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.
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.
1. I asked you to link it so others can see.
2. Your response does nothing to deal with the issues of the BEST paper.
3. You don't deal with the problems in your argument.
You don't do anything to deal with the issues of my response. It is understandable, you are awaiting the talking points of your groups, but... this only points out that your rebuttal is nothing more than an extension of the weak argument of another, which is why your response is... for the most part... void of any actual response to my commentary.
[LEFT]Menne, Matthew J., Claude N. Williams, Jr. and Russell S. Vose, 2009: The United States
Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data – Version 2. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, in press.
Peterson, Thomas C., 2006: Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor[/LEFT]
Station Locations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87, 1073-1080.
Quote:
2. Your response does nothing to deal with the issues of the BEST paper.
My response was not intended to deal with those issues, because as you like to point out, Muller's paper has yet to be published. I prefer to comment after a paper has been published in its final form, not before.
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?
The only thing I take issue with regarding Muller's paper at this time is the fact that he released it to the public before it was published. I prefer to wait until the final paper is published before commenting on its content. But from what I've seen of it, no I don't have any problems with it. That said, I've not yet set down and looked at it carefully. But that's because I want to see the final paper first before I pass judgement.
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.
I will concede that arXiv does indeed publish pre-released papers from a very limited range of professions. Many professionals don't use this service. I am a geologist, and most, if not all, of our publications are not pre-released. I might also point out that this services is intended for use by other professionals in their respective fields, though there is nothing to prevent you or I from accessing these papers.
I will concede that arXiv does indeed publish pre-released papers from a very limited range of professions. Many professionals don't use this service. I am a geologist, and most, if not all, of our publications are not pre-released. I might also point out that this services is intended for use by other professionals in their respective fields, though there is nothing to prevent you or I from accessing these papers.
And Muller is a physicist not a climate scientist or geologist. So, pre-publishing is what is standard in his field, no one in his field would consider his pre-publication poor form. ArXiv covers most quantitive sciences as well as mathematics.
I wouldn't be surprised if astronomers / physicsists have given press releases based on submitted but not published works.
And Muller is a physicist not a climate scientist or geologist. So, pre-publishing is what is standard in his field, no one in his field would consider his pre-publication poor form. ArXiv covers most quantitive sciences as well as mathematics.
I wouldn't be surprised if astronomers / physicsists have given press releases based on submitted but not published works.
There are pluses and minuses to both styles.
Except that both Muller and Watt has pre-released their papers to the media, not to arXiv, and that is what I take issue with.
[LEFT]Menne, Matthew J., Claude N. Williams, Jr. and Russell S. Vose, 2009: The United States
Historical Climatology Network Monthly Temperature Data – Version 2. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, in press.
Peterson, Thomas C., 2006: Examination of Potential Biases in Air Temperature Caused by Poor[/LEFT]
Station Locations. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 87, 1073-1080.
You do realize that review was on an incomplete data set from Watts site back in 2009? Watts even responded to this issue way back then concerning that fact. You are arguing an issue that was already dealt with years ago. Try dealing with current events or is that too much to ask?
When I saw the internal memo circulated to top managers at NOAA, I laughed even more.
Why? Because NOAA and NCDC are rebuking an analysis which I have not even written yet, using old data, and nobody at NOAA or NCDC had the professionalism to put their name to the document.
Again, that was in 2009 and Watts just released the finalization of his work in 2012. So you tell me, how on earth could they give a rebuttal to work that was just released? Go ahead, please explain that to us Mr. Wizard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by orogenicman
My response was not intended to deal with those issues, because as you like to point out, Muller's paper has yet to be published. I prefer to comment after a paper has been published in its final form, not before.
Mullers paper was submitted, then rejected... then it has been redone, but has yet to be submitted again. Though that doesn't stop Mr. Hollywood from pushing it all over the media.
If you don't want to comment on a paper not published, fine. That is your prerogative. The fact that a paper hasn't been "peer reviewed" does not immediately invalidate it though, which is what you are attempting to imply and exactly the problem I showed by giving you examples of the Muller paper that WAS peer reviewed (and rejected), yet did not reject it based on the find Watts provided. The point is...
Peer review, while a good thing, is NOT the absolute authority on something being FACT or not and anyone who attempts to claim so is appealing to authority and peddling cheap politics.
Except that both Muller and Watt has pre-released their papers to the media, not to arXiv, and that is what I take issue with.
Muller released his on a Hollywood tour cycle, doing all kinds of interviews to promote his paper. It was a political circle jerk piece meant specifically to promote politics, not science.
Watts released his paper on his site, allowed comments, used the comments to correct and prepare his paper for journal submit.
You attempting to liken them to each other as the same is ignorance and agenda driven.
I will concede that arXiv does indeed publish pre-released papers from a very limited range of professions. Many professionals don't use this service. I am a geologist, and most, if not all, of our publications are not pre-released. I might also point out that this services is intended for use by other professionals in their respective fields, though there is nothing to prevent you or I from accessing these papers.
Until you name yourself, I won't take you at your word.
Until you name yourself, I won't take you at your word.
WILLIAM I. AUSICH, ALAN GOLDSTEIN,
and RON YATES
CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY (ECHINODERMATA, LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN) Journal of Paleontology, November 2000, v. 74, p. 1072-1082,
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.
