What you say is simple, but not logical. It doesn't follow. Everyone has biases. It doesn't mean that nothing anybody says is right. (duh)
Does my post here: http://s23.postimg.org/4f12i98... contain a link to ioppublishing.org ? No. So what on Earth are you going on about?
it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
Not this one:
"it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place."
He has yet to show - or even claim that the reviewer was wrong. In fact he has been backpedaling ever since the publisher released the full review.
P.S. please be a little more introspective when you read that Chris Mooney story that you linked to above. In another thread you have spent over a dozen posts trying to claim I posted something that I did not. Anyone reading the post can clearly see that I did not post that link, but for some reason you cannot back down.
You lost me. Your first sentence admits that the link wasn't where you said it was, but that is followed with a sentence "nevertheless... it was where I said it was."
No. It wasn't. I posted a link to Rabett.blogspot.co.uk. I still have no idea where your link came from. Don't you think that your points would be better made if we knew who the heck you were quoting?
Here are the authors own words: "I do not believe there is any systematic "cover up" of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being "deliberately suppressed" as the Times front page suggests.
He expressed concern that the reviewer was biased, but never argued that he was wrong. If you can provide a quote to the contrary that would be helpful.
What? This post of mine ending with: Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form." - http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2... [blogspot.co.uk]
And if you click on the link in that post of yours, which takes you to this page [ioppublishing.org], you will indeed see the words I quoted further up in this thread.
Are you broken? Rabett.blogspot.co.uk is not ioppublishing.org. Look. This is getting beyond tedious. If you have a point to make, please make it. Otherwise please stop.
“Whether there is a story here at all depends on whether you read ‘unhelpful’ and ‘harmful’ in the quotes I have seen as meaning ‘harmful to our collective understanding of the climate system’ or ‘harmful to the case for a particular climate policy’.
“If the reviewer meant the first, then there is nothing wrong with them saying so. Part of the job of a reviewer is to point out statements in a paper that are liable to cause misunderstanding. The problem is that journalists can now spin this as meaning the second. "
"“The real tragedy here is that climate scientists are now expected to check their comments in an anonymous peer review to ask themselves how they might ‘play’ if repeated in the Times or the Mail."
I suspect the reviewer was in fact concerned about how the paper would play in the media. The paper apparently did "not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place." That doesn't improve the scientific understanding at all, but is like chum for the "skeptics" who will find meaning even where none exists if it appears to promote their worldview. It is possible (especially given the authors recent ties to the GWPF) that the entire purpose of the paper was not to advance scientific understanding but was rather meant for the media.
Nope. It's not there. I suspect if it was you could provide a link. Of course, this is all beside the point that your quote is disproved by the source material.
Here is a rejection given to Dr, James Hansen of NASA who is at the forefront of global warming research. The second reviewer is particularly vicious (as is his right). Hansen writes "The rejection was a bit like the one Snoopy received, which said, “Enclosed please find two rejection slips: one for the manuscript you submitted and one for the next one you write.”" - http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
You are probably the most unqualified person to judge. The fact is, "one cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals"
Where? No citation was given. How about looking at the actual review?
"One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals"
Huh. You may have quoted someone, but not someone who had read and understood the review.
If there was the ability to search through the text of all the slashdot comments, you would be overwhelmed with the AGW Crowd claiming, "The science is settled".
If only there was some sort of search engine that could be used... oh wait. there is! https://www.google.ca/#q=%22th... . Huh... Looks like just the deniers pushing that meme. Science can always be overturned. Most people believe in heliocentrism. It could be overturned... but probably not by these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Exactly what the reviewers were pointing out. They encouraged Dr. Bengtsson to find some error that they could publish. Instead, he just pointed out that three things that ought to be different were in fact different. That is not useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks!
If you fail to understand the simple logic
What you say is simple, but not logical. It doesn't follow. Everyone has biases. It doesn't mean that nothing anybody says is right. (duh) Does my post here: http://s23.postimg.org/4f12i98... contain a link to ioppublishing.org ? No. So what on Earth are you going on about?
blogspot.co.uk != ioppublishing.org (duh)
it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
Not this one:
"it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place."
He has yet to show - or even claim that the reviewer was wrong. In fact he has been backpedaling ever since the publisher released the full review.
P.S. please be a little more introspective when you read that Chris Mooney story that you linked to above. In another thread you have spent over a dozen posts trying to claim I posted something that I did not. Anyone reading the post can clearly see that I did not post that link, but for some reason you cannot back down.
I was quoting the page YOU linked to. Sheesh. Didn't recognize your own citation?
I said I did not and don't know what you are talking about. Then you say:
But now YOU are admitting that you did post the link after all
Are you broken?
You lost me. Your first sentence admits that the link wasn't where you said it was, but that is followed with a sentence "nevertheless... it was where I said it was."
No. It wasn't. I posted a link to Rabett.blogspot.co.uk. I still have no idea where your link came from. Don't you think that your points would be better made if we knew who the heck you were quoting?
A claim that the paper was rejected because it was biased, is a claim that the reviewer did not reject it based on science.
No one claimed that the paper was biased. Please reread.
Here are the authors own words: "I do not believe there is any systematic "cover up" of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being "deliberately suppressed" as the Times front page suggests.
He expressed concern that the reviewer was biased, but never argued that he was wrong. If you can provide a quote to the contrary that would be helpful.
And if you click on the link in that post of yours, which takes you to this page [ioppublishing.org], you will indeed see the words I quoted further up in this thread.
Are you broken? Rabett.blogspot.co.uk is not ioppublishing.org. Look. This is getting beyond tedious. If you have a point to make, please make it. Otherwise please stop.
Here are some scientists reactions: http://www.sciencemediacentre....
One provides an interesting perspective:
“Whether there is a story here at all depends on whether you read ‘unhelpful’ and ‘harmful’ in the quotes I have seen as meaning ‘harmful to our collective understanding of the climate system’ or ‘harmful to the case for a particular climate policy’.
“If the reviewer meant the first, then there is nothing wrong with them saying so. Part of the job of a reviewer is to point out statements in a paper that are liable to cause misunderstanding. The problem is that journalists can now spin this as meaning the second. "
"“The real tragedy here is that climate scientists are now expected to check their comments in an anonymous peer review to ask themselves how they might ‘play’ if repeated in the Times or the Mail."
I suspect the reviewer was in fact concerned about how the paper would play in the media. The paper apparently did "not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place." That doesn't improve the scientific understanding at all, but is like chum for the "skeptics" who will find meaning even where none exists if it appears to promote their worldview. It is possible (especially given the authors recent ties to the GWPF) that the entire purpose of the paper was not to advance scientific understanding but was rather meant for the media.
Nope. It's not there. I suspect if it was you could provide a link. Of course, this is all beside the point that your quote is disproved by the source material.
He is not denying it. You think the reviewer attached the review to the wrong paper or something?
We don't need to see the paper to know whether IPCC ranges are PDFs. Obviously.
Which link? I've posted dozens. None of them contain that quote. Surely it would be easy enough for you to include the link?
Here is a rejection given to Dr, James Hansen of NASA who is at the forefront of global warming research. The second reviewer is particularly vicious (as is his right). Hansen writes "The rejection was a bit like the one Snoopy received, which said, “Enclosed please find two rejection slips: one for the manuscript you submitted and one for the next one you write.”" - http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
You are probably the most unqualified person to judge. The fact is, "one cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals"
What page I linked to?
I quote here:
Where? No citation was given. How about looking at the actual review?
"One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals"
Huh. You may have quoted someone, but not someone who had read and understood the review.
And they are the only ones who will give you the REAL truth about global warming too!
I'm guessing you have never read an IPCC report.
Not every paper gets published. That is not a sign of a massive conspiracy. It's just life.
If there was the ability to search through the text of all the slashdot comments, you would be overwhelmed with the AGW Crowd claiming, "The science is settled".
If only there was some sort of search engine that could be used... oh wait. there is! https://www.google.ca/#q=%22th... . Huh... Looks like just the deniers pushing that meme. Science can always be overturned. Most people believe in heliocentrism. It could be overturned... but probably not by these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
No he didn't: http://www.truth-out.org/opini...
Your comment was well put. I just replied to the wrong post :)
Exactly what the reviewers were pointing out. They encouraged Dr. Bengtsson to find some error that they could publish. Instead, he just pointed out that three things that ought to be different were in fact different. That is not useful.