Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, it's not, it's standard in many hard sciences, it exposes it to a wider audience, both scientist in and out of the field and non-scientists. Plus, the review process is lengthy. If the public misinterpets from the early release, that's not really the scientists fault.
Name a reputable science organization/journal that releases its publications to the public BEFORE they receive professional peer review. Just one. Did CERN release their findings on the Higgs before it had received professional review? No? Right. Did I release any of my publications before they were peer reviewed and published? No.
In addition to the reasons I cited, these publicatons' bread and butter is their publications, getting the results out there before their competition does. They are not going to release them prematurely and tip off another group of their findings before hand. And if there is a blatant mistake, it's mud in their face, and money out of their pocket. It's a stupid practice that no reputable science organization will allow. When reputations are at stake, such a practice is a recipe for adding oneself to the doles of the unemployed.
Name a reputable science organization/journal that releases its publications to the public BEFORE they receive professional peer review. Just one. Did CERN release their findings on the Higgs before it had received professional review? No? Right. Did I release any of my publications before they were peer reviewed and published? No.
In addition to the reasons I cited, these publicatons' bread and butter is their publications, getting the results out there before their competition does. They are not going to release them prematurely and tip off another group of their findings before hand. And if there is a blatant mistake, it's mud in their face, and money out of their pocket. It's a stupid practice that no reputable science organization will allow.
Standard in physics and astronomy. For example, most of the paper released here are pre-publication:
They are released onto the site when a paper is submitted to a journal. An endorsement from someone experienced in the field is required to submit but they haven't been carefully reviewed. Some of these will never published either because of:
1) flaws
2) not really new research relevant to make it into a publication, but still interesting
Scientists check the site regularly for information on new research done.
Not what I said, and you even responded to a point I made concerning this previously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
I didn't have a problem with him going public to open review, rather I had a problem with him going public to promote the "conclusions" of his paper (which he has hit the pavement running with as you can see in all of his media interviews).
Muller used his paper as a media blitz. He circulated it to the media and ran with it as if he had already reviewed it. He didn't do a public release so people could review it, he released it as if it were already reviewed and the paper was conclusive and validated.
Do some looking into the issue. Watts was angry at Muller's public release because he used an incomplete data set of Watts after Watts informed him of this and even Dr. Curry who was co-author of the BEST paper was angry at Muller for sensationalizing the paper in the media before it was even reviewed.
Watts released his paper, but the primary focus of his release has been to get feedback publicly, not promote an unverified or reviewed work as if it were so. Muller is even out again with his second follow-up to his previously rejected paper which AGAIN has not been reviewed, but is already being talked about as if it is a validated piece of work.
Going public is fine, but HOW it is done and to what purpose is the issue as you can see the difference here between them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
Look, it is a VERY BAD idea to release ANY scientific paper to the public before it has received appropriate professional review. All it does is highlight mistakes and invites misconceptions, misinterpretations and criticisms that should be delt with BEFORE the paper is released for general review. It does nothing to improve the quality of scientific enquiry, and will likely cause a lot of damage. I don't believe I am alone in this view. In fact, I am certain that I am not. Science is not and never has been a democratic enterprise.
So it is better for it to be peer reviewed, approved and proclaimed validated only to later find the work was invalid and methodology poor? Which one has a harder time dealing with misconceptions? The one touted as "peer reviewed" to which anyone who points out an error in it is called a "denier" and ridiculed by calls for appeals to authority to the "establishment" or the one that is preparing a draft for submission and having people taking shots at it to see if they can find any errors in it?
What do you mean it can actually cause a lot of damage? Are you talking about the science or are you talking about "public perception"? Because if it is the latter, I don't think the climate science community has a leg to stand on when it comes to damaging themselves publicly by pushing garbage out as if it was scientifically validated only to find it later torn apart and retracted.
You seem to be arguing a position of image and frankly, image is irrelevant in science. Someone finding an error in the paper does only good for the research, never harms it as the entire point is in find the facts of the issue, not purporting a given "perception" or image of it.
Science is a process of verification, validation, and replication. Increasing the number of eyes on a given work only improves this process. Are you arguing politics or science here? Because I am confused.
So it's okay for Watt to do it but not Muller? Look, it is a VERY BAD idea to release ANY scientific paper to the public before it has received appropriate professional review. All it does is highlight mistakes and invites misconceptions, misinterpretations and criticisms that should be delt with BEFORE the paper is released for general review. It does nothing to improve the quality of scientific enquiry, and will likely cause a lot of damage. I don't believe I am alone in this view. In fact, I am certain that I am not. Science is not and never has been a democratic enterprise.
Yet THIS THREAD is about a scientist who just released an non-peer reviewed paper that convinced him to "convert" to the warmist side and you have not taken issue with that paper. Noooo.... your issue is with Watt's paper. nice.
As for the democratic process....I suppose you will agree with me that the notion of "consensus" is overblown and of no value?
I suppose we could get into the "emails" that show Jones and Mann were in a cabal to oust any journal editor that allowed skeptical papers to get thru the peer review process.... and the proof thereof being a number of embattled editors resigning over such.
Yet THIS THREAD is about a scientist who just released an non-peer reviewed paper that convinced him to "convert" to the warmist side and you have not taken issue with that paper. Noooo.... your issue is with Watt's paper. nice.
As for the democratic process....I suppose you will agree with me that the notion of "consensus" is overblown and of no value?
As you have pointed, as Nomander has pointed out, as I have pointed out, somehow it's ok for the warmists,including Muller, to submit a pre-reviews paper to the public, call it validated or something to that effect, and it's the same as being peer reviewed. But that's ok. No, Watts does the SAME THING Muller did, yet calls it a pre-release to be submitted for publication, and we have ridiculous calls to appeals of authority, questioning his ethics, etc. So, clearly, us "deniers" have a much much higher standard to reach and burden of proof to match to question the warmists.
Another hypocritical thing as well, and I'm sure you and Nomander will agree with me on this. If a warmist publishes a paper, peer reviewed or not, and 100 "deniers" claims there's something wrong with it, then their ethics and education and ties are questioned and are immediately cast away as lunatics or non-relevant. But, when one "denier" posts a paper, it only takes one warmist to say no there's something wrong in this paper and the entire warmist community rejects the "denier's" paper entirely as being wrong. So, the burden of proof on our side is set to unimaginable heights but the burden of proof is so low for the warmists. You ask for the raw data and methodology, they say no you can't have it, and somehow you're in the wrong.
As you have pointed, as Nomander has pointed out, as I have pointed out, somehow it's ok for the warmists,including Muller, to submit a pre-reviews paper to the public, call it validated or something to that effect, and it's the same as being peer reviewed. But that's ok. No, Watts does the SAME THING Muller did, yet calls it a pre-release to be submitted for publication, and we have ridiculous calls to appeals of authority, questioning his ethics, etc. So, clearly, us "deniers" have a much much higher standard to reach and burden of proof to match to question the warmists.
Another hypocritical thing as well, and I'm sure you and Nomander will agree with me on this. If a warmist publishes a paper, peer reviewed or not, and 100 "deniers" claims there's something wrong with it, then their ethics and education and ties are questioned and are immediately cast away as lunatics or non-relevant. But, when one "denier" posts a paper, it only takes one warmist to say no there's something wrong in this paper and the entire warmist community rejects the "denier's" paper entirely as being wrong. So, the burden of proof on our side is set to unimaginable heights but the burden of proof is so low for the warmists. You ask for the raw data and methodology, they say no you can't have it, and somehow you're in the wrong.
Some think it is because of "ego" issues and this seems to be supported by one of the posters in this thread who kept suggesting it was an insult to "experts" to have "floor sweepers" questioning their work which is funny because many of those providing suggestions and comments on the Watts paper are Climate scientists, Physicists, Mathematicians, etc... Others think it is simply the fact that a pre-publish public peer review process would put to light some of the shoddy work other papers have been able to get slid through peer review due to the "pal-review" nature of the process these days.
Personally, I see it as good directional change and one that gives a lot more transparency in the process to which more recently has been pushing into a covert style of publishing with no archived data, pay walls, and legal tricks to avoid data and methodology release.
We shall see, it looks like he has gotten a lot of what he was looking for in the release and is finalizing the draft for submission.
Anyway, the reason I think they take that fallacious approach theunbrainwashed is because this issue can't survive in the science alone. This has been noted by even the activist researchers (in the emails) that fighting this on scientific grounds will simply weaken their "cause" due to the lacking in evidence they have to their claim. They know they need to keep this political and that is why anytime you bring up science, they turn on the political tactics of fallacious name calling, dismissals, and slew of other fallacies. They know CAGW is not valid. They know their position isn't scientifically sound. they have to lie and cheat about it (as many of their activist supporters agree they should) because their "cause" is right in their eyes. It doesn't matter how they get there, just that they get there and anything goes for them.
So it's okay for Watt to do it but not Muller? Look, it is a VERY BAD idea to release ANY scientific paper to the public before it has received appropriate professional review. All it does is highlight mistakes and invites misconceptions, misinterpretations and criticisms that should be delt with BEFORE the paper is released for general review. It does nothing to improve the quality of scientific enquiry, and will likely cause a lot of damage. I don't believe I am alone in this view. In fact, I am certain that I am not. Science is not and never has been a democratic enterprise.
This is a follow up to your response Orogenicman. You claimed the above bold.
This is a recent major error Watts has been sitting on concerning the BEST paper, not commenting on the error, because he is considered a non-expert or "floor sweeper" as you like to put it and was waiting for "peer review" to be able to spot this very significant error.
I expected that after the peer review BEST been though, that this would have been fixed. Nope. I thought after the media blitzes it would have been fixed. Nope. I thought that after they submitted it to The Third Santa Fe Conference on Global and Regional Climate Change somebody would point it out and fix it. Nope. I thought after I pointed it out in Watts et el 2012 draft paper, surely one of the BEST co-authors would fix it. Still nope.
The assumption error I spotted last year still exists in the May 20th edition of the BEST paper Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the Contiguous United States by Richard A. Muller, Jonathan Wurtele, Robert Rohde, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Charlotte Wickham: 2012, Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project (online here PDF).
So, if the proper way to do things is to let "established peer review" handle it, by you know... experts, then why didn't those experts find such a significant error and how did a "floor sweeper" notice it when they did not?
This is what I was trying to convey to you. That this issue is not about appeals to authority, it is about science and science does not care if the janitor sees an error on a paper because science is concerned with correctly understanding a given issue. It is arrogance and elitism to which places "authority" and such calls of appeal as more important which is what you seemed to be implying.
Without the "floor sweeper", this issue would not have been found. So what is more important? Science or clinging to the ego of those who proclaim themselves experts? Personally, I think science is far too important to leave to such petty things.
NOAA has already published a rebuttal of Watt's earlier paper citing errors in station citing, saying that the errors are well known and have been addressed. Frankly, that Watt is still trying to sell that paper has having any significant bearing on the published data is rather sad.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
