the actual substance (or lack thereof) of the claim(s) you've made about scientific research.

What has the US economy done under Obama and his boot to the throat of business done to our GDP? The Obama EPA has put in place onerous regulations killing major industry using the CO2 endangerment finding of the EPA, who failed to follow even their own rules on scientific review and integrity. The EPA failed to have independent review of their reasoning and an open debate.

GDP rise has shrunk under the last eight years of heavy regulations based on error derived, fallacious, science. If we take into account massive debt spending, GDP is negative.

Which President Rang Up the Highest Deficit?

What has the US economy done under Obama and his boot to the throat of business done to our GDP? The Obama EPA has put in place onerous regulations

Okay...Now I see....the quality of the science isn't really what you wanted to discuss....

killing major industry

....Alright, so now you've gone from "destroyed many economies" to, with a single national frame of reference, "killing major industry." How much farther will you need to "walk-back" your earlier claim in order to arrive at a defensible assertion?

GDP rise has shrunk under the last eight years of heavy regulations based on error derived, fallacious, science. If we take into account massive debt spending, GDP is negative.

Is that so?

 

[Old Rocks]

• Should manuscript peer review emphasize the validity of the science or its merit? While peer review is often viewed as the gatekeeper to the realm of truth, a staff of editors and reviewers cannot make that distinction in a few months.

• In terms of interesting assumptions overlooked, does the process of peer review require a true peer or expert in the field?

• Would unfettered publishing of findings lead to more efficient or faster progress in science?

• What does the stamp of peer review mean to the readers of the literature?

Interesting points...

None of which lend themselves to not publishing the data and methods used to derive the hypothesis. If one can not replicate what has been done and how it was done, the full view of significance is lost and relevant questions by other practitioners and scientists can not generate appropriate critiques of the process and outcome validity.

Peer review has become pal review and in some cases self review.. You don't get reasonable critique from an echo chamber. Being published should mean the science is open to all to critique and respond. Much credibility was lost when the hiding of data and method became an acceptable practice. Can you imagine if this was applied to drug and foods?

OK, buddy boy, replicate a magnitiude nine subduction quake for me.

Much of science is done from observation. From the Theory of Relativity to the deep structure of the Earth. AGW has both observations and solid physics to support the Theory. We see that the temperature of the Earth is higher when the CO2 is high, and lower when it is low. Paleontological records from the prior ice ages, and from deep time. We understand the physics of how GHGs warm the atmosphere and surface of the Earth from the absorption spectra of the GHGs. In fact, there is only one other scientific theory that has that kind of support, evidence and observation, and that is Evolution.

As far as Nature improving the review of it's articles, Xelor critiqued that well enough that I have nothing to add to his statements.

LOL..

Scientists provide their work and data for others to replicate and critique. Warmists do not... GHS's and their actions in our atmosphere are very unsettled science and HIDING DATA AND METHODS IS THE MARK OF LIARS.

A bald statement with no supporting evidence or links.

A paper from a premier Atmospheric Physicist, maybe the best in the world. Data and methods are supplied within the paper, and predictions made from that data and methods.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf


Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

But all of this is really irrelevant to what you are trying to do. You actually seem to think that one of the premier scientific publications work to improve their reviewing methods are actually a condemnation of just one particular science. Your whole train of logic is off rail, a wreck of wrong assumptions and illogical conclusions.

Science will continue to work to perfect the methods of review and judgement. It does not need the silly ass input of people that have no understanding of science at all, people like you.

 

[Billy_Bob]

• Should manuscript peer review emphasize the validity of the science or its merit? While peer review is often viewed as the gatekeeper to the realm of truth, a staff of editors and reviewers cannot make that distinction in a few months.

• In terms of interesting assumptions overlooked, does the process of peer review require a true peer or expert in the field?

• Would unfettered publishing of findings lead to more efficient or faster progress in science?

• What does the stamp of peer review mean to the readers of the literature?

Interesting points...

None of which lend themselves to not publishing the data and methods used to derive the hypothesis. If one can not replicate what has been done and how it was done, the full view of significance is lost and relevant questions by other practitioners and scientists can not generate appropriate critiques of the process and outcome validity.

Peer review has become pal review and in some cases self review.. You don't get reasonable critique from an echo chamber. Being published should mean the science is open to all to critique and respond. Much credibility was lost when the hiding of data and method became an acceptable practice. Can you imagine if this was applied to drug and foods?

OK, buddy boy, replicate a magnitiude nine subduction quake for me.

Much of science is done from observation. From the Theory of Relativity to the deep structure of the Earth. AGW has both observations and solid physics to support the Theory. We see that the temperature of the Earth is higher when the CO2 is high, and lower when it is low. Paleontological records from the prior ice ages, and from deep time. We understand the physics of how GHGs warm the atmosphere and surface of the Earth from the absorption spectra of the GHGs. In fact, there is only one other scientific theory that has that kind of support, evidence and observation, and that is Evolution.

As far as Nature improving the review of it's articles, Xelor critiqued that well enough that I have nothing to add to his statements.

LOL..

Scientists provide their work and data for others to replicate and critique. Warmists do not... GHS's and their actions in our atmosphere are very unsettled science and HIDING DATA AND METHODS IS THE MARK OF LIARS.

A bald statement with no supporting evidence or links.

A paper from a premier Atmospheric Physicist, maybe the best in the world. Data and methods are supplied within the paper, and predictions made from that data and methods.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf


Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

But all of this is really irrelevant to what you are trying to do. You actually seem to think that one of the premier scientific publications work to improve their reviewing methods are actually a condemnation of just one particular science. Your whole train of logic is off rail, a wreck of wrong assumptions and illogical conclusions.

Science will continue to work to perfect the methods of review and judgement. It does not need the silly ass input of people that have no understanding of science at all, people like you.

Karl Et AL... Seriously?????



That paper has so many problems it borders on lunacy...

 

[Billy_Bob]

You want to have a discussion about the speciousness of scientific research, and I'm willing (for now at least) to engage with you in that discussion. Great, but you need to step up the strength of your claims and supporting arguments....that is unless you don't want to discuss the actual substance (or lack thereof) of the claim(s) you've made about scientific research.

What has the US economy done under Obama and his boot to the throat of business done to our GDP? The Obama EPA has put in place onerous regulations killing major industry using the CO2 endangerment finding of the EPA, who failed to follow even their own rules on scientific review and integrity. The EPA failed to have independent review of their reasoning and an open debate.

GDP rise has shrunk under the last eight years of heavy regulations based on error derived, fallacious, science. If we take into account massive debt spending, GDP is negative.

Which President Rang Up the Highest Deficit?

What has the US economy done under Obama and his boot to the throat of business done to our GDP? The Obama EPA has put in place onerous regulations

Okay...Now I see....the quality of the science isn't really what you wanted to discuss....

killing major industry

....Alright, so now you've gone from "destroyed many economies" to, with a single national frame of reference, "killing major industry." How much farther will you need to "walk-back" your earlier claim in order to arrive at a defensible assertion?

GDP rise has shrunk under the last eight years of heavy regulations based on error derived, fallacious, science. If we take into account massive debt spending, GDP is negative.

Is that so?

When you remove Government spending it leaves a negative growth. But you like to do these kind of things.. Deceptive at best..

 

[usmbguest5318]

Off Topic:
Even the most easily accessed starting point for looking into Michael Mann (I don't recall ever hearing the man's name, so I had to start from scratch using the scant info the OP shared after his oblique mention of Mann) reveals the following:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests

The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include:

1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK);
2. Independent Climate Change Review (UK);
3. International Science Assessment Panel (UK);
4. Pennsylvania State University first panel (US),
5. Pennsylvania State University second panel (US);
6. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US);
7. Department of Commerce (US); and
8. National Science Foundation (US)

Unless the OP is aware of something the members of the eight panels are not, he should refrain from making claims they did not and could not. Making such unfounded claims is not what scientists do, and it's hard to make a claim about the poor rigor of scientific research when one makes unfounded claims oneself.

I suspected when I first posted (post #14) in this thread that there was something afoot other than the quality of scientific research and reporting, and I expressed my reservations to that effect in post #14. I knew at the time they were just suppositions and I didn't have a basis beyond what I noted in post #14. Subsequent information has come to light that I was totally on point in thinking that the quality of published information isn't the key point.

Though the OP's normative assertion about researchers disclosing their methods and making accessible their data is valid, I don't see that anyone -- here or in the scholarly science community -- disagrees with the conclusion of his assertion on that point. Being agreed with, right even, on that one point, given the nature and scope of the OP, should have brought an end to this thread for there is nowhere further to go with that matter. "Everyone" agrees and now the OP knows that. The EPA, Michael Mann, etc. have nothing to do with that.

 

[usmbguest5318]

You want to have a discussion about the speciousness of scientific research, and I'm willing (for now at least) to engage with you in that discussion. Great, but you need to step up the strength of your claims and supporting arguments....that is unless you don't want to discuss the actual substance (or lack thereof) of the claim(s) you've made about scientific research.

What has the US economy done under Obama and his boot to the throat of business done to our GDP? The Obama EPA has put in place onerous regulations killing major industry using the CO2 endangerment finding of the EPA, who failed to follow even their own rules on scientific review and integrity. The EPA failed to have independent review of their reasoning and an open debate.

GDP rise has shrunk under the last eight years of heavy regulations based on error derived, fallacious, science. If we take into account massive debt spending, GDP is negative.

Which President Rang Up the Highest Deficit?

What has the US economy done under Obama and his boot to the throat of business done to our GDP? The Obama EPA has put in place onerous regulations

Okay...Now I see....the quality of the science isn't really what you wanted to discuss....

killing major industry

....Alright, so now you've gone from "destroyed many economies" to, with a single national frame of reference, "killing major industry." How much farther will you need to "walk-back" your earlier claim in order to arrive at a defensible assertion?

GDP rise has shrunk under the last eight years of heavy regulations based on error derived, fallacious, science. If we take into account massive debt spending, GDP is negative.

Is that so?

When you remove Government spending it leaves a negative growth. But you like to do these kind of things.. Deceptive at best..

You know. You noted that earlier and I deliberately ignored it out of respect and giving you the benefit of the doubt because it's such a ridiculous qualifier. I'm not even going to dignify that remark with a substantive response/refutation. Were I still teaching my students, sure, I would. Here, no. I'm tired of doing that....I've done it before, but I'm not going to here.

 

[Crick]

Billy, show the man your evidence.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Off Topic:
Even the most easily accessed starting point for looking into Michael Mann (I don't recall ever hearing the man's name, so I had to start from scratch using the scant info the OP shared after his oblique mention of Mann) reveals the following:

Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct. However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests

The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include:

1. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK);
2. Independent Climate Change Review (UK);
3. International Science Assessment Panel (UK);
4. Pennsylvania State University first panel (US),
5. Pennsylvania State University second panel (US);
6. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US);
7. Department of Commerce (US); and
8. National Science Foundation (US)

Unless the OP is aware of something the members of the eight panels are not, he should refrain from making claims they did not and could not. Making such unfounded claims is not what scientists do, and it's hard to make a claim about the poor rigor of scientific research when one makes unfounded claims oneself.

I suspected when I first posted (post #14) in this thread that there was something afoot other than the quality of scientific research and reporting, and I expressed my reservations to that effect in post #14. I knew at the time they were just suppositions and I didn't have a basis beyond what I noted in post #14. Subsequent information has come to light that I was totally on point in thinking that the quality of published information isn't the key point.

Though the OP's normative assertion about researchers disclosing their methods and making accessible their data is valid, I don't see that anyone -- here or in the scholarly science community -- disagrees with the conclusion of his assertion on that point. Being agreed with, right even, on that one point, given the nature and scope of the OP, should have brought an end to this thread for there is nowhere further to go with that matter. "Everyone" agrees and now the OP knows that. The EPA, Michael Mann, etc. have nothing to do with that.

You found the white-wash.. Good! Then you will know that those were pal reviews and not criminal proceedings where Mann was asked what could be used against him. Real objective, letting the person who was implicated in misconduct tell you what was relevant and what was not, then never once interviewing those who were his accusers.

So you will now also know that Mann sues everyone who wants to see his data and methods. Now why would you hide your data and methods?

A bit of history for you.. Mann’s Hockey Stick, Climategate, and FOI – in a nutshell

Its kind of funny how a published piece of crap from Mann has caused so much destruction and how it is being defended all the while his data and methods remain hidden.

 

[Billy_Bob]

“Scientists often have little or no training in ethics or philosophy, and consequently they may feel that they lack clear guidelines for balancing the imperative to avoid error against the need to speak out when it may be ethically required to do so.”

This argument has been made previously, most notably by climatologist Stephen Schneider in 1989, who, in an interview with Discover magazine, said “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but–which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.

Michael Mann, Author of Debunked Hockey Stick Graph, Presents Lecture on Scientific Ethics - Breitbart

the ethical argument... And even Mann participated, yet he wont abide... Why?

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Thread closed.

When the OP derails the thread by bringing up something that doesn't have anything to do with the original topic, it's time to shut it down.