tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5449673706822670735..comments2024-03-25T05:30:23.847+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: Speaking of ethics and conspiracies ...Souhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53572510701176955602014-04-09T06:42:29.717+10:002014-04-09T06:42:29.717+10:00Ugo Bardi resigns over Frontiers' handling of ...<a href="http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.it/2014/04/climate-of-intimidation-frontiers.html" rel="nofollow">Ugo Bardi resigns</a> over Frontiers' handling of Lewandowsky:<br /><br /><i>The climate of intimidation which is developing nowadays risks to do great damage to climate science and to science in general. I believe that the situation risks to deteriorate further if we all don't take a strong stance on this issue. Hence, I am taking the strongest action I can take, that is I am resigning from "Chief Specialty Editor" of Frontiers in protest against the behavior of the journal in the "Recursive Fury" case. I sent to the editors a letter today, stating my intention to resign.<br /><br />I am not happy about having had to take this decision, because I had been working hard and seriously at the Frontiers' specialy journal titled "Energy Systems and Policy." But I think it was the right thing to do. I also note that this blunder by "Frontiers" is also a blow to the concept of "open access" publishing, which was one of the main characteristic of their series of journals. But I still think that open access publishing it is the way of the future. This is just a temporary setback for a good idea which is moving onward.</i> BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42943582759349910822014-04-08T05:53:54.671+10:002014-04-08T05:53:54.671+10:00Anthony David: i'd disagree, the implicit ass...Anthony David: i'd disagree, the implicit assumption seems to be that lower climate sensitivity is the <i>only</i> way the uncertainty can go. which would fit with their assumption that the IPCC position is exaggerated and alarmist.lignenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86790896467068506882014-04-07T23:08:01.344+10:002014-04-07T23:08:01.344+10:00Anon said:
So let's just have scientists publ...Anon said:<br /><br /><i>So let's just have scientists publish any paper they like and say "here are our conclusions, you will just have to take our word for it", or better still only release their data to like minded friends who won't criticize the work no matter how shoddy. That should advance the world of science no end. You Clown.</i><br /><br />Oh I think almost everyone here can see who the clown is. What Bernard says above. There is nothing in the UWA guidelines (and this would be boilerplate stuff applicable at most universities) that gives random people on the internet the right to demand access to researchers' data.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-34862693048708376152014-04-07T21:37:53.610+10:002014-04-07T21:37:53.610+10:00Person-who-isn't-sufficiently-competent-to-sig...Person-who-isn't-sufficiently-competent-to-sign-a-name, you say:<br /><br />"<i>WUWT is a private blog and the owners can do whatever they please.</i>"<br /><br />"Whatever they please"? Only to the extent of the "privacy" of that blog.<br /><br />And guess what? That most certainly <b>does not</b> mean that they get the opportunity to manufacture their own universe of science... no matter how deluded they might be in the luxury of their own privacy.<br /><br />You also say:<br /><br />"<i>From the UWA Code of Conduct for the Responsible Practice of Research:<br /><br />3.8 Research data related to publications must be available for discussion with other researchers.<br /><br />No ifs buts or maybes, data must be available. UWA are in breach of their own Code of Conduct...</i>"<br /><br />Um, no.<br /><br />As <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2014/04/01/april-2014-open-thread/comment-page-2/#comment-177392" rel="nofollow">I noted at Deltoid the day before yesterday</a> it is quite clear in <a href="http://guides.is.uwa.edu.au/content.php?pid=319161&sid=3380069" rel="nofollow">the UWA data use guide</a> that data sharing may be based on any of:<br /><br />1) Restricted access<br />2) Open access<br />3) Researcher-mediated access<br />4) Metadata Sharing<br />5) Licencing<br />6) Creative Commons<br /><br />There is <b>no</b> dictation in any of this that lay bloggers on the internet have <i>any</i> inalienable right to data generated by professional research staff at the University of Western Australia - unless of course there is a particular contractual obligation specifying such. I don't suppose that you are aware of such a contract?<br /><br />"<i>Lewandowsky has moved on and now wants to pass the buck to UWA, UWA are covering their own a#@e because they know that they have failed to adhere to the proper ethics approval process.</i><br /><br />Bollocks.<br /><br />The <a href="http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/03/unbalanced-antagonism-uwa-vice.html" rel="nofollow">Vice Chancellor Paul Johnson's very emphatic letter</a> shows very clearly that UWA stands staunchly behind their researchers, and the comment from Kim Heitman, the <a href="http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/rfmedia.html" rel="nofollow">UWA's legal council's just as emphatic comment</a> on this matter shows that he is solid in his defense of UWA procedure.<br /><br />You aren't well acquainted with reality, are you?Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41505791914381240922014-04-07T21:19:25.807+10:002014-04-07T21:19:25.807+10:00"He can't manage analysis of climate data..."He can't manage analysis of climate data"<br /><br />Tell that to Gergis and KarolyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-41370797171150839862014-04-07T20:32:22.272+10:002014-04-07T20:32:22.272+10:00Steve McIntyre got the data from LOG12 already. H...Steve McIntyre got the data from LOG12 already. He just wants more than is permissible from an ethical perspective, presumably (data that may allow identification of otherwise anonymous respondents). <br /><br />I also note the "for other researchers". Steve McIntyre isn't "another researcher". He's just another blogger. And he's not competent to analyse LOG12 data - he's demonstrated that already on his blog. <br /><br />He can't manage analysis of climate data and he sure as hell hasn't the competence to do cognitive science.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-4753883923310326262014-04-07T20:19:41.019+10:002014-04-07T20:19:41.019+10:00Anon, you misunderstand my point. There is very li...Anon, you misunderstand my point. There is very limited criticism of things posted at WUWT and it doesn't matter if it is "private" - it is very public and makes claims as to its popularity. It is cynical to say anything else. My point was that even minor criticism at WUWT of a constructive type is barely tolerated and moderators, commenters and endless socks bully the person trying to make a valid point. <br /><br />Public confidence in science is eroded by the deniers, which I am assuming you are one. Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30531918829537704642014-04-07T20:12:16.109+10:002014-04-07T20:12:16.109+10:00Climate revisionist. Nothing else.
'pseudoske...Climate revisionist. Nothing else. <br />'pseudoskeptic' is too naive for this evil.cRR Kampenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571285063752477448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-30881086716026686842014-04-07T18:53:35.729+10:002014-04-07T18:53:35.729+10:00Catmando,
WUWT is a private blog and the owners c...Catmando,<br /><br />WUWT is a private blog and the owners can do whatever they please. The same type of censorship happens here all the time, in case you hadn't noticed.<br />The paper written by Lewandowsky and his minions was funded by the Australian Taxpayer, a totally different set of circumstances, comparing the two is just nonsense.<br /><br />From the UWA Code of Conduct for the Responsible Practice of Research:<br /><br />3.8 Research data related to publications must be available for discussion with other researchers.<br /><br />No ifs buts or maybes, data must be available. UWA are in breach of their own Code of Conduct, and besides, if the data is as robust as Lewandowsky claims, what do they have to fear?<br /><br />Lewandowsky has moved on and now wants to pass the buck to UWA, UWA are covering their own a#@e because they know that they have failed to adhere to the proper ethics approval process. If this is the way that"science is done" today it is little wonder the public have lost faith in scientists.<br /><br /><br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-27124002067139122652014-04-07T15:15:39.129+10:002014-04-07T15:15:39.129+10:00Anon,
You have described exactly what deniers lik...Anon,<br /><br />You have described exactly what deniers like Eschenbach, Monckton and friends do. Put up a post at WUWT that is not allowed to be criticised. Any attempt to point out flaws is met with derision and insult. <br /><br />Real science on the other hand... Well, I'm sure you know how that proceeds.Catmandohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12313870265499015076noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-16833976562089247972014-04-07T14:53:43.286+10:002014-04-07T14:53:43.286+10:00"While IANAS, I'm pretty sure that random..."While IANAS, I'm pretty sure that random DK-inflicted know-nothings demanding to see raw data painstakingly gathered by researchers so they can do who-knows-what with it is not typically part of the scientific process."<br /><br />So let's just have scientists publish any paper they like and say "here are our conclusions, you will just have to take our word for it", or better still only release their data to like minded friends who won't criticize the work no matter how shoddy. That should advance the world of science no end. You Clown. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-60138994315168316182014-04-07T06:27:42.274+10:002014-04-07T06:27:42.274+10:00metzomagic:
Given:
"Instead of commenting as ...metzomagic:<br />Given:<br />"Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", could you please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever."<br /><br />I suggest that anyone who posts as "anonymous" here, , is not even worth reading, ever much less responding to.<br /><br />Q: Really, what is the value of opinions by anyone who can't even pick an consistent Internet handle.?<br />A: less than zero, because it wastes time.<br /><br />Sigh, I pine for the good old days of USENET, with usable KILLFILEs.<br />"Anonymous" would be the first on the list.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-31908245049837298462014-04-06T21:47:41.282+10:002014-04-06T21:47:41.282+10:00ETA: ...I'm sure you can see how non-productiv...ETA: ...I'm sure you can see how non-productive that is. Just ask Keith Briffa:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/06/yamal-and-polar-urals-a-research-update/" rel="nofollow">Yamal and Polar Urals: a research update</a><br /><br />That paints McIntyre in a really bad light. He may have some stats fu, but he doesn't have the scientific training to be able to tell the difference between good data and bad data, as he's demonstrated time and again over the years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-69841661075214097312014-04-06T21:29:35.867+10:002014-04-06T21:29:35.867+10:00metzo, you clearly have absolutely no idea how sci...<i>metzo, you clearly have absolutely no idea how science is done do you?</i><br /><br />While IANAS, I'm pretty sure that random DK-inflicted know-nothings demanding to see raw data painstakingly gathered by researchers so they can do who-knows-what with it is not typically part of the scientific process. It does, however, seem to be some kind of false entitlement brought on by the age of the internet.<br /><br />For example, what qualifications does Barry Woods have to analyse the data from the LOG12 surveys? None, AFAIK. So what would he do with the data if he got it? Oh, wait, I know... he would pass it along to someone like Steve McIntyre, who is also not qualified to analyse it. Steve would get a lot of mileage out of that. Probably good for at least 5 of his sniping-from-the-sidelines blog posts. Now, it would be another thing entirely if McIntyre were to publish his results in a reputable psychological journal. Then it would be peer-reviewed, and other people could comment on it in a controlled manner. That is how science is done. But he can't, because he doesn't have the training necessary in order to be able to competently analyse data of this kind.<br /><br />So, scientists sharing their raw data with other scientists who will possibly publish their own results, I'm fine with that. Scientists sharing their raw data with random vexatious people who are going to do 'blog science' with it? I'm sure you can see how non-productive that is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-19756689404454754492014-04-06T19:28:36.900+10:002014-04-06T19:28:36.900+10:00http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that...http://retractionwatch.com/2014/04/04/journal-that-retracted-conspiracy-ideation-climate-skepticism-paper-says-it-did-not-cave-into-threats/<br /><br />A Psychological journal in denial about Denial.. :D You couldn't make it up!Debunkernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-38033636338065335852014-04-06T15:47:15.172+10:002014-04-06T15:47:15.172+10:00I urge: the right term is pseudoskeptic, not skept...I urge: the right term is pseudoskeptic, not skeptic or "skeptic" as the latter might allow the possibly they belong with folks like Carl Sagan, Martin Gardner or Steve Schneider.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22625192975459629862014-04-06T15:45:00.958+10:002014-04-06T15:45:00.958+10:00Thanks (for link fix).
Since I don't normally ...Thanks (for link fix).<br />Since I don't normally read those blogs, I ran across a whole new set of Internet handles I'd not noticed before. In the SalbyStom case, about 80% of the dismissive commenters went all-in for Salby's sotry, with zero skepticism. They were especially likely to go for conspiracy ideas.<br /><br />About 7% were consistently cautious, and another 7% were at least able to change their minds somewhat as new data arrived, although often fought on for Salby after the NSF report, as did Foxgoose above.<br />John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-10060968362895528852014-04-06T14:55:10.041+10:002014-04-06T14:55:10.041+10:00"Go get your own freakin' data. That'..."Go get your own freakin' data. That's how science is done."<br />metzo, you clearly have absolutely no idea how science is done do you? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-22811580653565044322014-04-06T12:46:01.822+10:002014-04-06T12:46:01.822+10:00Thanks. Here's a fixed BISHOP link.Thanks. Here's a <a href="http://www.webcitation.org/6OTO09OMh" rel="nofollow">fixed BISHOP link</a>.Dumb Scientisthttp://dumbscientist.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64708512123312956682014-04-06T11:11:42.050+10:002014-04-06T11:11:42.050+10:00John
Thanks for this. FG seems to be having credi...John<br /><br />Thanks for this. FG seems to be having credibility issues. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-35906596982061870822014-04-06T09:28:40.925+10:002014-04-06T09:28:40.925+10:00The fake sceptics did get their own data in a surv...The fake sceptics did get their own data in a survey by A. Scott who "replicated" the Lewandowsky survey with a couple of differences. He ran it at WUWT and got more than 1500 responses. <br /><br />Thing is he handed over the results to Steve McIntyre, who promptly buried it and it's never seen the light of day. It's never been analysed publicly. I asked A Scott several times about what had happened to it and why the results weren't made public. He kept saying "soon" before giving up.<br /><br />This data sharing notion only applies one way when it comes to deniers.<br /><br />I expect the results were not dissimilar to LOG12, except the number of fake sceptic responses would be a lot higher. There would have been a lot more "one world guvmint" positives going by the comments at WUWT etc, for example. And McIntyre did get as far as letting on there were a lot more responses from free marketers, which vindicates the finding of LOG12.<br /><br />The data is not available though, and not even Steve's results were available. (As Steve McI did in the case of LOG12, Steve did indicate he was going to do the analysis after he removed the results he found inconvenient. He probably found himself in an embarrassing dilemma after he'd done this, maybe whittling down the results from 1500 to 200 or so :))Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-42095989965822152912014-04-06T09:13:57.500+10:002014-04-06T09:13:57.500+10:00The implicit assumption in uncertainty-based "...The implicit assumption in uncertainty-based "skeptic" discussions is lower climate sensitivity is equally likely as higher sensitivity - a "bell curve" of clmate system responses. That is not the case with climate sensitivity estimates as they have a log-normal distribution. Both (paywalled) papers referred to are an excellent tutorial on real-world implications of log-normal distributions and the urgency of policy responses to the science.<br /><br />To bring the topic back on-track, anyone using their academc credibility, whether it be in the field of economics or earth science, to argue for "do nothing, let's wait" and ignoring the assymetric uncertainty, needs to reconsider the foundations of their message.Anthony Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02513872551156179165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-57551977424370700292014-04-06T09:11:51.395+10:002014-04-06T09:11:51.395+10:00From BISHOP
"That's a US government repo...From <a href="www.webcitation.org/6OTO09OMh" rel="nofollow">BISHOP</a><br /><br />"That's a US government report marked "confidential" Nick.<br />Do you mind telling us where you got it?<br />Jul 13, 2013 at 8:58 AM | Registered Commenter Foxgoose"<br /><br />"Foxgoose,<br />I just provide a link. If you check, it's there on the nsf.gov website for everyone to see. Some of the history is in the attached correspondence.<br />Jul 13, 2013 at 9:09 AM Nick Stokes"<br /><br />"Post deleted<br />Jul 13, 2013 at 9:22 AM | Foxgoose"<br /><br />(Too bad, I'd liked to have seen that.)<br /><br />"Well, a lot of work has clearly been done very quickly, by the likes of Nick Stokes, Graham Redfearn, John Mashey and the Desmog PR professionals, to try and destroy Salby's credibility and get Macquarie off the hook.<br /><br />I can't think when we've seen the private life of any individual, including messy divorce proceedings and relationships with estranged wife & kids, picked over in the public blogs so blatantly.<br /><br />Presumably consensus scientists lead lives of complete domestic and financial rectitude and have nothing to fear.<br /><br />It may well be that Salby's three year suspension was justified - although clearly no criminal charges were brought. One thing puzzles me though. I was once involved in a business supplying research equipment to universities in the UK and Europe and the nature of the technology often resulted in my company carrying out joint research projects with them. When I became quite deeply involved in the financing and management of such projects, I never failed to be amazed by the casual and lax attitude that most senior academics and their employers took to things like time management, expense controls, property ownership, separation of academic and personal business interests etc etc etc.<br /><br />I have a strong feeling that the NSF charges against Salby, for the way ran his projects, could be proved against large numbers of senior academics all over the world - if anyone bothered to launch investigations.<br /><br />Something else caught my eye while browsing the NSF bulletin covering the Salby case - I read this, pertaining to another case of academic misconduct:-<br />(long quote)<br />Who could have guessed the NSF can launch investigations against academics for "insufficient statistical rigour" - I bet Steve McIntyre could point them in a few interesting directions.<br />Jul 13, 2013 at 5:31 PM | Foxgoose"<br /><br />1) Divorce case was relevant because it was a key part of the pattern of wild claims Salby kept making in court (and getting dismissed), and was almost certainly one of the motivations for the 2nd shell company. <br /><br />2) The NSF cannot bring criminal charges, but needs to build a case and get the DoJ ... and when case closed, Salby had long since fled the country. Such do go to DoJ, and people do go to jail, but rarely, as most people settle, their careers already in shreds. No way the NSF was going to spend the effort and $ to get the DoJ involved and seek extradition. As far as I know, Salby has not appeared publicly in the US since.<br /><br />3) Of course, McIntyre's most famous "statistics" paper had bad time-series statistics and a fraudulent 100:1 cherry-pick.<br /><br />So, Foxgoose:<br />a) Did not understand the NSF or DoJ.<br /><br />b) attacked people who actually did investigative journalism and unearthed relevant facts, with rather robust soruces.<br /><br />c) tried tu quoque to justify Salby's extreme behavior.<br /> Professors can have off-campus busineses, and need to be careful with Conflict of Interest, and some aren't ... but most don't set up 2 shell companies yo get grants hiding their involvement, for a decade+. Most profs don't acts as P.I.s for an off-campus company to get grants, and publish papers about that work ... but *never* put that affiliation on the papers where it would be visible.)<br /><br />d) Then introduced a red herring from another case and added McIntyre as though that had the slightest relevance to all this.<br /><br />John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-18870217761748067972014-04-06T08:50:19.325+10:002014-04-06T08:50:19.325+10:00The most disturbing theme running through all this...The most disturbing theme running through all this is, IMO, that somehow every researcher is expected to expose their hard-earned data to any anonymous armchair scientist who requests it. From the comments over at Retraction Watch (and this is about the LOG12 data, not Recursive Fury's):<br /><br /><i>It is kind of hard to submit “a peer reviewed response” when the authors and UWA refuse to reveal and share the data. Barry Woods wants to do so but cannot get the data upon which the paper is based.</i><br /><br />Go get your own freakin' data. That's how science is done. McIntyre the rent seeker seems to have imbued his own twisted worldview of how science is done unto all his sycophants. Weird. These people have lost touch with reality in a self-reinforcing denialist echo chamber.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-77538568213885454972014-04-06T08:10:47.011+10:002014-04-06T08:10:47.011+10:00Slightly OT, but Prof Lewandowsky has taken his do...Slightly OT, but Prof Lewandowsky has taken his dog to poop on Judith Curry's <br />lawn.<br /><br />'Scientists unmask the climate uncertainty monster'<br />http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/04/140404140301.htm<br /><br />It may cause a stir.<br />Cugelnoreply@blogger.com