If a "researcher" were to design a study structured like this for any kind of hard science, they would probably have their credentials yanked along with all their funding.
There seems to be more and more of these kinds of things these days. Ad hoc, unrepresentative "studies" designed to support a preconceived notion with the results misinterpreted or out right misrepresented.
This isn't a study, it's a hit piece. And it was published in Nature? Prima fascia evidence that Nature is not a Science publication, but merely a spigot for propaganda.
This is not a problem that anyone wants to do anything about. Otherwise, we would have done the only thing that is capable of doing something about it, which is nuclear power.
That is the only technology that can meet base load requirements. You;d still need petroleum for vehicles until the who storage thing is figured out, but you can ditch all the coal and gas fired plants (keep gas as necessary for managing load). That would, as I understand it account for a very large portion of CO2 production.
In a way you can use nuclear power as a way to judge the veracity of the Greens. Do they believe AGW is such a huge threat that they are willing to abandon or at least suppress their antipathy towards nuclear power? If so, then they are sincere. If not, then they are working from a political agenda.
SoulSkill complete rewrote my submissions, which I admit I completely plagiarized from here, which is a good summary of the very technical paper.
The author does take pot shots at AGW at the end so perhaps SoulSkill was looking to avoid a flame war that would completely drown out the very interesting paper.
Of course, now that posted the link, it's probably Flame On for many.
I could see a State level function here. It would have to be strictly regulated and have oversight, but I think that having a single place to submit your work would improve the flow of information and availability.
One improvement they could make is to ensure that the process is completely dispassionate and objective. I would suggest that the editors be regularly re-assigned to different scientific disciplines to avoid becoming chummy with regular contributors.
One wonders if Alfred Wegener had submitted his book, The Origin of Continents and Oceans, as a paper to a process like today's and the thinking of his time, would it ever see the light of day?
Isn't one of the primary functions of a journal to facilitate the peer review process?
I seem to remember it goes something like this: Paper is submitted, editors evaluate, if it's not complete garbage, they send it to other scientists in that field, they provide feedback, decision to publish is made.
The Climategate emails showed a concerted effort to gain control of this process or at least influence the editors to not proceed with the review process in some instances. Will open source journals be more or less susceptible to that?
Strictly speaking though, your tweak should have under gone the full test and review process. But then, while we read about those things, very few companies actually have them.
"Last minute code tweak" to me, means changing the code at the very last minute.
They say a week, but it seems that with something so complex any change in code would require a complete rerunning of all of the regression tests, a complete detailed examination of the results plus a review by whatever group provides oversight.
Try to get that all done in one week under a drop dead deadline...recipe for disaster.
Slashdot Mirror
If a "researcher" were to design a study structured like this for any kind of hard science, they would probably have their credentials yanked along with all their funding.
There seems to be more and more of these kinds of things these days. Ad hoc, unrepresentative "studies" designed to support a preconceived notion with the results misinterpreted or out right misrepresented.
This isn't a study, it's a hit piece. And it was published in Nature? Prima fascia evidence that Nature is not a Science publication, but merely a spigot for propaganda.
Organic, manufactured, it's all "chemicals". Just different delivery systems.
Doesn't it seem that to believe the Earth is the ONLY place in the universe where sentient life has evolved shows extreme conceit?
But then these people are from Princeton University so they'd know a thing or two about conceit.
The funny thing about No Child Left Behind is that we had to have a federal program to convince schools to do their damned job.
More likely, the TSA people graduated before NCLB and were simply passed from one grade to another without learning anything.
You know I jest, but still...
Have you not watched the Mythsbuster episode about explosive decompression due to a firearm?
And I believe the cockpit doors are bullet "resistant".
Common sense of trained, experienced professionals such as the security for Israeli airports.
They are much more professional and much less intrusive than TSA and much more effective.
TSA has two strikes...it is staffed by amateurs and because of that, has rigid procedures.
I think security would be much better if TSA handed out .45 semi-autos when boarding the aircraft.
It's not about a rule that says children should be excluded. It's about common sense.
This happened because the mentally challenged TSA morons saw that the kid "touched" grandma and one idiot even thought she could have passed a gun.
There just another story today on drudge about a little girl with cerebral palsy being patted down.
TSA: Government Work Program for the unemployable.
This is not a problem that anyone wants to do anything about. Otherwise, we would have done the only thing that is capable of doing something about it, which is nuclear power.
That is the only technology that can meet base load requirements. You;d still need petroleum for vehicles until the who storage thing is figured out, but you can ditch all the coal and gas fired plants (keep gas as necessary for managing load). That would, as I understand it account for a very large portion of CO2 production.
In a way you can use nuclear power as a way to judge the veracity of the Greens. Do they believe AGW is such a huge threat that they are willing to abandon or at least suppress their antipathy towards nuclear power? If so, then they are sincere. If not, then they are working from a political agenda.
Has it really gotten to be such a religion that we cannot even have a professional discussion on the subject?
Yeah, I'mmm thinking, No.
When to express doubt is to be associated with those who implicitly support genocide, then it pretty much shuts down all rational discourse.
Little bit of redirection going on here eh?
Let's not talk about the Parent post, lets talk about air conditioning!
Since the paper was only released today I am fairly confident that he knows nothing of it.
I believe they also did an experiment at CERN
I'm not going to tell you I understand this paper. I'll thank you to not insult the rest of us by suggesting that you do.
If you believe in Science at all, you'd at least read interpretations of his paper as they come out an keep an open mind.
But if you want to just be some AGW tribalist, go right ahead.
SoulSkill complete rewrote my submissions, which I admit I completely plagiarized from here, which is a good summary of the very technical paper.
The author does take pot shots at AGW at the end so perhaps SoulSkill was looking to avoid a flame war that would completely drown out the very interesting paper.
Of course, now that posted the link, it's probably Flame On for many.
So, my question stands...would this make it easier or more difficult?
I could see a State level function here. It would have to be strictly regulated and have oversight, but I think that having a single place to submit your work would improve the flow of information and availability.
One improvement they could make is to ensure that the process is completely dispassionate and objective. I would suggest that the editors be regularly re-assigned to different scientific disciplines to avoid becoming chummy with regular contributors.
One wonders if Alfred Wegener had submitted his book, The Origin of Continents and Oceans, as a paper to a process like today's and the thinking of his time, would it ever see the light of day?
Isn't one of the primary functions of a journal to facilitate the peer review process?
I seem to remember it goes something like this: Paper is submitted, editors evaluate, if it's not complete garbage, they send it to other scientists in that field, they provide feedback, decision to publish is made.
The Climategate emails showed a concerted effort to gain control of this process or at least influence the editors to not proceed with the review process in some instances. Will open source journals be more or less susceptible to that?
This has Gary Larson written all over it.
Well, You Da Man in that case.
Strictly speaking though, your tweak should have under gone the full test and review process. But then, while we read about those things, very few companies actually have them.
"Last minute code tweak" to me, means changing the code at the very last minute.
They say a week, but it seems that with something so complex any change in code would require a complete rerunning of all of the regression tests, a complete detailed examination of the results plus a review by whatever group provides oversight.
Try to get that all done in one week under a drop dead deadline...recipe for disaster.
I'd call that pulling your ass out of the fire at the very last minute.
"Last minute code tweaks" never go well.
They should have opened the accounts under the name of "Anonymous Source".
Since that's how the news media goes after people, they couldn't really complain eh?
Alomex is actually David Axelrod.