Slashdot Mirror
Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash (vice.com)
Tuesday a Canadian journalist described his newest victory in his war on fake-science journals. An anonymous reader writes:
In 2014, journalist Tom Spears intentionally wrote "the world's worst science research paper...a mess of plagiarism and meaningless garble" -- then got it accepted by eight different journals. ("I copied and pasted one phrase from a geology paper online, and the rest from a medical one, on hematology...and so on. There are a couple of graphs from a paper about Mars...") He did it to expose journals which follow the publish-for-a-fee model, "a fast-growing business that sucks money out of research, undermines genuine scientific knowledge, and provides fake credentials for the desperate."
But earlier this year, one such operation actually purchased two prominent Canadian medical journals, and one critic warns they're "on a buying spree, snatching up legitimate scholarly journals and publishers, incorporating them into its mega-fleet of bogus, exploitative, and low-quality publications.â So this summer, Spears explains to Vice, "I got this request to write for what looked like a fake journal -- of ethics. Something about that attracted me... one morning in late August when I woke up early I made extra coffee and banged out some drivel and sent it to them."
He's now publicizing the fact that this formerly-respectable journal is currently featuring his submission, which was "mostly plagiarized from Aristotle, with every fourth or fifth word changed so that anti-plagiarism software won't catch it. But the result is meaningless. Some sentences don't have verbs..."
But earlier this year, one such operation actually purchased two prominent Canadian medical journals, and one critic warns they're "on a buying spree, snatching up legitimate scholarly journals and publishers, incorporating them into its mega-fleet of bogus, exploitative, and low-quality publications.â So this summer, Spears explains to Vice, "I got this request to write for what looked like a fake journal -- of ethics. Something about that attracted me... one morning in late August when I woke up early I made extra coffee and banged out some drivel and sent it to them."
He's now publicizing the fact that this formerly-respectable journal is currently featuring his submission, which was "mostly plagiarized from Aristotle, with every fourth or fifth word changed so that anti-plagiarism software won't catch it. But the result is meaningless. Some sentences don't have verbs..."
I'd like to see peer reviewed journals go away. They're a relic of the past, for many reasons.
1) The review process isn't transparent. It's too easy for authors to submit fake reviewers or for reviewers to not disclose conflicts of interest.
2) Reviewers generally don't have access to data and tools to actually verify the quality of the research. It's too easy for fabricated results to get published.
3) Many conference presentations are recorded. There's much less need for publications when it's easy to go online and watch a recording of a conference presentation.
4) Is it better to have a paper about a data set or the actual data set? Is it better to have a paper about a research tool or the actual research tool? Judge researchers based on the data and analysis tools they release, which is far more of a contribution to science.
5) Peer review gives researchers incentives to withhold data that might be contradictory to a hypothesis or that they can't explain yet, because it's often more important to get more publications than to do good research. This is as much a fault of the system as it is a criticism of researchers.
Eliminating peer reviewed journals is one of the best things that could happen to science. It would also end a lot of abuses by the journals.
I hope this guy keeps up exposing these fraudsters.
Oh, you mean you have published work showing that human being do not affect climate? Really? Please cite it - I'd like to read it. Oh... you DON'T have any published work on climate? Um... well... maybe you can go back to school and learn some math and such and then come back when you're properly prepared.
Deep.
If you post it, they will read.
I'll take credit for that.
They'll keep being around as long as there is a standard tenure and promotion system at most colleges & universities. This last year, one of the more senior CS professor at my college got promoted to full professor, mostly due to the P&T Committee's noting his multiple publications (all from pay-to-publish journals). The committee, not being scientists, had no clue these were not legit journals. As long as people can scam the system, these aren't going anywhere.
Why call it global warming when it is in fact a Global Genocide, an self inflicted extinction event.
Try that with real science journals and see how far you get.
Say...: The Analyst, Analytica Chimica Acta, Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry, Polyhedron, Acta Physica Polonica, Molecular Physics, Applied Optics...
The problem here is what the media defines as "science". They don't really know what they are talking about.
Like any scientist would take something called the "Journal of Clinical Research & Bioethics" seriously. Ha! You can tell by the name it is bogus and has nothing to do with real science.
You do realise that the idea of a peer review is for others to replicate the research and attempt to come to the same conclusions from their own datasets, right? Or are you just a shill?
No. You have been indoctrinated to accept medicine as science. It is not.
Physics and chemistry are science.
...a political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.
That's the most disgusting anti-intellectualist bullshit that I read today.
Half the scientists that I know are barely aware of politics, so it's hard to know how you came to this conclusion.
Half the scientists that I know are barely aware of politics, so it's hard to know how you came to this conclusion.
Trump 2016?
I.e. Any drivel anyone manages to regurgitate is just as good as fact. Or better.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Reproducible? I guess you don't realise how many fields cannot reproduce theories due to there not being an Earth 2 to use as a control. Handy hint, stay away from astrophysics too, idiot.
Using the same dataset if it was published with the article would lead to manipulation of that dataset to meet the already decided upon conclusion. Taking the idea/theory and using an independent dataset is the only way to stop this.
We've seen the results of this before from just about every lobby group with something they are trying to spin into something more positive , for ex Tobacco lobby, NRA, AGW, the list goes on. Marketting droids meet persons with personal agenda. Having no peer reviewed science publishers would be markedly worse. If you had said 'paid peer review publishers' then I would agree.
It's interesting how you turned my question of over your independence into an 'allegation'. You see that little round punctuation mark at the end of my sentence I guess, that denotes a question.
Those of us that are genuine, tend to not hide behind the ac button. Try it some time
And, in case you want to point to peer-reviewed journals, I give you one of the newer /. submissions on the front page:
Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash
You fail to recognize the crucial word in the headline:
Science Journals Caught Publishing Fake Research For Cash
Also, if you bothered to read the articles, you would see that these were formerly-respectable journals that were bought up and exploited by a company that does either perfunctory or nonexistent peer-review, then turns around and agrees to publish the author's paper, provided they pay up of course. Almost all journals charge authors to publish their papers. But these journals are in it for the money, not the science.
This story has nothing to do with the failure of peer-review. It's exposes the failure caused by a lack of it.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
I see this in my undergrad papers all the time. I didn't know that was the result of plagiarizing Aristotle: I thought they were just stupid undergrads who needed to fail.
So you're saying we need to destroy the planet in order to "prove" that we're destroying the planet to your satisfaction?
That seems a bit counter-productive.
They are absurd. They exists purely for the purpose of acting as gateways to science, except they're largely privately owned, and often deeply corrupt.
It's not helpful anymore. All the benefits of such a system can be achieved in far better ways in the modern era - peer review doesn't need a publishing system anymore, nor does statistical analysis, replication studies or metastudies.
The closest thing to a remaining benefit would be reference count - but even that's a dubious statistic, since so many journals exist largely to provide networks of references.
I mean, the whole process has always been somewhat corrupt in the past too - but better options can be built, and better standards should be valuable to enough people to be worth replacing these absurd journals.
I agree with the notion that we need networks to separate science from psuedo-science, but making everything crazy expensive is NOT fulfilling that logical need, nor is it reducing fake science reported as real when you get right down to it.
A real modern science network would inform journalists and laypeople about the best science available as much as the current approach. This is desperately needed, but instead, we still have journals dominating the field, to the point where jobs depend more on the journals than the actual science...again, truly absurd.
Ryan Fenton
OKay.
Let's begin with some real science, and a major issue: solar input
Rind, D.H., Lean, J.L., Jonas, J. 2014. The Impact of Different Absolute Solar Irradiance Values on Current Climate Model Simulations. Journal of Climate Vol. 27(3)
Bodas-Salcedo A, Williams K, Yokohata T, et al. 2014. Origins of the Solar Radiation Biases over the Southern Ocean in CFMIP2 Models. Journal Of Climate Vol. 27(3)
Solanki, S., Krivova, N., Haigh, J.D. 2013. Solar Irradiance Variability and Climate. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics Vol. 51(1)
Scafetta, N. 2012. Multi-scale harmonic model for solar and climate cyclical variation throughout the Holocene based on Jupiter-Saturn tidal frequencies plus the 11-year solar dynamo cycle. Jurnal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestri al Physics Vol. 80
Dima, M. and Lohman, G. 2009. Conceptual model for millenial climate variability: a possible combined solar-thermohal ine circulation origin for the ~1,500 year cycle. Climate Dynamics Vol. 32(2/3)
Krivova, N., S.K. Solanki, 2004: Solar Variability and Global Warming: A Statistical Comparison Since 1850. Advances in Space Research, Vol. 34(2)
Lean, J., D. Rind, 1998: Climate Forcing by Changing Solar Radiation. Journal of Climate Vol. 11(12)
Rind, D., D. Shindell, J. Perlwitz, J. Lerner, P. Lonergan, 2004: The Relative Importance of Solar and Anthropogenic Forcing of Climate Change Between the Maunder Minimum and the Present. Journal of Climate, Vol. 17(5)
Bard, E. and Frank, M. 2006. Climate change and solar variability: What's new under the sun? Earth & Planetary Science Letters. Vol. 248(1/2)
Stott, Peter A.; Jones, Gareth S.; Mitchell, John F.B. 2003. Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change? . Journal of Climate. Vol. 16(24)
Wow. It's amazing what the two digit IQs believe.
For those not familiar with it, back in the mid-90s there was the Sokal Hoax
I encourage everyone to read the article cited and post a comment as informative as the original article!
Sea levels rising a bit would be expensive, no doubt, since we tend to build cities on the coast. Maybe it's cheaper to emit less carbon? Maybe it's not. But either way, hyperbole like "destroy the planet" is political propaganda, not science, and obviously so - speaking of counter-productive.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Now that you don't trust us, you can't trust ANYONE
Now every man must come at times to the aid of the party through the general precept that ethical behavior demands support of the community. It is by reason of erroneous reasoning of this kind that we become unjust and in general evil, or worse, slytherins;
That's gold baby. GOLD!
If you read the article closely, you'll learn that fake journals publish fake research papers. What a surprise.
Let's see him get his phony paper published in Nature, Annals of Mathematics or the Reviews of Modern Physics. Then we'll have something to talk about.
This is just another story from the hard Right (National Post was started by Canadian con-man Conrad Black) which seeks to convince people that you can't trust those crafty scientists so it can make it easier to get the yokels to believe whatever garbage they want them to believe.
You are welcome on my lawn.
and i can absolutely say that they don't want anyone over there speaking the truth how biased and anti free speech they all are...its there news there way and only what they want you to see.
i used to think the conservative party was bad....these idiots are just awful as well....and this is what got the usa trump and Canada is going to dump them two top parties as we all are getting sick n tired fo the crap....
goto cbc.ca and look how they are crying about how trump is anti media....NEWS FLASH TO THE LADY ...WE ALL ARE NOW , you cant be trusted period.
OH and look how many news stories you wish you could comment on and they keep comments closed and then when its some crap piece about how trumps wife should visit trudeau's wife they open things up...LIKE OMG THE PROPOGANDA IS AWFUL...
For those situations, the authors tend to expose ALL data and processes/methods needed to recreate their results. They don't hide their data and refuse to release their code...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Not claims..verifiable, reproducible, proof.
In the real world, we have to frequently make very difficult, big decisions before there is absolute proof of what the consequences are. That doesn't mean such decisions are uninformed though.
"If they do otherwise y are blamed," -- y was not defined beforehand, nor was x... But Y?
"for example the sort of actions which people in a prisoner-of-war camp have been force to perform." -- Use the Force! English conjugations are so freaking difficult!
"What sort of acts, we must ask, should be we call compulsory?" -- I didn't find the sentence in which he accidentally a whole verb, but I did find where the verb ended up!
"It is by reason of erroneous reasoning of this kind that we become unjust and in general evil, or worse, slytherins" -- Aristotle . . . was he in Gryffindor or Ravenclaw?
"for who would bear fardles unless the person who does not understand these acts involuntarily?" -- and some editors should fall upon their bodkins
"But that is a topic for another day." -- This is probably the only sentence which is good enough for a fourth-grade paper . . . not good enough to get a good mark, of course.
I absolutely LOVE the fact you got modded to -1! A challenge for "published proof. Not claims..verifiable, reproducible, proof...including all data used and how it was collected and any 'adjustments' made) that proves that humans are a major controlling factor in global climate." You provide a list that is at least as authoritative as the other side, and get slammed. A thoughtful person would take it as proof that everything is NOT known, there is still some variability, and conclude at best "well, there is probably a good chance that climate change is caused by humans" or at worst "there is a good chance that climate change is not caused by humans". Declaring one way or another cannot be realistically done.
But the pro-AGW side treat it more as a religion than science - and modded your list into oblivion...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
You misunderstand. Every single paper I listed shows human beings to be the primary driver of currently observed temperatures.
Oh, you mean you have published work showing that human beings DO affect the climate? Really? Please cite it - I'd like to read it. Oh... you DON'T have any published work on climate? Um... well... maybe you can go back to school and learn some math and such and then come back when you're properly prepared.
The list was modded down not because it wasn't published proof, but rather because it was nothing more than a set of models that are included in subsequent climate reviews to be corrected for later.
It's like asking someone to publish a list of cakes and getting answers like "flour, eggs, water, coco powder".
Some of those articles I've seen before ... cited in studies showing the affects of AGW, because scientists actually know how to do their jobs despite what a bunch of Slash-f-wits think.
Really? Where is physics? When the Sun irradiates the Earth surface in one and a half hour with as much energy as the entire humanity generates in one year, do you seriously think this all this Sun's heat is misteriously lost without a trace, so that only human 0.01% output is heating the Earth atmosphere? The AGW has long be ridiculed by leading physicists because climate models are based on primitive radiation and reflection formulas, totally ignoring thermodynamic convection laws in biosphere. For instance, there are ongoing 5 Petawats of energy flux across the Earth hemispheres per year only due to oceans flows and atmospheric circulation. For climatologists mathematics and physics obviously was not their area of good knowledge. Entire humanity generates just 15 Terawats energy per year, while the Sun heats the Earth with 89,000 Terawats per year. Of cource AGW is a big hoax, likely to trade Billions of CO2 quotas by defrauding tax payers by fear mongering and seeding false guilt. Sadly humanity will not have technologies matching the Sun's heating power on Earth for at least the next ten thousand years, so that we can all relax and stop worring about the imagined problem that does not exist.
So you're saying we need to destroy the planet in order to "prove" that we're destroying the planet to your satisfaction?
That seems a bit counter-productive.
Where did I say proof requires "destroying the planet"? Hyperbolic-strawman, much? Where's the planet that climate-alarmists used to prove their theory, if a planet-wide experiment is necessary to disprove it?
A poster up-thread already destroyed your strawman.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
For those situations, the authors tend to expose ALL data and processes/methods needed to recreate their results. They don't hide their data and refuse to release their code...
Still waiting for those releases of data/processes/methods & tools...you know, like *real* scientists do, as opposed to climate-alarmist propaganda shills posing as scientists and their political hangers-on.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
What are you trying to say? Slow down and try again. If there's an adult home, have them help you with the hard words.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Well, that's a rather stupid assertion. Imagine - all those climatologists who are completely ignorant of physics. So if "The AGW has long be ridiculed by leading physicists", where is their research? Where are their papers? Oh, that's right - they don't fucking exist.
Read some fucking science before sounding off. The first person to ever consider the influence of CO2 on temperature was Fourier in the early 1800s. Arrhenius built on his work, examining CO2 produced by human activities, in the late 1800s. So this hoax was started all the way back then??
...a political activist that also wants to take credit for advances actually developed by engineers, entrepreneurs and lay inventors.
We have got to decide this day whether we prefer for the future to deprive frantic and profligate scientists of the protection of wicked and unprincipled citizens, or even to arm them with the cloak of scientific illiteracy due to the mortal God in which they hold only approximate esteem, and the invisible hand in which they hold none. For if that pest and conflagration of the public succeeds in defending its own mischievous and unprofitable community by appeals to divine stupidity, when they cannot maintain it by any considerations of objective reality, then we must seek for other ceremonies, for other sources of unquestionable truth, or for other interpreters of the requirements of politically unbiased facts. But if those things which are done by the madness of wicked men in the republic at a time when it was oppressed by one party, deserted by another, and betrayed by a third, are abetted by their data and its statistical analysis with no return on investment, then we shall have cause rightly and deservedly to praise the wisdom of ourselves in selecting the most honorable men of the state for the executive with which to purge their undue influence.
Perhaps it's time for reputable publishers and the academic community to get together and agree on some minimal standards about what it means to be a "reputable journal" or a "reputable publisher."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Try that with real science journals and see how far you get.
You missed the point.
If you read even the SUMMARY of TFA, above, you'll see that the POINT was that the fake-journal operations are buying up REAL journals, with real reputations, and converting them into more pay-for-play fakes. (Their customers will no doubt be willing to pay even more for placement in a respected journal, before its reputation collapses.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
When do you mean to cease abusing our patience? How long is that dumbness of yours still to mock us? When will there be an end of that unbridled audacity of yours, swaggering about as it does now? Do not the readers armed with mod points- and the hostile responses you receive- does not the alarm of the people, and the union of all good men, when faced by your outrageous opinion, have any effect upon you? Do you not feel that your bullshit is debunked? Do you not see that your conspiracy theory is already arrested and rendered powerless by the knowledge which every one here possesses of it? What is there that you did, and what outrageous assessment was there which was adopted by you, with which you think that any one of us is unacquainted?
Shame on this age and on its principles! The public is aware of these things, and yet you defecate them into public deliberations; some of you are watching and marking down and checking off for slaughter every principled individual among us. And we, gallant men that we are, think that we are doing our duty to the nation if we keep out of the way of these frenzied attacks.
You ought long ago to have been led to execution by command of your own mother's gynecologist. That destruction which you have been long plotting against us ought to have already fallen on your own ass.
That's not the scientific argument at all.
Start there, add chemicals that trap that heat from the sun, then you have problems. The science is saying that humans are producing chemicals that prevent the sun's energy from radiating away like it used to. Similar to panels in a greenhouse.
That's not the scientific argument at all.
Start there, add chemicals that trap that heat from the sun, then you have problems. The science is saying that humans are producing chemicals that prevent the sun's energy from radiating away like it used to. Similar to panels in a greenhouse.
Everyone knows it's colder inside a greenhouse right?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Don't know if you are serious or sarcastic, but I've been in a few greenhouses. It's been awhile, but as I remember they were warmer than the outside.
So you're saying we need to destroy the planet in order to "prove" that we're destroying the planet to your satisfaction?
That seems a bit counter-productive.
Exactly. In the end, the only thing that's going to be more annoying than those trying to dismiss the end of times with this incessant prove-it-is-me attitude is listening to those same critics say "Oh, I guess you were right after all."
The most valuable word in the world is Why.
The most expensive statement in the known universe is I told you so.
No matter who or what is to blame for negative impacts to our climate, the species reliant upon said climate in order to survive should probably give a shit at least a little bit instead of exhausting all efforts to ignore the fuck out of it.
Yes, it is indeed warmer. I was not being serious in the sense of meaning it was actually colder. I was being serious in the sense of highlighting the absurdity of denying the greenhouse effect when it can be demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Yes, it is indeed warmer. I was not being serious in the sense of meaning it was actually colder. I was being serious in the sense of highlighting the absurdity of denying the greenhouse effect when it can be demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.
So what about water vapor? It's greenhouse effect is orders of magnitude greater than CO2 and there's a *lot* of it. The positive or negative temperature changes from higher or lower CO2 concentrations are a fart in a hurricane in relation to H2O. Want to make it colder? Reduce H2O evaporation. The only valid reason to target CO2 as the main driver of climate change is to increase the scope and depth of government control of society, the economy, and individual freedom while enriching themselves and their cronies. It makes no sense in relation to achieving the goals they state publicly in the most efficacious and economical way.
It's often humid in a greenhouse. The analogy that keeps giving.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Ooh sounds like a conspiracy theory, do tell so it can be debunked.
Well said sir, were I to have mod point, I would adorn them on your finely worded and insightful post. Such eloquence.
To your lamentations I observe that they befoul our forum with their histrionic buffoonery, and layer, without alteration or abatement, words fecal in origin, uttered from flatulent lips that blubber and sputter forth so that even the best of us, congregated for discussion and contemplation of those things real aforementioned, long to see the hammer of natures laws, expressed in the physics and biology of our surroundings, come down hard upon their empty skulls, with a ceaseless, inescapable, pounding, inevitability that brings a full realization of their folly and little release of their discomfort. Let them drink deep for now, for fools know only folly if it is in the moment they thus occupy.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
So are you claiming that human CO2 emissions somehow formed a glass sphere around the earth? If not then how does stepping into a greenhouse demonstrate anything?
For people with ADD, who can only manage to read one sentence at a sitting, this doesn't matter.
That's a strange thing to think. Why would you think that? Type less, think more.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
If the tides were turned.
If California were Red...
And Wyoming Blue...
Jeff Bezzon's Puppet
The WA-post paper
Would sing high praises
Of the that old bargin
The Connecticut Compromise
You see no politician has true principles, except for the principle of seeking more power.
I think there's a confusion between "pre-publication" peer review and the bigger "scientific peer review". The former is, as noted, looking for gross problems (uhh, you're breaking the laws of physics as we understand them, and you've not explained how), but more reasonably, is more of an editorial review: your graphs don't match the words; you need more trials to really be statistically significant; etc. Nobody expects pre-pub review to "duplicate research".
The bigger scientific process is where "peer review" in the big sense takes place. I publish a paper that shows an effect, propose a plausible mechanism, etc. Someone else does another paper showing that my proposed mechanism is or isn't likely. Or, worst case for me, someone repeats my experiments, following my processes, and gets totally different results. Then both of us wind up trying to figure out what happened. (barring outright fraud). But then, this is the good thing about science: the big discoveries come from someone saying "that's odd, and unexpected".
Ooh sounds like a conspiracy theory, do tell so it can be debunked.
Jones refused to release his data and his algorithms meaning it was impossible to vet and review his claims. Of course, Michael Mann (he who wanted to hide the decline in his own data) now states that we don't really need data because we can just see what happens. Data is irrelevant, anecdotal evidence is all that one needs.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
In the real world, we have to frequently make very difficult, big decisions before there is absolute proof of what the consequences are. That doesn't mean such decisions are uninformed though.
And also in the real world, raising energy prices (a major tool of AGW proponents to control CO2) costs human lives. How many poor/old/disabled peoples' lives is it worth to you? Would you still feel that countering CO2 in this manner was worthwhile if you had to personally shoot the poor/old/disabled people yourself instead of anonymously causing them to freeze/starve to death out of your sight?
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
I think it was a conspiracy and still is. Now the warmest side was nasty and so on. And the deniers were shills. But we did get a lot of research. And I guess we can agree that the oceans are dying.
But computer models suck and so do biologists unless they met criteria that is really hard to meet. I guess you know that the funding source gets the results it wants and so we have dueling models and great angst and hate.. and here is the point: Sometimes the deceitful and conflicting models turn out to be saying the same thing. Grin.
No thanks to you.
My greenhouse has no glass in it, so I don't know why you're implying all greenhouses turn into glass...
You claimed the greenhouse effect is demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.
A greenhouse is warmer because it is a glass box. How does that demonstrate the greenhouse effect as used when referencing global warming unless you are claiming global warming is caused by a glass box?
Yes there exists numerous materials with similar properties, that should be obvious.
A lot of public policy decisions involve choosing between two options where both involve people dying. But your example isn't a good one since a lot of places have discount or free utility programs for low income and disable people. Regardless of whatever the price of energy prices are, if they are nonzero, there is going to be someone hurt by being unable to afford it and that needs to be addressed directly instead of just being letting them serve as a political counterpoint.
>You claimed the greenhouse effect is demonstrated by stepping inside a greenhouse.
It is. Same principle.
>A greenhouse is warmer because it is a glass box. How does that demonstrate the greenhouse effect as used when referencing global warming unless you are claiming global warming is caused by a glass box?
A greenhouse is warmer because sunlight and to a lesser extent UV passes through the glass easily, hits matter, gets absorbed, gets re-emitted at a lower IR frequency and the IR bounces off the glass and so the energy is retained, just as it bounces off the atmosphere with a higher rate the higher the presence of certain chemicals now known collectively as 'greenhouse gasses'.
None of this is controversial. It's textbook stuff. Why are you arguing? Didn't you study how a greenhouse works in schools? I certainly did.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
For almost 4 years I was the director of what I like to refer to as a "software sweat shop" on the campus of a major university. Because of our generated revenue, my disliked boss was guaranteed tenure with the only requirement being that we publish six papers during those 3 years. We didn't have much to publish on other than case studies of end users and prognostications of the future of computers in ecology. If it weren't for lame journals I would have had to have devoted much more effort to getting our needed papers published rather than spending my time designing software and working with graduate students to meet our releases. My boss certainly wasn't going to write the papers though he did an excellent job of providing outlines, ideas and a paper writing methodology. I'm pretty sure we had 10 published papers by the time the 3 years was up, some being near repeats in different journals. My boss figured (rightly I'm sure) that we if just had 6 in the bag, that they might look for reasons to kick one or two out. But they weren't going to stoop to disqualifying half of our papers during the tenure review.
A lot of public policy decisions involve choosing between two options where both involve people dying. But your example isn't a good one since a lot of places have discount or free utility programs for low income and disable people. Regardless of whatever the price of energy prices are, if they are nonzero, there is going to be someone hurt by being unable to afford it and that needs to be addressed directly instead of just being letting them serve as a political counterpoint.
Yeah, you tell yourself whatever you need to so you can sleep through the night you fucking coward. "Oh, most of the deplorables would likely die anyways, and if for some reason they slip through the cracks it's no big loss as people die all the time." Fuck you and your AGW religion, DIAF you arrogant sociopathic murdering coward!
And yet the most likely people to die from weather disasters are the poor and disabled. Both ways forward have significant impacts on the "deplorable." But pretending that the other side is too inhumane to care for other people is purely a BS propaganda technique, which is only good if you have absolutely nothing to add to the actual conversation.
In this age of near-universal Internet access, all scholarly research should be online - and free.
Just use the published stuff. Here, a journalist has put it all together for even the stupid people on slashdot - http://vernalutah.org/EnergySu... . Listen to it, it's really worth your time.
there exists numerous materials with similar properties, that should be obvious.
It should be obvious, yet some people keep arguing that one such material can't possibly work because it is not glass...
How do you correlate "Jones refused to release his data and his algortihms" with the article you linked to which says, and I quote:
"Although Jones agrees that the data should be made publicly available, he says that âoeit needs to be done in a systematic wayâ. He is now working to make the data publicly available online and will post a statement on the CRU website tomorrow to that effect, with any existing confidentiality agreements. âoeWeâ(TM)re trying to make them all available. Weâ(TM)re consulting with all the meteorological services â" about 150 members of WMO â" and will ask them if they are happy to release the dataâ, says Jones. But getting the all-clear from other nations could take several months and there may be objections. âoeSome countries donâ(TM)t even have their own data available as they havenâ(TM)t digitized it. We have done a lot of that ourselvesâ, he says."
Note that the 58 FOI requests (!) made to him 2 weeks prior to the article seems very unreasonable grounds to claim the data was not sent.. specially given that a letter was received saying attempts were underway to release the data!
There have been further studies with a variety of different data sets which corroborate the original Mann graph. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy#Continuing_research
I feel like I'm dealing with the moon landing conspiracy theorists ( really.. were ALL the moon landings faked ?).
He probably saw some snow somewhere. That's about all it takes to convince the slashdot crowd that it's an evil hippy/chinese conspiracy.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Not really, we just react with the same emotion elicited by the creationist crowd. Utter contempt. The "skepticism" of AGW is intellectual cowardice at its finest.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
lol "oh snap". Hey, if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? Oh snap! Keep burying your head, climate deniers. Every year that temperature rises and glaciers retreat highlights your inane cowardice and failure to face reality.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Hyperbolic-strawman, much?
Yes, exactly what you asked for:
verifiable, reproducible, proof
The only way you can reproduce "this will destroy the planet," is by destroying a planet. Which isn't really a possible thing to do.
Where's the planet that climate-alarmists used to prove their theory, if a planet-wide experiment is necessary to disprove it?
That's exactly my point -- there is no way to "prove" anything here, for either side. All we can do is gather evidence and form theories and models based on that evidence. And pretty much all evidence so far points to climate change being both a thing and a problem.
When do you think the practice of real science started? I've read innumerable papers in which there was no obvious way to get the raw data, and no guarantees that it still existed.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It may not be "released" in the sense of sitting in a public archive somewhere, but it usually only takes a quick email to the researcher to get more information. Most university researchers have their email listed somewhere on the faculty pages (and often listed on the paper itself these days, for just this reason.) Corporate scientists might be a little harder to connect to since companies only like to talk about their C-level employees but its not like its impossible there either. If nothing else, pick up the phone and ask for them by name.
They may not release full data (IP issues and all) unless you're another known scientist in the field, but you'll almost certainly be able to get clarifications on anything that you found non-obvious in their papers.. this is their life's work and they're happy to talk about it night and day if you let them! Most are, anyway. I mean they're still people and you'll run into the odd grumpy asshat but generally speaking they love it when someone's interested in their work.
So the proper order to follow up on something that interests you is: Press release -> actual paper -> open a discussion with the researchers.
Most people stop after the first step. Of course press releases are entirely lacking in data since they're intended for laymen.
Many that remain stop after the second step. But that third step still exists for the few people who care to actually delve into the details before they start running their mouths.