IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd November 2008, 10:47 PM   #1
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 45,757
Would you reject Spencer's Paper, and why?

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Glob...atural-PDO.htm

Roy Spencer is crying foul because GRL rejected his paper for publication. Would anyone here have a problem with it?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2008, 11:04 PM   #2
Highly Selassie
Critical Thinker
 
Highly Selassie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
I haven't finished reading this yet, but one of the first things I noticed is the use of unscientific language. Also, there are many remarks that should be cited, but aren't (e.g. his reference to D'Aleo, "Others have noted" without saying who).
Highly Selassie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2008, 11:26 PM   #3
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 45,757
He makes a note that it is a briefer version of what he submitted to the GRL, since they won't publish anything that has already been published. I would presume he has left out some of the details. The arguments he states are the same, however.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd November 2008, 11:41 PM   #4
shadron
Philosopher
 
shadron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,918
Well, the paper (as presented in he link) is supposed to be just a summary. I don't think "Others have noted..." is a problem; to name who would be picking a fight, and everyone in he field knows who they are anyway; besides, their identities are not germaine to the discussion, except poliically. It is intended, apparently, to influence upcoming legislation:

Quote:
I am posting this information in advance of publication because of its potential importance to pending EPA regulations or congressional legislation which assume that carbon dioxide is a major driver of climate change. Since the mainstream news media now refuse to report on peer-reviewed scientific articles which contradict the views of the IPCC, Al Gore, and James Hansen, I am forced to bypass them entirely.
(He could also have mentioned that the administration and congress have gutted science reporting, but again that's not science.) That's highly prejudicial language for a scientific paper, but again, this isn't meant to be the formal submittal. In order to make a judgment about the paper itself, I'd have to see it (and, of course, be a subject matter expert, which I am not).

Last edited by shadron; 3rd November 2008 at 11:45 PM.
shadron is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2008, 12:22 AM   #5
Highly Selassie
Critical Thinker
 
Highly Selassie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
Originally Posted by shadron View Post
I don't think "Others have noted..." is a problem; to name who would be picking a fight, and everyone in he field knows who they are anyway; besides, their identities are not germaine to the discussion, except poliically. It is intended, apparently, to influence upcoming legislation:
The inclusion of that paragraph, as well as the unscientific language and missing citations makes me wonder if Spencer really did submit an article to the GRU, or just cobbled a bunch of graphs together to rally up his cadre of deniers in advance of the US election. I realize it's a "simplified" version, but it would have taken quite a bit of editing to turn a scientific paper into something that reads like a failed first-year undergrad essay. Also, the "Others have noted" part that I took exception to was referring to supposed observations that would have boosted his argument; he wouldn't have been picking a fight at all.

Spencer has been caught being disingenuous with his models in the past. He doesn't give the details of his model in this "simplified" article, so I can't really criticize this specific model with just this information. Personally, I'm rather doubtful that he's cleaned up his act.

a_unique_person, where is Spencer's reaction to the rejection of this article?

Last edited by Highly Selassie; 4th November 2008 at 12:25 AM.
Highly Selassie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2008, 12:26 AM   #6
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 45,757
The news is just doing the rounds of the blogosphere now. It's all a part of a conspiracy, but the details are hard to find at the moment. Did you know that Amazon deleted all the reviews of his book on the same day? Now, there's something to contemplate.

http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/200...?cp=1#comments
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2008, 12:52 AM   #7
Highly Selassie
Critical Thinker
 
Highly Selassie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
I'm sure there's a perfectly logical explanation for the missing reviews. Two possibilities I can think of are that Amazon deleted the reviews because they discovered people submitting many reviews on the book intending to swing the score one way or the other, or they didn't actually delete any reviews and it's just a technical glitch. It wouldn't make sense for Amazon to be part of some conspiracy against Roy Spencer when there are other climate change "skeptic" books still available on the site with reviews intact.
Highly Selassie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2008, 08:29 AM   #8
tusenfem
Illuminator
 
tusenfem's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,185
Unless we get the submitted version of the paper we cannot decide whether or not it was justified that it was rejected. Questions are:

1. Was the paper rejected by the editor or by the referees. The editor scans the GRL submitted papers first, to see if they are appropriate or not. E.g. too many papers on the same topic by one author will cause a rejection. GRL is trying to become a journal with mainly hot new stuff, to try and increase impact factor.

2. If the paper was rejected by referees, then we should take a look at what the referees have commented on. I am not a specialist in this field, so I cannot really judge, but the "summary" linked to in the OP does not seem to be GRL quality, but then, it is not the original paper.

Concerning Amazon, I could not care less, Amazon is known to e.g. only show positive reviews and delete negative reviews.

So. unless we get more info from Spencer, there is nothing we can say.
tusenfem is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2008, 01:35 PM   #9
Highly Selassie
Critical Thinker
 
Highly Selassie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Concerning Amazon, I could not care less, Amazon is known to e.g. only show positive reviews and delete negative reviews.
I'm guessing the reviews were mostly positive, otherwise they wouldn't be whining about it.

Quote:
So. unless we get more info from Spencer, there is nothing we can say.
If the paper was rejected because it's bad science, do you really expect Spencer to admit it?
Highly Selassie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2008, 01:45 PM   #10
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Unless we get the submitted version of the paper we cannot decide whether or not it was justified that it was rejected. Questions are:

1. Was the paper rejected by the editor or by the referees. The editor scans the GRL submitted papers first, to see if they are appropriate or not. E.g. too many papers on the same topic by one author will cause a rejection. GRL is trying to become a journal with mainly hot new stuff, to try and increase impact factor.

2. If the paper was rejected by referees, then we should take a look at what the referees have commented on. I am not a specialist in this field, so I cannot really judge, but the "summary" linked to in the OP does not seem to be GRL quality, but then, it is not the original paper.
....
From the biblio:
Spencer, R.W., W. D. Braswell, J. R. Christy, and J. Hnilo (2007), Cloud and radiation budget changes associated with tropical intraseasonal oscillations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L15707, doi:10.1029/2007GL029698.

Spencer, R.W., and W.D. Braswell (2008a), Satellite measurements reveal a climate system less sensitive than in models, Geophys. Res. Lett., submitted.
Could well be subject matter overlap, or have been thouqht to be.

However, including clouds and PDO in the simple energy balance model is very interesting.

Last edited by mhaze; 4th November 2008 at 01:47 PM.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2008, 03:04 PM   #11
TellyKNeasuss
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,064
His statement "The recovery of Arctic sea ice now underway might be an early sign that this is indeed happening." in the 3rd paragraph of 4. Discussion & Conclusions is not supported by any evidence either presented in or cited in the paper.

His final paragraph, "We need to consider the very real possibility that carbon dioxide - which is necessary for life on Earth and of which there is precious little in the atmosphere - might well be like the innocent bystander who has been unjustly accused of a crime based upon little more than circumstantial evidence.", is not supported by the paper, and arguably directly contradicts the data presented in the paper.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2008, 03:22 PM   #12
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 45,757
My basic problem with the paper his how is a cycle, which by definition oscillates around a fixed point, going to act as a forcing?
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
“Perception is real, but the truth is not.” - Imelda Marcos
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2008, 01:17 PM   #13
EliRabett
New Blood
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 10
Never mind

Turns out the Amazon thing was because someone was hitting a link to an old, out of print version of the book. in the words of Roseann Roseannadanna, Never Mind. The whole sad story is at marohasy's blog

These guys are whiners.
EliRabett is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th November 2008, 09:15 AM   #14
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Glob...atural-PDO.htm

Roy Spencer is crying foul because GRL rejected his paper for publication. Would anyone here have a problem with it?
Where exactly did "Roy Spencer cry foul"?

Please provide a link that shows you did not just make this up. Then we can address ad hominems such as "these guys (skeptics) are whiners" because some one has actually shown there to be some whining.

Last edited by mhaze; 17th November 2008 at 09:18 AM.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2008, 06:21 AM   #15
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Where exactly did "Roy Spencer cry foul"?

Please provide a link that shows you did not just make this up. Then we can address ad hominems such as "these guys (skeptics) are whiners" because some one has actually shown there to be some whining.
No reply?

Lack of evidence then indicates that the initial false accusation by A_Unique _Person was springboarded by Highly_Selassie and EliRabbit as a basis for smearing the distinguished scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2008, 06:58 AM   #16
Ocelot
Illuminator
 
Ocelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 3,475
You know what, this was the first result returned for this rather obvious search phrase

I'm just saying.. what if somebody denied the existance of something just because they meade no effort of their own to find any evidence. What would you call that sort of person - a skeptic or a denialist?

If a denialist then surely the next step would be to claim that the following quote doesn't constitute whining, but a legitimate complaint against the eebil gubbermental conspirasay!

Quote:
"Since our previous publications have been basically censored by the news media, and I have now experienced scientific censorship (which I suppose was long overdue), I have decided to take my message to the people in a second book."
__________________
EDL = English Disco Lovers

Last edited by Ocelot; 18th November 2008 at 07:09 AM.
Ocelot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2008, 07:24 AM   #17
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Unless we get the submitted version of the paper we cannot decide whether or not it was justified that it was rejected. Questions are:

1. Was the paper rejected by the editor or by the referees. The editor scans the GRL submitted papers first, to see if they are appropriate or not. E.g. too many papers on the same topic by one author will cause a rejection. GRL is trying to become a journal with mainly hot new stuff, to try and increase impact factor.

2. If the paper was rejected by referees, then we should take a look at what the referees have commented on. I am not a specialist in this field, so I cannot really judge, but the "summary" linked to in the OP does not seem to be GRL quality, but then, it is not the original paper.

Concerning Amazon, I could not care less, Amazon is known to e.g. only show positive reviews and delete negative reviews.

So. unless we get more info from Spencer, there is nothing we can say.
Though I would have to limit this to DVD''s (I usually already know about the books I order so the Amazon reviews have no effect either way) : I have seen large number of negative reviews on DVD's in Amazon and have used those for purchase decisions. (Note, because of my interests, certain types of negative review trigger purchase rather than non-purchase).

Last edited by fuelair; 18th November 2008 at 07:26 AM. Reason: +s
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2008, 09:57 AM   #18
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by Ocelot View Post
You know what, this was the first result returned for this rather obvious search phrase

I'm just saying.. what if somebody denied the existance of something just because they meade no effort of their own to find any evidence.....
You've proved an assertion made on 11-3 with a website text change dated 11-9. What would you call the sort of sort of person who would do that?

In any case, it really isn't my job to disprove or prove the unsubstantiated assertion of the OP. Hence my question, which seems completely legitimate. As such your attitude is not called for, is it?
I'm just saying.. what if somebody denied the existance of something just because they meade no effort of their own to find any evidence. What would you call that sort of person - a skeptic or a denialist?

If a denialist then surely the next step would be to claim that the following quote doesn't constitute whining, but a legitimate complaint against the eebil gubbermental conspirasay!
While my objection to the smearing of the eminent scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer, appears validated. But that I asked the question indicates I am willing to be proven wrong.

Last edited by mhaze; 18th November 2008 at 10:16 AM.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2008, 03:26 PM   #19
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by EliRabett View Post
Turns out the Amazon thing was because someone was hitting a link to an old, out of print version of the book. in the words of Roseann Roseannadanna, Never Mind. The whole sad story is at marohasy's blog

These guys are whiners.
Hi Eli,

Welcome to the JREF Forum, where the moderators take no sides.

You'll always find a few GW threads on the go here. I hope you can stick around.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2008, 03:35 PM   #20
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
No reply?

Lack of evidence then indicates that the initial false accusation by A_Unique _Person was springboarded by Highly_Selassie and EliRabbit as a basis for smearing the distinguished scientist, Dr. Roy Spencer.
So, you are using lack of response to prove a negative?

Anyway, Marohasy's crowd are doing enough whining for the whole deniosphere.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2008, 03:40 PM   #21
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
Originally Posted by Ocelot View Post
You know what, this was the first result returned for this rather obvious search phrase

I'm just saying.. what if somebody denied the existance of something just because they meade no effort of their own to find any evidence. What would you call that sort of person - a skeptic or a denialist?
Neither. This is dishonesty.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2008, 05:45 PM   #22
Ocelot
Illuminator
 
Ocelot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 3,475
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
You've proved an assertion made on 11-3 with a website text change dated 11-9. What would you call the sort of sort of person who would do that?
Certainly not Ocelot as I did no such thing! I disproved an assertion implied by you yesterday and made explicit earlier today, with a google search yielding 137 results. The first of which was available to you both times you tried to imply that Roy Spencer hadn't been whining. Did you read any of the others. Had you performed any search for yourself before suggesting that "a unique person" was making it up? It seems not.

What this demonstrates is that you deny something exists because you are not aware of it after making exactly zero effort to discover it. Classic denialism.

Of course you needn't have even bothered with Google. "a unique person" substantiated his claim with a link in post 6 of this very thread to Jennifer Marohasy's blog. Check out this comment by Jennifer herself reporting a direct quote from discussion with Roy Spencer.

Quote:
“Regarding the two papers, the one where we compared five years of satellite data to ALL five year periods from 18 climate models and found none that had the negative feedback the satellite data showed…that paper had 2 reviewers. One said publish after changes, the other was more hostile in response to us saying anything bad about climate models.
The second paper, which showed that the PDO can explain most of the warming during the 20th Century, had only one reviewer, and was turned around in record time. The reviewer obviously just skimmed the paper, since half of his questions would have been answered if he had read more carefully. Also, he claimed that the PDO history should be highly correlated with the temperature history for the PDO to have caused the temperatures. This is a gross misunderstanding of how radiative forcing causes temperature changes (radiative forcing is proportional to the change in temperature with time, not the temperature itself, which causes them to always be out of phase), which should have disqualified him as a reviewer to begin with.
I am convinced that if these two papers showed new evidence in support of the models and manmade global warming, they would have sailed through the peer review process.”
Frankly I don't know or care where "a unique person" got his information from on the 3rd. Validating it on the 17th, when you first made a veiled denial, would have been a trivial exercise as I demonstrated today 37 minutes after you repeated your pathetic attempt. Is there really any doubt, I wondered, not wanting to jump to conclusions based upon what I already know of your character (or lack of it). 30 seconds later, first search I tried, first result returned, confirmed that there was no doubt at all that AUP was basing his description of "whining" on Spencer's own actions.

You didn't search for validation, You didn't even read the material AUP had already provided right here.

Oh and give the passive agressive bull a rest. You're a decietful person. Yes I do have an attitude towards deceitful people. That attitude is most definitely called for, and I'm not going to stop for fear that such an attitude might hurt your tender feelings. In fact I rather hope that it does as that might modify your disreputable behaviour.
__________________
EDL = English Disco Lovers
Ocelot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 03:05 AM   #23
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Having been asked to review GRL papers in the past, my first reaction would be that this is a rehash of the same, worn stuff he's been going on about for a while and as GRL only publishes novel, ground-breaking stuff, it wouldn't get a look in. However, the version posted on the web can't possibly be what he submitted; the average editor wouldn't look at something using that style of language twice, regardless of content. That is just the preaching-to-the-denier-choir blog version, that I would hazard a guess (based on Spencer's track record) stretches the facts beyond what can typically make it through peer-review.

The scientific argument itself is a bit limp anyway. He's basically pummelling the old adage that if slapped around right, you can make the data match up in such a way as to make CO2 look like a small factor. This in itself isn't a big deal; there are plenty of ways of handling the data to make it look like CO2 is a huge factor. What he has never done is provide anything that even resembles any mechanistic closure on the issue, something that all the real GCMs did decades ago.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson

Last edited by Spud1k; 19th November 2008 at 04:16 AM.
Spud1k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 08:00 PM   #24
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,202
[quote=tusenfem;4176626]Concerning Amazon, I could not care less, Amazon is known to e.g. only show positive reviews and delete negative reviews. /QUOTE]
Have to post a correction to this. I used to work for Amazon, and at one time, my duties included vetting user reviews.

Amazon does not delete negative reviews. They only delete reviews that are off-topic, posted by the author (or other content originator), contain prohibited content (profanity, personal information, links to sales outside Amazon, advertisements, etc.), or it's clear that the reviewer simply is not personally familiar with the product, and is posting simply as part of an agenda (such as a campaign for or against a particular product) or a joke.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2008, 09:21 PM   #25
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
Having been asked to review GRL papers in the past, my first reaction would be that this is a rehash of the same, worn stuff he's been going on about for a while and as GRL only publishes novel, ground-breaking stuff, it wouldn't get a look in. However, the version posted on the web can't possibly be what he submitted; the average editor wouldn't look at something using that style of language twice, regardless of content. That is just the preaching-to-the-denier-choir blog version....
Yes, it is almost as mind-numbing brainless as the dumbed-down-and-no-math-Realclimate-choir approach. Well, maybe we can get a copy of the real thing.

Of course (contrary to your diatribe) GRL published his 2007 paper.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 03:20 AM   #26
Spud1k
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
 
Spud1k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
Originally Posted by mhaze View Post
Of course (contrary to your diatribe) GRL published his 2007 paper.
That's not contrary at all to what I just said, in fact it just reinforces my point. The GRL publication policy is that they don't deal in 'incremental advances' so they never publish the same science by the same author twice. Therefore, a continuation of Spencer's satellite-data-shows-clouds-affect-climate-more-than-humans argument could have got flushed for that reason alone.
__________________
"I wouldn't have seen it with my own eyes if I hadn't believed it" - Kevin McAleer

"Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error" - Thomas Jefferson
Spud1k is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 04:06 AM   #27
TrueSceptic
Master Poster
 
TrueSceptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
[quote=luchog;4213698]
Originally Posted by tusenfem View Post
Concerning Amazon, I could not care less, Amazon is known to e.g. only show positive reviews and delete negative reviews. /QUOTE]
Have to post a correction to this. I used to work for Amazon, and at one time, my duties included vetting user reviews.

Amazon does not delete negative reviews. They only delete reviews that are off-topic, posted by the author (or other content originator), contain prohibited content (profanity, personal information, links to sales outside Amazon, advertisements, etc.), or it's clear that the reviewer simply is not personally familiar with the product, and is posting simply as part of an agenda (such as a campaign for or against a particular product) or a joke.
So, IYO, what did happen here? I suspect a simple glitch but of course there will always be those who claim a conspiracy. From Amazon
Quote:
IT IS VERY TROUBLING TO DISCOVER THAT 78 REVIEWS HAVE VANISHED. ACCESS TO INFORMATION SEEMS TO BE "MANAGED" AND THIS RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO IS DOING IT AND WHY? AT THIS POINT ALL I CAN DO IS TO RE-POST MY REVIEW OF MARCH 31, 2008 AND PROTEST THE ACTIONS OF CENSORSHIP OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR SOME ORGANIZATION.
Quote:
This review is being written for the second time because an unknown administrator erased all 78 reviews, mostly excellent reviews, yesterday. The book only has 150 pages but there is a lot to learn here.
Quote:
e the 78 missing reviews: I hope this was part of the normal process for clearing old stuff on the site and not some worker (with green flunkey tendencies) exceeding his/her authority. But even more so, I hope this was not some editorial type exercising company (green flunkey) policy.
Quote:
I understand this book formerly had 78 reviews. If so, and they were deliberately deleted in a bid to discourage readership, I say shame on you, Amazon.
All dated 3-4 Nov.
TrueSceptic is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th November 2008, 07:04 AM   #28
mhaze
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
Originally Posted by Spud1k View Post
.... a continuation of Spencer's satellite-data-shows-clouds-affect-climate-more-than-humans argument could have got flushed for that reason alone.
My exact comment earlier in this thread.
mhaze is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:35 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.