------ THE SKY IS FALLING ------

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by spot1234

How exactly did they know what is going to happen in the far future the significance of the long count calender is religious. just as our calender is.

Actually, the best rebuttle to it being tied to a solar cycle that I can see, is that their many other calendars did not allow for historic dating past 52 years. In other words, they needed a method of tracking their history and that was it. The Mayan Haab calendar is 365 days. Our calendar is the same, what is so religious about that?

Enough about the calendars... it may be coincidence... or not. As humans we cannot even agree on global temperature, what hope would we have tackling this one? What we don't know about pretty much everything is astounding.

[Robert Northup]

For those who might believe that there is important objective information that would shift the paradigm of climate science, only it is being squelched by a self-serving establishment, let me disabuse you of a few notions. I am intimately familiar with the submission, intake, review, and acceptance process at the journal NATURE. The idea that they would reject valid and important work simply because it is “controversial” is absurd. It is true that NATURE rejects the overwhelming majority of papers submitted. Most don’t get past the inital “gate keepers” who assess whether or not the work should be considered for review. The purpose of journals such as NATURE and SCIENCE is to report what are considered to be important new scientific findings. There are certain rules that everyone has agreed upon, such as following the accepted scientific method, and not using false data to support a claim. As these findings are being reported with the intention that other scientists should be aware of it, so that it may stimulate discussion and research about a potentially very important new (quantity, relationship, theory, model, etc.). To some extent, they are SUPPOSED to be “controversial”.

I have been a reviewer for various environmental science journals, and I have submitted enough papers of my own to have a pretty good sense of what peer-review amounts to. Regarding “controversial” findings... typically 3-5 reviewers who are recognized as having relevant knowledge to the subject area are asked to evaluate the work. Virtually every time I submit, at least one reviewer will say that it should be published immediately, without revision, because it is important for other scientists to be made aware of the work. Typically, a couple of reviewers will say that it is very good, but not to go ahead and publish it until some recommended revisions are made. And often, there will be one reviewer who says to reject it, and don’t bother trying to revise it because it just isn’t compatible enough with their understanding of the prevailing paradigm/model. I have never once had work rejected because of that lone, unimpressed reviewer. The peer-review process is designed to ensure this. If a paper gets rejected by every scientific journal that it is submitted to, there is usually a very good (scientific) reason for it.

Some skeptics like to invoke the story of scientific “mavericks” of the past who had to struggle for years or decades before their discoveries successfully shifted the prevailing paradigm/model. However, in every case that I am personally familiar with or have read about, there were always some respected and gifted scientists who IMMEDIATELY recognized the value of the new work (e.g. plate tectonics) and were strongly supportive from the very beginning of the paradigm-shift process. I don’t believe that this applies in ANY case that I have read about where climate-change-skeptic-supporting “scientists” just can’t get the world to listen because there is too much inertia, political or financial corruption, paranoia about being exposed as incorrect, or whatever else might be invoked to explain the unjustified rejection, in the scientific community.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Robert Northup

For those who might believe that there is important objective information that would shift the paradigm of climate science, only it is being squelched by a self-serving establishment, let me disabuse you of a few notions. I am intimately familiar with the submission, intake, review, and acceptance process at the journal NATURE. The idea that they would reject valid and important work simply because it is “controversial” is absurd. It is true that NATURE rejects the overwhelming majority of papers submitted. Most don’t get past the inital “gate keepers” who assess whether or not the work should be considered for review. The purpose of journals such as NATURE and SCIENCE is to report what are considered to be important new scientific findings. There are certain rules that everyone has agreed upon, such as following the accepted scientific method, and not using false data to support a claim. As these findings are being reported with the intention that other scientists should be aware of it, so that it may stimulate discussion and research about a potentially very important new (quantity, relationship, theory, model, etc.). To some extent, they are SUPPOSED to be “controversial”.

I have been a reviewer for various environmental science journals, and I have submitted enough papers of my own to have a pretty good sense of what peer-review amounts to. Regarding “controversial” findings... typically 3-5 reviewers who are recognized as having relevant knowledge to the subject area are asked to evaluate the work. Virtually every time I submit, at least one reviewer will say that it should be published immediately, without revision, because it is important for other scientists to be made aware of the work. Typically, a couple of reviewers will say that it is very good, but not to go ahead and publish it until some recommended revisions are made. And often, there will be one reviewer who says to reject it, and don’t bother trying to revise it because it just isn’t compatible enough with their understanding of the prevailing paradigm/model. I have never once had work rejected because of that lone, unimpressed reviewer. The peer-review process is designed to ensure this. If a paper gets rejected by every scientific journal that it is submitted to, there is usually a very good (scientific) reason for it.

Some skeptics like to invoke the story of scientific “mavericks” of the past who had to struggle for years or decades before their discoveries successfully shifted the prevailing paradigm/model. However, in every case that I am personally familiar with or have read about, there were always some respected and gifted scientists who IMMEDIATELY recognized the value of the new work (e.g. plate tectonics) and were strongly supportive from the very beginning of the paradigm-shift process. I don’t believe that this applies in ANY case that I have read about where climate-change-skeptic-supporting “scientists” just can’t get the world to listen because there is too much inertia, political or financial corruption, paranoia about being exposed as incorrect, or whatever else might be invoked to explain the unjustified rejection, in the scientific community.

Hi Robert,

I am afraid I don't know what you were responding to here. I do have a question though. Are you made aware of the identities of your reviewers?

Here is a comprehensive report of the peer review process (pro and con) for those interested:

Peer Review

[Robert Northup]

In case it wasn't clear what I was responding to, you very recently posted about some maverick scientists who couldn't get their work published in NATURE because it was "too controversial". I also wonder why they didn't go ahead and publish elsewhere, or maybe they did.

No, I am not allowed to know the names of the reviewers, but I am allowed to read their comments. Sometimes the identity is obvious because they repeat the same words they said at a conference or published in a paper. But it is intended to be anonymous.

I don't mean to pester you, but you often make claims of scientific "evidence", and I want to remind you that there are some basic rules you have to follow if you want your "evidence" to be credible. "Inherent plausibility" were the words used by an article you posted a link to as support for the global cooling theory. Those words don't carry much weight if the theory is not compatible with natural laws, and there are agreed upon methodologies for testing such things. Do you dismiss the importance of peer review as a way to filter out some of the noise?

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Robert Northup

...Do you dismiss the importance of peer review as a way to filter out some of the noise?

No, but the process is far from perfect and the potential for fraud exists. Lifting the veil of anonymity would be a step in the right direction. Who determines what is 'noise' or not would be nice to know...especially considering the length scientists go in defense of their theories.

[Robert Northup]

I can almost see your point that having anonymous reviewers could potentially lead to fraud. However, if reviewers are NOT anonymous, I see far greater problems, as interpersonal politics become an impediment to objective analysis of scientific data. Trying to favor by giving a favorable review, or using the review process for a personal vendetta (actual or perceived), nepotism and other potential conflicts of interest between the reviewer and the reviewee... These should never influence the process, and there is some protection against this. I couldn't care less WHO the one reviewer was who didn't like some paper I submitted. As long as that scientist was consistently "out voted" by the other reviewers, I am happy with adequacy of the protections built into the system. And it is irrelevant what actual motives the dissatisfied reviewer had for recommending rejection, because their commentary has to be framed in the context of the scientific validity of my work, not their personal opinion of me. There are plenty of scientists who don't like me personally, but do respect my work. That's what counts in this game. It's not a popularity contest.

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Robert Northup

I can almost see your point that having anonymous reviewers could potentially lead to fraud. However, if reviewers are NOT anonymous, I see far greater problems, as interpersonal politics become an impediment to objective analysis of scientific data. Trying to favor by giving a favorable review, or using the review process for a personal vendetta (actual or perceived), nepotism and other potential conflicts of interest between the reviewer and the reviewee... These should never influence the process, and there is some protection against this. I couldn't care less WHO the one reviewer was who didn't like some paper I submitted. As long as that scientist was consistently "out voted" by the other reviewers, I am happy with adequacy of the protections built into the system. And it is irrelevant what actual motives the dissatisfied reviewer had for recommending rejection, because their commentary has to be framed in the context of the scientific validity of my work, not their personal opinion of me. There are plenty of scientists who don't like me personally, but do respect my work. That's what counts in this game. It's not a popularity contest.

True, but if you had three or four rejections (as some people do) and you felt the rejection was unjustified you would be SOL, right? My point is that without transparency science can be rejected for political reasons with just a handful of 'anonymous' hand-picked peers. This strikes me as rather foolish considering the power of scientific discovery over public opinion and therefore governmental policy. There should be more safeguards, the system is flawed is all I am pointing out. We're only human -- but left unchecked and unchallenged, the process you embrace, and which is relied on, could be corrupted and used to forward an agenda. I am not being paranoid, this is a matter of fact IMO.

If you were on trial would you accept the verdict of a secret tribunal at the other end of a video camera? Of course not, yet we allow secret reviewers to guide which science is accepted and rejected without any real accountability. I think the secrecy component simply allows for a very limited group to continue being reviewers without raising any eyebrows. Who dictates policies related to this process?

[Paradox]

Boffins set to cause Big Bang

Part of the climate change problem is no one is entirely sure what causes it. But research is under way in CERN laboratories to create clouds using simulated cosmic rays made from proton beams.

If successful it would suggest solar activity is a leading cause of global warming, perhaps more so than greenhouse gases.

Professor Bob Bingham of Oxfordshire’s Rutherford Appleton Lab, which is involved in the project, explains: “If the beams cause cloud formation, it will suggest a link between cosmic rays and climate, which has interesting implications.”

CERN is going live. Hold onto your hats!

(they may get sucked into a black-hole)

[Paradox]

Originally Posted by Robert Northup

...I see far greater problems, as interpersonal politics become an impediment to objective analysis of scientific data. Trying to favor by giving a favorable review, or using the review process for a personal vendetta (actual or perceived), nepotism and other potential conflicts of interest between the reviewer and the reviewee...

Hi Robert,

You make very valid points and I appreciate you even venturing into this realm of discussion with me. I have a great deal of respect for your work and your interest in discussing sensitive matters (albeit with a level of caution). Why not set up the peer review process like a court of science? Public, open and complete with an appeal process. If your paper does not pass so-called peer review the reviewers must publicly provide a reason why and if this reason is not acceptable, the rejected party may file an appeal for review by a higher scientific authority -- and PUBLICLY.

Think about your experience. That one guy chaps your hide but you are accepted so it matters not. What if your scientific research in the future becomes a threat to prevailing scientific opinion? I'll tell you what...you are silenced without recourse.

I can understand your points but they do not come close to overpowering such an important need for change. If people are reviewing people they know then they can discuss their reasoning with them...not fear personal falling-outs. Nepotism would be less likely under a transparent system I would think. As a matter of fact, an open discussion and ruling on these matters would actually stimulate objectivity rather than thwart it in the ways you use as examples. I appreciate your views and understand the points you are attempting to make but in reality, your comments do not defend a position against what I was saying... if anything they can be argued as reasons to embrace an overhaul of the current system.

This is a difficult discussion being that we perceive ourselves as adversaries and stem from very different backgrounds yet have an interest in discussing some very controversial matters. I just think I am much more capable of being 'transparent' and open than you are. But you have surprised me so far. Would the simple steps I have mentioned be a benefit? If not, why?

[Robert Northup]

I must confess that I enjoy communicating with you.

My first reaction to the concept you described, having some kind of more open forum for debating science, like the courtrooms of our criminal justice system, which are supposed to ensure transparency and impartiality.

Look what happened in the O.J. Simpson trial! A jury was totally confused by what the opposing expert witnesses were saying. They reached an absurd conclusion.

My sixth grade teacher did a great exercise in how we evaluate "evidence" to reach conclusions. It was 1970, and the big story came out that Paul McCartney of the Beatles was really dead, having been replaced by an imposter. My teacher did an excellent job of presenting all the information that was in the press, without any biasing commentary. Then he asked us to debate it and take a vote on whether or not we believed the story was true. Well, a majority of the sixth graders in my class were convinced that there was overwhelming evidence to support the claim. After all, "walrus" really means corpse in some other language. What's more, he actually had the vinyl disk there to play that part backwards on the turntable, and my classmates were convinced they heard it say, "I buried Paul". What more proof do you need?