|
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. |
![]() |
#1 |
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 45,229
|
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Critical Thinker
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).
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#3 |
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 45,229
|
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
Philosopher
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:
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
|
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? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#6 |
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 45,229
|
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
Critical Thinker
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.
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
Illuminator
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,178
|
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 259
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
|
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.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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#11 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,987
|
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 45,229
|
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#15 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#16 |
Illuminator
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:
|
__________________
EDL = English Disco Lovers |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
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).
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
|
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?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. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#21 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 2,143
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 3,475
|
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:
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
|
[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. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
+5 Goatee of Pedantry
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 844
|
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 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#28 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15,718
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
|
|