In other words, when the prevailing scientific opinion goes against the prejudices of the "public" (read: bloggers with delusions of grandeur), they will loudly claim that "peer review doesn't work", without understanding what it entails, and what it's for.
A reviewer hasn't necessarily checked the paper for accuracy, or tried to reproduce the results. What they are supposed to do is to ensure that the paper isn't unmitigated trash, and that the person who wrote it at least understands something about the subject. When a scientist says that they don't want to look at an unreviewed or unpublished work, what they're saying is essentially, "Don't waste my time with stuff that I don't even know is worth looking at".
Accuracy is what rebuttals and counters are for, and they're peer reviewed to ensure that the person writing them really does understand the subject at hand, too. Review is more of a noise filter than an accuracy measure.
Like I said before, crowdsourcing or "mob review" as you put it has its place in messaging and interpretation for the lay public. It doesn't in any way replace the scientific method or the peer review process. Please get that into your head.
The whole point of -1 is to punish somebody, and if it doesn't have any effect on the general public, it won't matter, and the bad mods will just use -1 Troll or -1 Flamebait as usual.
It's not like the behaviour could be kept a secret...
I kind of disagree with the specifics of that statement, but agree in principle... I don't believe that it would be as cheap as you imagine to build a nuclear power plant without sacrificing safety (yes yes, they're all absolutely safe, but not if there are no safety systems built in...
Note: I've worked (in a very small way) in one nuclear project (though I'd rather not discuss it too much), and this is my opinion formed after that piece of experience.
The point is, the model the authors propose is a gross simplification of the real world, which doesn't consider (among other things) the editor.
Yes, we all debate the relative merits and demerits of peer review here on/. and other fora, but these guys claim to have a working model and scientific data. Which they don't.
Seriously, this is a Bad Study, which (ironically) would have been rejected in peer review. Maybe that's why it's on arXiv...
Speaking as someone who's at least read up on this stuff (not an expert, but definitely an informed layman), such large-scale adoption of nuclear power comes with its own problems. For one, building such plants is going to be extremely costly, and probably can't be done in time to make a useful difference.
You talk about reprocessing, but even after that, you eventually end up with some radioactive waste products, to say nothing about radiation leakage into the environment.
Finally, I think it's just yet another "all our eggs in one (radioactive) basket" solution. I'd rather have a wide range of options, from renewables like wind, solar or geothermal, to, yes, nuclear power where that's appropriate.
It's difficult to comprehend why a place with ample local generation capability (say, solar power in the Thar desert in India) should go with an expensive nuclear power plant, when the alternative is cheaper, and a more efficient use of resources readily available (as opposed to resources mined from the ground a few thousand kilometers away in another continent), as you "nuclear only" types keep coming up with.
Honestly, this is just a load of rubbish! Random/. trolls commenting on articles is no replacement for formal review by competent peers of the author, and an electrical engineer or economist's politically motivated ramblings are in no way a rebuttal of science done and reviewed by people who actually work in the field.
I'm not saying that the "mob" or crowd-sourcing doesn't have its place - it does. Precisely the same place that was once occupied by science journalism (the real rotting, stinking corpse); that of messaging and interpretation for those of us who can't figure out wtf a six-page paper packed full of equations and squiggly lines actually means. Independent review of statistics in published papers has a similar place too. But you must always keep in mind that the person producing these is (most probably) not an expert in that field.
Skepticism is warranted in peer-reviewed publication too, of course. But in general, I'd take a decently reviewed and published study over a bunch of random blog comments any day.
Small correction if I may: Peer reviewed => not necessarily credible science, but you never ever base conclusions on only one paper.
In most cases, a good rebuttal or three will counter the effects of any completely wacko paper that slipped through. In the case I cited, not only were there rebuttals, many of the other editors involved resigned from the journal because they felt that it was a wrong that that paper got published. I think the (larger) system more or less corrected itself there, at least until people started quote-mining stolen e-mails.
Average temperature between two different (widely separated) points might be meaningless, but the average of a continuous measurement is definitely significant. Even spatially, average temperature has a physical meaning. For example, the average surface temperature of the sun is 6500 K, though if you measure at various points, you may get more or less than that.
In any case, that's only one of the many "interesting" ideas in that paper...
Of course it is. But that doesn't mean that peer review is worthless.
Remember, a large enough (I'd say a majority, but I haven't actually done the numbers to claim that) number of people who get into science are doing it because they care passionately about their field. Eventually, the best of the breed floats to the top, and is distilled to give us things like PageRank and better safety in automobiles (see, I worked in a car analogy too!)...
Maybe this is because your particular field is new to peer-review, and hasn't developed a healthy culture around it yet? Not saying that this is the case, but it does usually take some time for a system to become established properly, and for the bad apples to be culled...
Well, peer-review the junk ideas out (aka, vote on the economic aspects). The science is pretty well settled, but the economics is not so clear (as if it ever really is).
Come up with better solutions, implement them if you can, support good solutions if you can't. The problem isn't going away by denying it because you don't like the currently proposed solutions.
That, we can discuss. "Global cooling in the 1970s" is just noise in the channel.
There were quite a few, like Friis-Christensen who actually raised real scientific questions, but most of those have since come to the conclusion that global warming is indeed caused (primarily) by human influence
On the other hand, every Real Scientist is a skeptic; if someone claimed, whether in a scientific paper or otherwise, that global warming would cause the ice-caps to melt by Dec. 21 2012 or something like that, you can bet that the entire scientific community would pretty much laugh them out of the room. Somehow, I don't think that was what GP meant by "skeptic".
I agree with all that you said, but for heaven's sake, use full-forms at least once
For those as confused as I, the paper the parent refers to is "Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner. Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics.".
Contains such howlers as "There's no such thing as average temperature"... RC Wiki page
Good point, though for anything serious, I'd think that you need a way of verifying a given reviewer's credentials. Just imagine if a young-Earth big-C Creationist kept trolling on a paper discussing (say) the selective advantage of different colouring in a desert lizard...
This study overlooks not only the role of the editor, but also the process in which the authors are able to answer the referees' objections. When the referees are competent, this leads to better papers through useful suggestions. On the other hand, when they aren't, overcoming the exasperation of the authors, their objections are easily brushed away, and the paper eventually gets through. Also, when the case is particularly contentious, there's still the option of calling for an adjudicator. In summary, the peer-review process is far more complex than this simulation might suggest. On the dark side, I’ve also noticed that referees are sometimes reluctant to object papers from certain renowned authors. The human factor is hard to remove.
I guess many people will agree that there’s a need to look for better approval systems, specially today, when there’s an explosion of submissions. However we must also acknowledge that the present system has served its purpose of maintaining a certain quality.
There's actually a reasonably intelligent discussion going on in there...
Point 4: Pretty much because no such therewas never any such theory seriously debated among scientists.
And point 5 is really about overproduction and thinking that we're oh-so-smarter than nature; whether capitalist or otherwise. To frame it as a Socialist Plot is just being specious and moving the debate from science to politics (again).
You really should read a little into the damn thing, and not just right-wing blogs...
In early 2003, the small journal Climate Research published a paper by climate change “skeptics” Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which challenged the established view that the late twentieth century saw anomalously high temperatures. The paper didn’t present original research; instead, it was a literature review. Soon and Baliunas examined a wide range of “proxy records” for past temperatures, based on studies of ice cores, corals, tree rings, and other sources. They concluded that few of the records showed anything particularly unusual about twentieth century temperatures, especially when compared with the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” a thousand years ago.
Soon and Baliunas had specifically sent their paper to one Chris de Freitas at Climate Research, an editor known for opposing curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. He in turn sent the paper out for review and then accepted it for publication. That’s when the controversy began.
Soon mainstream climate scientists fought back. Thirteen authored a devastating critique of the work in the American Geophysical Union publication Eos. After seeing the critique, Climate Research editor-in-chief Hans von Storch decided he had to make changes in the journal’s editorial process. But when journal colleagues refused to go along, von Storch announced his resignation.
Several other Climate Research editors subsequently resigned over the Soon and Baliunas paper. Even journal publisher Otto Kinne eventually admitted that the paper suffered from serious flaws, basically agreeing with its critics. But by that point in time, Inhofe had already devoted a Senate hearing to trumpeting the new study. However dubious, it made a massive splash.
That there are people who blindly ignore evidence in their attempt to smear a theory with inconvenient predictions muddies the waters, and results in our current state where anyone who so much as questions any data or theory on anthropogenic climate change is an "anti-science global warming denier", and the slightest correction to data is "proof of the gubernment conspiracy", with BOTH of these being a detriment to actual climate science.
Those who raise new questions (like this study) are skeptics who advance the scientific method. Those who keep bringing up the same old "but they believed in global cooling in the 1970s" crock are deniers. There's a difference.
Because in many places, it's part of a person's identity in India. Though reduced now, it's quite common for legal contracts to state a person's caste, religion, name, father's name, residence, age, and pretty much anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
In other words, when the prevailing scientific opinion goes against the prejudices of the "public" (read: bloggers with delusions of grandeur), they will loudly claim that "peer review doesn't work", without understanding what it entails, and what it's for.
A reviewer hasn't necessarily checked the paper for accuracy, or tried to reproduce the results. What they are supposed to do is to ensure that the paper isn't unmitigated trash, and that the person who wrote it at least understands something about the subject. When a scientist says that they don't want to look at an unreviewed or unpublished work, what they're saying is essentially, "Don't waste my time with stuff that I don't even know is worth looking at".
Accuracy is what rebuttals and counters are for, and they're peer reviewed to ensure that the person writing them really does understand the subject at hand, too. Review is more of a noise filter than an accuracy measure.
Like I said before, crowdsourcing or "mob review" as you put it has its place in messaging and interpretation for the lay public. It doesn't in any way replace the scientific method or the peer review process. Please get that into your head.
It still wouldn't work
The whole point of -1 is to punish somebody, and if it doesn't have any effect on the general public, it won't matter, and the bad mods will just use -1 Troll or -1 Flamebait as usual.
It's not like the behaviour could be kept a secret...
OK, this is just moronic moderation! He was responding quite reasonably on-topic to me.
I kind of disagree with the specifics of that statement, but agree in principle... I don't believe that it would be as cheap as you imagine to build a nuclear power plant without sacrificing safety (yes yes, they're all absolutely safe, but not if there are no safety systems built in...
Note: I've worked (in a very small way) in one nuclear project (though I'd rather not discuss it too much), and this is my opinion formed after that piece of experience.
The point is, the model the authors propose is a gross simplification of the real world, which doesn't consider (among other things) the editor.
Yes, we all debate the relative merits and demerits of peer review here on /. and other fora, but these guys claim to have a working model and scientific data. Which they don't.
Seriously, this is a Bad Study, which (ironically) would have been rejected in peer review. Maybe that's why it's on arXiv...
Speaking as someone who's at least read up on this stuff (not an expert, but definitely an informed layman), such large-scale adoption of nuclear power comes with its own problems. For one, building such plants is going to be extremely costly, and probably can't be done in time to make a useful difference.
You talk about reprocessing, but even after that, you eventually end up with some radioactive waste products, to say nothing about radiation leakage into the environment.
Finally, I think it's just yet another "all our eggs in one (radioactive) basket" solution. I'd rather have a wide range of options, from renewables like wind, solar or geothermal, to, yes, nuclear power where that's appropriate.
It's difficult to comprehend why a place with ample local generation capability (say, solar power in the Thar desert in India) should go with an expensive nuclear power plant, when the alternative is cheaper, and a more efficient use of resources readily available (as opposed to resources mined from the ground a few thousand kilometers away in another continent), as you "nuclear only" types keep coming up with.
And the truth shall make ye fret!
Honestly, this is just a load of rubbish! Random /. trolls commenting on articles is no replacement for formal review by competent peers of the author, and an electrical engineer or economist's politically motivated ramblings are in no way a rebuttal of science done and reviewed by people who actually work in the field.
I'm not saying that the "mob" or crowd-sourcing doesn't have its place - it does. Precisely the same place that was once occupied by science journalism (the real rotting, stinking corpse); that of messaging and interpretation for those of us who can't figure out wtf a six-page paper packed full of equations and squiggly lines actually means. Independent review of statistics in published papers has a similar place too. But you must always keep in mind that the person producing these is (most probably) not an expert in that field.
Skepticism is warranted in peer-reviewed publication too, of course. But in general, I'd take a decently reviewed and published study over a bunch of random blog comments any day.
And the incentive for using it would be...
?
Small correction if I may: Peer reviewed => not necessarily credible science, but you never ever base conclusions on only one paper.
In most cases, a good rebuttal or three will counter the effects of any completely wacko paper that slipped through. In the case I cited, not only were there rebuttals, many of the other editors involved resigned from the journal because they felt that it was a wrong that that paper got published. I think the (larger) system more or less corrected itself there, at least until people started quote-mining stolen e-mails.
Average temperature between two different (widely separated) points might be meaningless, but the average of a continuous measurement is definitely significant. Even spatially, average temperature has a physical meaning. For example, the average surface temperature of the sun is 6500 K, though if you measure at various points, you may get more or less than that.
In any case, that's only one of the many "interesting" ideas in that paper...
Of course it is. But that doesn't mean that peer review is worthless.
Remember, a large enough (I'd say a majority, but I haven't actually done the numbers to claim that) number of people who get into science are doing it because they care passionately about their field. Eventually, the best of the breed floats to the top, and is distilled to give us things like PageRank and better safety in automobiles (see, I worked in a car analogy too!)...
Maybe this is because your particular field is new to peer-review, and hasn't developed a healthy culture around it yet? Not saying that this is the case, but it does usually take some time for a system to become established properly, and for the bad apples to be culled...
Well, peer-review the junk ideas out (aka, vote on the economic aspects). The science is pretty well settled, but the economics is not so clear (as if it ever really is).
Come up with better solutions, implement them if you can, support good solutions if you can't. The problem isn't going away by denying it because you don't like the currently proposed solutions.
That, we can discuss. "Global cooling in the 1970s" is just noise in the channel.
There were quite a few, like Friis-Christensen who actually raised real scientific questions, but most of those have since come to the conclusion that global warming is indeed caused (primarily) by human influence
On the other hand, every Real Scientist is a skeptic; if someone claimed, whether in a scientific paper or otherwise, that global warming would cause the ice-caps to melt by Dec. 21 2012 or something like that, you can bet that the entire scientific community would pretty much laugh them out of the room. Somehow, I don't think that was what GP meant by "skeptic".
So, good luck on that Great Skeptic Hunt!
I agree with all that you said, but for heaven's sake, use full-forms at least once
For those as confused as I, the paper the parent refers to is "Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner. Falsification of the atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effects within the frame of physics.".
Contains such howlers as "There's no such thing as average temperature"... RC Wiki page
Good point, though for anything serious, I'd think that you need a way of verifying a given reviewer's credentials. Just imagine if a young-Earth big-C Creationist kept trolling on a paper discussing (say) the selective advantage of different colouring in a desert lizard...
I actually read the comments on TFA, and down at , there's a particularly interesting one:
This study overlooks not only the role of the editor, but also the process in which the authors are able to answer the referees' objections. When the referees are competent, this leads to better papers through useful suggestions. On the other hand, when they aren't, overcoming the exasperation of the authors, their objections are easily brushed away, and the paper eventually gets through. Also, when the case is particularly contentious, there's still the option of calling for an adjudicator. In summary, the peer-review process is far more complex than this simulation might suggest. On the dark side, I’ve also noticed that referees are sometimes reluctant to object papers from certain renowned authors. The human factor is hard to remove. I guess many people will agree that there’s a need to look for better approval systems, specially today, when there’s an explosion of submissions. However we must also acknowledge that the present system has served its purpose of maintaining a certain quality.
There's actually a reasonably intelligent discussion going on in there...
Broken record time, but yes. Such subversion of the peer review process did show up. The culprits weren't the ones you expect.
In general however, I think that this study is rather pessimistic. And anyway, it hasn't been peer reviewed, so who knows... ;-)
(yes, I did read TFA, but not the paper
I hate to say it, but comprehension fail... GP was almost certainly being sarcastic...
You do mean beads of RAM, don't you?
How much of the island would be a viable place to live for all those 250 years? How much rise would it take to make it unlivable?
Point 4: Pretty much because no such there was never any such theory seriously debated among scientists.
And point 5 is really about overproduction and thinking that we're oh-so-smarter than nature; whether capitalist or otherwise. To frame it as a Socialist Plot is just being specious and moving the debate from science to politics (again).
You really should read a little into the damn thing, and not just right-wing blogs...
In early 2003, the small journal Climate Research published a paper by climate change “skeptics” Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which challenged the established view that the late twentieth century saw anomalously high temperatures. The paper didn’t present original research; instead, it was a literature review. Soon and Baliunas examined a wide range of “proxy records” for past temperatures, based on studies of ice cores, corals, tree rings, and other sources. They concluded that few of the records showed anything particularly unusual about twentieth century temperatures, especially when compared with the so-called “Medieval Warm Period” a thousand years ago.
Soon and Baliunas had specifically sent their paper to one Chris de Freitas at Climate Research, an editor known for opposing curbs on carbon dioxide emissions. He in turn sent the paper out for review and then accepted it for publication. That’s when the controversy began.
Soon mainstream climate scientists fought back. Thirteen authored a devastating critique of the work in the American Geophysical Union publication Eos. After seeing the critique, Climate Research editor-in-chief Hans von Storch decided he had to make changes in the journal’s editorial process. But when journal colleagues refused to go along, von Storch announced his resignation.
Several other Climate Research editors subsequently resigned over the Soon and Baliunas paper. Even journal publisher Otto Kinne eventually admitted that the paper suffered from serious flaws, basically agreeing with its critics. But by that point in time, Inhofe had already devoted a Senate hearing to trumpeting the new study. However dubious, it made a massive splash.
(source here, all emphasis mine).
I realize that you confused context with right wing punditry, but it's not.
That there are people who blindly ignore evidence in their attempt to smear a theory with inconvenient predictions muddies the waters, and results in our current state where anyone who so much as questions any data or theory on anthropogenic climate change is an "anti-science global warming denier", and the slightest correction to data is "proof of the gubernment conspiracy", with BOTH of these being a detriment to actual climate science.
Those who raise new questions (like this study) are skeptics who advance the scientific method. Those who keep bringing up the same old "but they believed in global cooling in the 1970s" crock are deniers. There's a difference.
Because in many places, it's part of a person's identity in India. Though reduced now, it's quite common for legal contracts to state a person's caste, religion, name, father's name, residence, age, and pretty much anything else.