OT: The end of global warming?
Baron Bodissey
claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
Read it at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
is going on?
Baron Bodissey
They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
nothing but sea.
– Francis Bacon
IAAH
http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html
(warming didn't stop during the past 10 years)
Reality about the CRU hack:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
--
"I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
is no God. I equally cannot
prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
may exist; so may the gods of
Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
no one of these hypotheses is
more probable than any other: they lie outside the
region of even probable
knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
consider any of them."
Bertrand Russell
spintronic
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
> Read it at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> is going on?
Sure I can.
The writer (From investor's Business Daily) has got money invested in
carbon producing comodeties,
and is a little upset his shares are going the wrong way.
Lets look at his "proof" the thousands of climatologists are wrong.
Exibit A) Stolen e-mails.
Would you trust someone that uses stolen e-mail's as proof of
conspiracy?
Exibit B) What P"roof"?
According to the "stolen e-mails" someone wasn't upset at the death of
a climate change denier.
Exibit C) A picture on "Al Gores New Book" Illustrating what will
happen if climate change continues.
According to the author, Al Gore is lying because the publicist wanted
a cover picture that would illustrate what *WILL* happen if we don't
stop.
And since it's impossible to have a *FUTURE* photo, of course it was
edited in photoshop.
> Baron Bodissey
> They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
> nothing but sea.
G Bush tried to discredit global warming, on financial grounds too.
(Of course he had more than a few shares in a few major *OIL*
producing firms.)
But tell me.
What will be the share price of a company on a destroyed planet?
Why do you think *THIS* depression (2009) happened?
Because the planet is being destroyed.
Look up
Peek oil
Peek water.
Potassium shortage.
Food crisis.
Population explosion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOm18c5Btiw
Free Lunch
talk.origins:
>On 11/21/09 1:37 PM, * Baron Bodissey wrote:
>> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
>> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
>> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>>
>> Read it at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>>
>> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
>> is going on?
>>
>> Baron Bodissey
>> They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
>> nothing but sea.
>> � Francis Bacon
>>
>
>http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/ap-impact-statisticians-reject-174088.html
>(warming didn't stop during the past 10 years)
>
>Reality about the CRU hack:
>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Just an aside, IBD is not particularly reliable in their reporting.
Unlike the Wall Street Journal which seems to do a reasonable job of
keeping all their kooks on the opinion pages, IBD seems to be less
careful, but we don't have to worry about that because this according to
the original page
<http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=513195> is
alleged to be a news analysis which is found in their editorial section.
We are still adding more carbon to the atmosphere than is being removed
by natural or artificial means. That will affect our climate.
Andre Lieven
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
> Read it at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> is going on?
On this topic, IBD has a record of being, well, wrong:
IBD misrepresented Gore on hurricane frequency
November 05, 2009 3:41 pm ET
An Investor's Business Daily editorial falsely claimed that Al Gore
"still claims" hurricanes "are increasing in frequency and intensity"
as a result of global warming and that "[w]hat has happened in the
past three years is that such claims have been thoroughly
debunked as the earth has cooled, possibly for decades hence."
In fact, Gore has said that there is no consensus that warming is
causing more frequent hurricanes, and the author of the study
IBD claims has "debunked" predictions about the effect of
warming on tropical cyclone (TC) intensity has stated that his
findings "do not contradict the recent climate change/TC
linkage literature."
http://mediamatters.org/mobile/research/200911050040
These are the same nutjobs who claimed:
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals
Election '08: Democrats' reintroduction of militant Michelle
Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side.
But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public
Allies.
Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of
Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became
executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public
Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group,
which he features on his campaign Web site, as the
model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian
program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."
Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to
herd American youth into government-funded reeducation
camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking
America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social
change."
http://www.sunlituplands.org/2008/09/michelles-boot-camps-for-radicals.html
IBD makes Faux Noise appear truthful and moderate.
Andre
John Tramel
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
Here is the scientists' response. Seems fair enough. Obviously the
scientists are not exactly impartial, but then again, neither was the
hacker in all probability. Furthermore, he did not release all of the
e-mails, and appears to have edited many of the ones he did release,
which date back to 1996. Obviously people who already doubt global
warming will say "global warming is fake LOLz" before reading into
it. Interestingly, in the e-mails, there appears to be no talk of
George Soros conspiratorially funding global research, nor any
admittance that global warming is fake. So hopefully at least those
theories will be put to rest, though I'm sure idiots do not exactly
discriminate when it comes to accepting things that they desperately
want to be true i.e. that there is a global warming hoax conspiracy
thing.
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> An Investor's Business Daily editorial falsely claimed that Al Gore
> "still claims" hurricanes "are increasing in frequency and intensity"
> as a result of global warming
So Algor has withdrawn _An Inconvenient Truth_? I had not heard.
Socks
Mitchell Coffey
This is Investor's Business Daily's second appearance on Talk.Origins
in recent months. The first was when it claimed, in opposing
Congressional health care reform proposals, that "People such as
scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where
the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man,
because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless." This
resulting in Stephen Hawking responding "I wouldn't be here today if
it were not for the NHS."
See: http://tinyurl.com/ykg7wp7
Mitchell Coffey
Baron Bodissey
> On 11/21/09 1:37 PM, * Baron Bodissey wrote:
>
> > "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
> > Read it at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> > Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> > is going on?
>
> > Baron Bodissey
> > They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
> > nothing but sea.
> > – Francis Bacon
>
> (warming didn't stop during the past 10 years)
>
> Reality about the CRU hack:http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/
>
> --
> "I do not pretend to be able to prove that there
> is no God. I equally cannot
> prove that Satan is a fiction. The Christian god
> may exist; so may the gods of
> Olympus, or of ancient Egypt, or of Babylon. But
> no one of these hypotheses is
> more probable than any other: they lie outside the
> region of even probable
> knowledge, and therefore there is no reason to
> consider any of them."
> Bertrand Russell
Thank you for the links. The e-mail hack sure looks like a public
relations disaster, even if the content of the e-mails do not imply
what the deniers think they imply.
Baron Bodissey
That remains to be seen, as the cat said who voided into the sugar
bowl.
– Jack Vance
Ye Old One
<mct...@yahoo.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>"The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
>claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
>is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
>Read it at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
>Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
>is going on?
I found it a very confused article, and like many on the subject it
gives no link to the research behind it.
>
>Baron Bodissey
>They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
>nothing but sea.
> – Francis Bacon
--
Bob.
Desertphile
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
Yeah, they're full of shit.
> Read it at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> is going on?
Yes: it's called "Lying."
By the way, there are some excellent YouTube videos on the subject
at: http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
heekster
<mct...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
>claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
>is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
>Read it at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
>Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
>is going on?
>
http://www.motifake.com/saveas.php?id=48667
If you look at a graph of the average temperature for the last two
thousand years, you will see anomalies, like what was called the
"Little Ice Age". Meteorology and climatology are still not
completely understood, but pretty close to being so. While the
majority of the worlds glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking, there
are some examples that run contrary to the Trend. Likewise, there are
localised temperature anomalies, early snowfalls, record lows, and on
and on.
Doesn't change anything.
daenku32
These are the same people who peddled the myth that the health care
bill would outlaw private plans.
Andre Lieven
You're an idiot. And, a troll. HTH.
Andre
Glenn
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
> Read it at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> is going on?
>
"If true, this is massive scientific fraud."
Garamond Lethe
Hi, Glenn.
The sentence you cut and pasted does not refer to the observed error
reported.
>
> "If true, this is massive scientific fraud."
>
This refers to 61MB of data and email stolen from Hadley recently. No
evidence of fraud has been found, which just goes to show that creationists
make much better quote miners than climate denialists.
Next time, read the article instead of just skimming it. Even better,
find the original article that has citations back to the literature.
The original article is here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
As to what's going on:
<q>
The fact is that the sun is weakening slightly. Its radiation activity is
currently at a minimum, as evidenced by the small number of sunspots on its
surface. According to calculations performed by a group of NASA scientists led
by David Rind, which were recently published in the journal Geophysical
Research Letters, this reduced solar activity is the most important cause of
stagnating global warming.
Latif, on the other hand, attributes the stagnation to so-called Pacific
decadal oscillation (PDO). This phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean allows a larger
volume of cold deep-sea water to rise to the surface at the equator. According
to Latif, this has a significant cooling effect on the Earth's atmosphere.
.....
Despite their current findings, scientists agree that temperatures will
continue to rise in the long term.
</q>
Steven L.
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
> Read it at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> is going on?
Some hacker stole the personal emails of a bunch of scientists.
There isn't really much there. All it shows is that scientists are
human beings. They can be stubborn, they can have their own personal
agendas. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
What WAS disgraceful, however, was the suggestion by some of the
scientists that they blackmail the editors of certain journals by
refusing to submit any more papers to them, if those editors allowed
papers of contrary views to be published. Boycotts are for politics,
not for science.
And that's a sufficiently embarrassing revelation that it deserves a
response. These scientists should pledge NEVER to try to stop any paper
from being published that is good enough to pass peer review--no matter
how vehemently they disagree with its conclusions.
If it's good enough to pass peer review, it's worthy of being included
in a scientific debate. Don't suppress it.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
J. J. Lodder
Peers can be idiots too.
And the scientists cited are also peers,
perhaps better ones than the ones
that the editor happened to consult.
It is quite natural for scientists to be concerned
when it seems to them that the peeer-review proces
results in nonsense getting published.
(and try to do something about it)
Peers do not become infallible experts
by grace of having been consulted by an editor.
Would you for example insist
that the whole scientific community at the time
acted disgracefully by threatining to stop publishing
with the publisher who had accepted Velikovsky's
'Worlds in Collision'?
I think not. A self-respecting scientist
will try to avoid publishing in journals
that he can't respect.
Ultimately the editor is responsible,
and decides for himself to whom to listen,
Jan
Andre Lieven
Since Velikovsky never passed any science peer review
process, you have no actual point.
Andre
Paul J Gans
Actually, he does. The point is that without a massive
protest on the part of the scientific community the entire
Velikovsky phenomenon might have quickly sunk without a
trace.
But there was not only a protest, but pressure put on the
publisher. And the Velikovskians have been riding the
wave of "what were the scientists afraid of" for years.
Being publically upset because a bad article passed peer
review has the same effect. Tons of rotten papers are
published every year. Most sink without a trace. There
are journals that keep track of how many other papers
referred to any given paper. When that number is zero
or in the very low single digits, you know you've got a
bad one there.
And the paper sinks without a trace.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Glenn
wrote:
> On 2009-11-22, Glenn <GlennShel...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 21, 11:37 am, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> >> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> >> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
> >> Read it at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> >> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> >> is going on?
>
> > Yes, you can't read.
>
>
> The sentence you cut and pasted does not refer to the observed error
> reported.
>
J. J. Lodder
His book was accepted by a well known
and generally respected science textbooks
publishing house. (Macmillan)
Macmillan dropped it after Harlow Shapley threatened to organize a
boycott of Macmillan by the science community.
No doubt Macmillan had (and has) an editorial board,
which advised the editor.
And also no doubt the editor can (and will)
ask scientists he respects for their opinion.
Textbooks are a low-volume business.
(as were science journals a hundred years ago)
And while we are at it:
a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
a formally peer-reviewed article either,
in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
In short: You are hiding behind a formality.
Jan
Garamond Lethe
<snip>
> And while we are at it:
> a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
>
Do you have a cite for this? Specifically, what were
the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch
der Radioaktivität, Zeitschrift für Elektrochemie und
angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift
(et cetera) in the early 1900s?
For a full list, see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_publications_by_Albert_Einstein
John Wilkins
<cartogr...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > And while we are at it:
> > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
> >
>
> Do you have a cite for this? Specifically, what were
> the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch
> der Radioaktivit�t, Zeitschrift f�r Elektrochemie und
> angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift
> (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
>
> For a full list, see
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_publications_by_Albert_Einstei
> n
>
This paper
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0208046v3
implies that Einstein had not encountered peer review before 1937.
And this one says that Einstein was not peer reviewed.
http://www.thescientificworld.co.uk/headeradmin/upload/2006.22.228.pdf
J. J. Lodder
> On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > And while we are at it:
> > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
> >
>
> Do you have a cite for this?
It is welll known that Einstein was furious
when he discovered that this abomination existed.
(he had out of courtesy, submitted an article to Phys Rev)
Full story in Pais for example.
> Specifically, what were
> the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch
> der Radioaktivität, Zeitschrift für Elektrochemie und
> angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift
> (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
None. The editor decided what to accept.
He could ask for specialist advice of course,
if he deemed that necessary.
Newcomers often were recommended by a beter known collegue,
whose name appeared explicitly in the header.
(like for example S. N. Bose, recommended by A. Einstein)
Jan
Garamond Lethe
> In article <pBtOm.63918$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad>, Garamond Lethe
><cartogr...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > And while we are at it:
>> > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
>> > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
>> > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
>> >
>>
>> Do you have a cite for this? Specifically, what were
>> the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch
>> (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
>>
>> For a full list, see
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_publications_by_Albert_Einstei
>> n
>>
> This paper
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0208046v3
>
> implies that Einstein had not encountered peer review before 1937.
Thanks!
J. J. Lodder
I doubt it. The controversy existed before the book appeared.
Velikovsky had been pushed by Harper's and Readers Digest.
> But there was not only a protest, but pressure put on the
> publisher. And the Velikovskians have been riding the
> wave of "what were the scientists afraid of" for years.
>
> Being publically upset because a bad article passed peer
> review has the same effect. Tons of rotten papers are
> published every year. Most sink without a trace.
Lots of good papers sink without a trace too.
(unless you define good as floating)
> There
> are journals that keep track of how many other papers
> referred to any given paper. When that number is zero
> or in the very low single digits, you know you've got a
> bad one there.
Things are not so easy in a politcized field,
where mere acceptance of a crackpot article by a good journal
is used by denialists to argue that what it says must be true.
If for example a respected evolutionry biology journal
accepts creatonist article a similar response
of the scientific community concerned may well result.
There is no easy solution,
for perfect quality control is impossible.
And anyway, peer review should be understood for what it is,
quality control, not truth production.
Complaining to editors, and perhaps puhing them a bit,
is bet seen as an attempt at quality control of the quality control,
not as truth suppression.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> In article <pBtOm.63918$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad>, Garamond Lethe
> <cartogr...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > And while we are at it:
> > > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> > > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> > > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
> > >
> >
> > Do you have a cite for this? Specifically, what were
> > the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch
> > der Radioaktivität, Zeitschrift für Elektrochemie und
> > angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift
> > (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
> >
> > For a full list, see
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_publications_by_Albert_Einst
ei
> > n
> >
> This paper
>
> http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0208046v3
>
> implies that Einstein had not encountered peer review before 1937.
>
> And this one says that Einstein was not peer reviewed.
A forteriori, no one was peer reviewed
(in the modern sense) before WW II.
(excepting some American journals)
After WW II the Americans succeeded
in imposing their publication model
on the rest of the scientific world.
Jan
Ernest Major
<nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> writes
There is the kerfuffle about the Warda and Han paper in Proteomics
(withdrawn before print publication because of plagiarism), where as far
as I know we never got an explanation as to how it got through peer
review.
<URL:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/a_baffling_failure_of_pee
r_rev.php>
Both authors are still publishing.
>
>And anyway, peer review should be understood for what it is,
>quality control, not truth production.
>Complaining to editors, and perhaps puhing them a bit,
>is bet seen as an attempt at quality control of the quality control,
>not as truth suppression.
>
>Jan
>
--
alias Ernest Major
John Wilkins
<nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>
> > In article <pBtOm.63918$Xf2....@newsfe12.iad>, Garamond Lethe
> > <cartogr...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > And while we are at it:
> > > > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> > > > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> > > > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you have a cite for this? Specifically, what were
> > > the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch
> > > der Radioaktivit�t, Zeitschrift f�r Elektrochemie und
> > > angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift
> > > (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
> > >
> > > For a full list, see
> > >
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_publications_by_Albert_Ein
> > > st
> ei
> > > n
> > >
> > This paper
> >
> > http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0208046v3
> >
> > implies that Einstein had not encountered peer review before 1937.
> >
> > And this one says that Einstein was not peer reviewed.
>
> A forteriori, no one was peer reviewed
> (in the modern sense) before WW II.
> (excepting some American journals)
>
> After WW II the Americans succeeded
> in imposing their publication model
> on the rest of the scientific world.
I wonder if they adopted it from the humanities.
Walter Bushell
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> And this one says that Einstein was not peer reviewed.
He didn't have, that many peers, after all, and they were a *busy*.
--
A computer without Microsoft is like a chocolate cake without mustard.
Paul J Gans
That last being an interesting story in racial discrimination.
The result is known as Bose-Einstein statistics because the
editor insisted in sticking Einstein's name into the paper
against Einstein's wishes. He'd contributed *nothing* to
the paper.
Bose of course was Indian and everybody knew that *they*
couldn't do physics.
And by the way, the Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences (US) publishes articles by members without review,
although the editor will, on occasion, discuss the paper
with the author.
John Wilkins
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> And by the way, the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> Sciences (US) publishes articles by members without review,
> although the editor will, on occasion, discuss the paper
> with the author.
Not any more...
stew dean
> But tell me.
>
> What will be the share price of a company on a destroyed planet?
>
> Why do you think *THIS* depression (2009) happened?
>
> Because the planet is being destroyed.
>
> Look up
> Peek oil
> Peek water.
> Potassium shortage.
> Food crisis.
> Population explosion.
It's good to see you're not a climate change denialist. But the
important thing to note here is that the planet is perfectly safe -
climate change is not going to destroy the planet, it'll destroy large
parts of the human race. Even if we wipe all of us out the planet will
carry on quite happily without us, or technology, religion and stuff.
It's not about saving the planet, it's about saving us.
Stew Dean
stew dean
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
> Read it at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> is going on?
Yes, it's an old cimate change myth. You can measure it in some ways
and it appears there is no warming, but then if you measure more long
term indicators you'll find the surface measurments don't match with
deeper readings. It's like looking at two people using a thermal
camera sat in ice, one with clothes and one without. The one without
will appear to be warmer but is likely to freeze to death first.
See...
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998.html
hersheyh
>
[snip]
>
> Tuesday, September 9, 2008
> Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals
>
> Election '08: Democrats' reintroduction of militant Michelle
> Obama in Denver was supposed to show her softer side.
> But it only highlighted a radical part of her resume: Public
> Allies.
>
> Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of
> Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became
> executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public
> Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group,
> which he features on his campaign Web site, as the
> model for a national service corps. He calls his Orwellian
> program, "Universal Voluntary Public Service."
>
> Big Brother had nothing on the Obamas. They plan to
> herd American youth into government-funded reeducation
> camps where they'll be brainwashed into thinking
> America is a racist, oppressive place in need of "social
> change."'
>
> http://www.sunlituplands.org/2008/09/michelles-boot-camps-for-radical...
Actually, my daughter went into Public Allies after college. It
'radicalized' her [not] so much she became volunteer coordinator for
the Greater Chicago Area Food Bank (you know, getting all those,
often, church volunteers together to help feed all the lazy parasites
that deserve to starve because America is not "in need of social
change"). She then used the scholarship money to go to grad school
and now co-ordinates [in another state] a work-study program that gets
college kids to work as tutors in math and reading for elementary kids
in poor schools (you know, those schools that, just 'coincidentally'
are mostly black -- must be a coincidence since we live in a non-
racist society that is not in need of public services according to
IBD). This all occurred during W's reign as president.
> IBD makes Faux Noise appear truthful and moderate.
>
> Andre
Andre Lieven
Which changes my point that Velikovsky failed to pass any
related peer review, not one bit.
> But there was not only a protest, but pressure put on the
> publisher. And the Velikovskians have been riding the
> wave of "what were the scientists afraid of" for years.
And, if scientists has stayed silent, the V-ians would have
said, "see, they can't refute us!"...
> Being publically upset because a bad article passed peer
> review has the same effect. Tons of rotten papers are
> published every year. Most sink without a trace. There
> are journals that keep track of how many other papers
> referred to any given paper. When that number is zero
> or in the very low single digits, you know you've got a
> bad one there.
>
> And the paper sinks without a trace.
Sure.
Andre
Andre Lieven
Sounds about right; Why should the science community do
business with a firm that puts out that junk and labels it,
falsely, as science ?
> No doubt Macmillan had (and has) an editorial board,
> which advised the editor.
Which isn't peer review...
> And also no doubt the editor can (and will)
> ask scientists he respects for their opinion.
> Textbooks are a low-volume business.
> (as were science journals a hundred years ago)
Loads of hand waving going on in your "argument"...
> And while we are at it:
> a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
So ? Did I suggest that peer review was the ONLY path to
scientific testing and acceptance ?
You brung the straw hooker, feel free to do what else you
can with it on your own time...
> In short: You are hiding behind a formality.
Yeah, the primary means of ensuring that well examined science
gets published ahead of crank non-science, that surely can't matter...
You're very silly, but not in a good way.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> On Nov 21, 2:52 pm, Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Other than the last line in the post that you posted, I wrote nothing
of the rest.
Paul J Gans
Well, that's a little strong. After WWII very few journals
were publishing and with a few exceptions (England, for one)
most of the research was going on in the US.
The success of the US research effort (which was largely
government funded) led many other nations to follow the
US system.
Paul J Gans
><URL:http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/a_baffling_failure_of_pee
>r_rev.php>
Peer review isn't perfect. The system depends on the
basic honesty of all researchers, even while knowing that
that goal can't be reached.
And it is difficult for any reviewer, no matter how well read,
to be up on all the literature in an active field.
>>
>>And anyway, peer review should be understood for what it is,
>>quality control, not truth production.
>>Complaining to editors, and perhaps puhing them a bit,
>>is bet seen as an attempt at quality control of the quality control,
>>not as truth suppression.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Not any more...
Yeah. I forgot the recent unpleasantness.
Steven L.
Send a letter to the editor.
Write a critical review.
Don't threaten the editor with a boycott.
> Peers do not become infallible experts
> by grace of having been consulted by an editor.
>
> Would you for example insist
> that the whole scientific community at the time
> acted disgracefully by threatining to stop publishing
> with the publisher who had accepted Velikovsky's
> 'Worlds in Collision'?
Carl Sagan certainly did. He said they behaved disgracefully. (I
believe it was in his book "Broca's Brain.")
The result of their little boycott led to the firing of the editor who
had accepted Velikovsky's book, "Worlds in Collision," for publication.
Another publisher, Doubleday, who had more balls, realized that all
these scientists had done was give Velikovsky more publicity. They
published Velikovsky's manuscript, and they had an instant best seller
on their hands. Now millions of Americans who had first heard of
Velikovsky over the boycott, clamored to read his nonsense.
Censorship is self-defeating. The Velikovsky incident proves it.
Velikovsky's book was trash. But it's a free country. If he can find
readers, he ought to be able to publish his work.
In my lifetime,
I have lived through a number of scientific revolutions--radical ideas
that eventually got accepted, despite FIERCE opposition from peers:
1. Most peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterium, not stress or spicy food.
2. At least some species of dinosaurs were agile, lithe and warm blooded.
3. The dinosaurs were wiped out by a bolide impact.
And so on.
Scientific progress would have been much slower, if peers had succeeded
in threatening the editors of publications with boycotts if they dared
to publish any papers or books promoting these (at the time) radical ideas.
Boycotts are for politics, NOT science.
In science, the free exchange of ideas, is the only way.
--
Steven L.
Email: sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
John Wilkins
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >In article <hee5pr$lb2$4...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
> ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> And by the way, the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> >> Sciences (US) publishes articles by members without review,
> >> although the editor will, on occasion, discuss the paper
> >> with the author.
>
> >Not any more...
>
> Yeah. I forgot the recent unpleasantness.
Sounds like a Civil War in science.
Paul J Gans
APPLAUSE!!! Good for her!!!
John Wilkins
<sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In my lifetime,
> I have lived through a number of scientific revolutions--radical ideas
> that eventually got accepted, despite FIERCE opposition from peers:
>
> 1. Most peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterium, not stress or spicy food.
>
> 2. At least some species of dinosaurs were agile, lithe and warm blooded.
>
> 3. The dinosaurs were wiped out by a bolide impact.
Interesting idea. List the scientific revolutions you have lived
through:
Continental drift and plate tectonic theory.
Moon formed by a Mars-sized collision with protoearth.
Cancers sometimes caused by viruses.
Epigenetic inheritance.
Dark matter and energy.
Any others?
John Wilkins
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
Ditto. I think your daughter is totally admirable, and I look forward
to hearing of her first election win to State or Federal politics.
J. J. Lodder
All of science up to 1940 was (with few exceptions)
done without peer review.
What was good enough to pass for example Einstein 1905
should have been good enough to reject Velikovsky.
Alas, it wasn't, ad Macmillan can be blamed for it.
> > And also no doubt the editor can (and will)
> > ask scientists he respects for their opinion.
> > Textbooks are a low-volume business.
> > (as were science journals a hundred years ago)
>
> Loads of hand waving going on in your "argument"...
Why?
Textbook publishing still gets done without peer review.
Ask John if he had to rebut anonymous referees
to get his Species book published.
I guess not.
> > And while we are at it:
> > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
>
> So ? Did I suggest that peer review was the ONLY path to
> scientific testing and acceptance ?
>
> You brung the straw hooker, feel free to do what else you
> can with it on your own time...
Quality control of textbook publishing
is rarely done by anonymous peer review.
> > In short: You are hiding behind a formality.
>
> Yeah, the primary means of ensuring that well examined science
> gets published ahead of crank non-science, that surely can't matter...
>
> You're very silly, but not in a good way.
I share that opinion with respect to you dragging in
peer review with respect to Velikovsky's book.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Rightly so. He clearly was incompetent.
> Another publisher, Doubleday, who had more balls, realized that all
> these scientists had done was give Velikovsky more publicity. They
> published Velikovsky's manuscript, and they had an instant best seller
> on their hands.
Why balls? Nothing wrong with publishing V. amongst the fiction.
Nobody objected to for example Von Daniken being published there.
> Now millions of Americans who had first heard of
> Velikovsky over the boycott, clamored to read his nonsense.
They were clamoring anyway.
Harper's and Readers Digest had already pushed him.
> Censorship is self-defeating. The Velikovsky incident proves it.
It wasn't censorship, just moderation.
Things should be published in the right place.
> Velikovsky's book was trash. But it's a free country. If he can find
> readers, he ought to be able to publish his work.
Nobody tried to stop him publishing.
All that happened was that V. couldn't publish
under false pretences, as a science textbook.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
Agreed.
> After WWII very few journals
> were publishing and with a few exceptions (England, for one)
> most of the research was going on in the US.
Moreover, the old social networks of science
had been largely destroyed by the war.
The old system functioned in a context of small groups of men
who knew and trusted each other.
Jan
J. J. Lodder
You don't believe in the existence of honest fools?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> In article <K5Sdnac8SZ2L3ZbW...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > In my lifetime,
> > I have lived through a number of scientific revolutions--radical ideas
> > that eventually got accepted, despite FIERCE opposition from peers:
> >
> > 1. Most peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterium, not stress or spicy food.
> >
> > 2. At least some species of dinosaurs were agile, lithe and warm blooded.
> >
> > 3. The dinosaurs were wiped out by a bolide impact.
>
> Interesting idea. List the scientific revolutions you have lived
> through:
>
> Continental drift and plate tectonic theory.
A nice example.
The pig-headed American geologists of the time
did indeed organise an effective boycot of Wegener,
which made serious scientific discussiion of his ideas
effectively impossible for more than a generation.
They even organised a special Wegener-bashing conference
for the purpose.
Jan
John Wilkins
<nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
...
> Why?
> Textbook publishing still gets done without peer review.
> Ask John if he had to rebut anonymous referees
> to get his Species book published.
> I guess not.
I did. It was, in fact, rejected by one publisher because anonymous
(and I think improper specialities) referees knocked it back. They were
in fact very impolite.
My book was also refereed by a number of historians of biology and
biologists for UC Press. All up I'd say around 6 referees were
involved. That's not including the editors, and those I had read and
suggest changes before I submitted it; and the markers of the thesis
(2) plus my advisors (2). All up it was a very reviewed book.
>
> > > And while we are at it:
> > > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> > > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> > > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
> >
> > So ? Did I suggest that peer review was the ONLY path to
> > scientific testing and acceptance ?
> >
> > You brung the straw hooker, feel free to do what else you
> > can with it on your own time...
>
> Quality control of textbook publishing
> is rarely done by anonymous peer review.
I'd be very interested in a source for that claim. As far as I know
from those who have published textbooks, they were very carefully
vetted by their peers.
...
Paul J Gans
>On Nov 22, 9:36 pm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
[big snip]
>> >Since Velikovsky never passed any science peer review
>> >process, you have no actual point.
>>
>> Actually, he does. The point is that without a massive
>> protest on the part of the scientific community the entire
>> Velikovsky phenomenon might have quickly sunk without a
>> trace.
>Which changes my point that Velikovsky failed to pass any
>related peer review, not one bit.
>> But there was not only a protest, but pressure put on the
>> publisher. And the Velikovskians have been riding the
>> wave of "what were the scientists afraid of" for years.
>And, if scientists has stayed silent, the V-ians would have
>said, "see, they can't refute us!"...
Would have made no difference. There are dozens of nutso
groups out there, from Bermuda Triangle types to Atlanteans,
and let me not forget Templar freaks. Nobody pays them any
attention.
But the attention they got during the Great Publication Debate
made a lot of folks think that the science folks had something
to hide. And so we have Velikovskians with us today.
In fact, about eight or so years agoa they were right *here*
in talk.origins protesting that we were all stupid and they
had evidence.
>> Being publically upset because a bad article passed peer
>> review has the same effect. Tons of rotten papers are
>> published every year. Most sink without a trace. There
>> are journals that keep track of how many other papers
>> referred to any given paper. When that number is zero
>> or in the very low single digits, you know you've got a
>> bad one there.
>>
>> And the paper sinks without a trace.
>Sure.
--
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
>Epigenetic inheritance.
>Dark matter and energy.
>Any others?
I'd replace dark matter and energy with the discovery of the
accelerating expansion of the universe.
Can we add the creation of net.origins?
Paul J Gans
>In article <heffea$9r$4...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>> >In article <hee5pr$lb2$4...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
>> ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> And by the way, the Proceedings of the National Academy of
>> >> Sciences (US) publishes articles by members without review,
>> >> although the editor will, on occasion, discuss the paper
>> >> with the author.
>>
>> >Not any more...
>>
>> Yeah. I forgot the recent unpleasantness.
>Sounds like a Civil War in science.
Possibly, but mostly nobody gives a hoot. If grownups want
to make fools of themselves, why should the peons of science
stop them?
Ray Martinez
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
> Read it at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> is going on?
>
> They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
> nothing but sea.
> – Francis Bacon
Left-wingers want a clean non-industrial world. So they take advantage
of a natural cycle and blame it on pollution in order to obtain their
goals. Global warming is the secular appocalypse...."the sky is
falling."
Ray
Caranx latus
I suppose that I could be considered a left-winger. It isn't a non-
industrial world that I want, but I would like a reasonably clean one.
I suppose that you approve of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch>
Robert Grumbine
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
> Read it at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> is going on?
Regarding the trend business, I blogged 'What cooling trend?'
a while back. Final para is:
"I'll probably take this up in a separate note, as it illustrates a different
way of misleading yourself with graphs. For now, I'll just observe that
if you compute the 10 year trends, rather than telling people to 'just
look', then the most recent time there was a 10 year cooling trend was
the 10 years ending with January, 1987 (with 0.03 C/century). The last
time you had several months in a row where the 10 year trend to that
month was a cooling was in the late 1970s -- 30 years and more back.
At no time that the '10 year cooling trend' claim has been getting made,
has it been true."
Full article at:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/07/what-cooling-trend.html
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Ernest Major
<912b994b-7cd0-4ea9...@z35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
>On Nov 21, 10:37 am, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
>> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
>> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>>
>> Read it at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>>
>> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
>> is going on?
>>
>> Baron Bodissey
>> They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
>> nothing but sea.
>> – Francis Bacon
>
>Left-wingers want a clean non-industrial world.
Left-wingers sensu Martinez must be very thin on the ground.
> So they take advantage
>of a natural cycle and blame it on pollution in order to obtain their
>goals.
So what process do you propose that prevents the addition of greenhouse
gases to the atmosphere from resulting in surface warming?
> Global warming is the secular appocalypse...."the sky is
>falling."
>
>Ray
>
--
alias Ernest Major
Robert Grumbine
> Baron Bodissey wrote:
>> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
>> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
>> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>>
>> Read it at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>>
>> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
>> is going on?
>
>
> There isn't really much there. All it shows is that scientists are
> human beings. They can be stubborn, they can have their own personal
> agendas. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.
>
> What WAS disgraceful, however, was the suggestion by some of the
> scientists that they blackmail the editors of certain journals by
> refusing to submit any more papers to them, if those editors allowed
> papers of contrary views to be published. Boycotts are for politics,
> not for science.
Could you provide the letter that said they should blackmail editors
on those grounds? (or any others, of course).
Question: What obliges scientists to publish in any particular journal,
versus any of the dozens of others they might publish in?
> And that's a sufficiently embarrassing revelation that it deserves a
> response. These scientists should pledge NEVER to try to stop any paper
> from being published that is good enough to pass peer review--no matter
> how vehemently they disagree with its conclusions.
>
> If it's good enough to pass peer review, it's worthy of being included
> in a scientific debate. Don't suppress it.
I wouldn't suppress, but papers that have passed peer review can be
nonsense. See my discussion of McLean, DeFrietas, Carter, 2009:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-not-to-analyze-climate-data.html
As we've pointed out here routinely, being published in the peer-reviewed
literature is the start of the process, not a blessing of perfection.
In the case of that paper, it raises serious question about the review
process itself -- being incredibly accepting of errors that I think a
jr. high student could understand as being errors. Almost certainly,
imho, a matter of the editor deciding that for 'balance' he would publish
anything that 'challenged' consensus.
Rodjk #613
> John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >In article <hee5pr$lb...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
> ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> And by the way, the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> >> Sciences (US) publishes articles by members without review,
> >> although the editor will, on occasion, discuss the paper
> >> with the author.
> >Not any more...
>
> Yeah. I forgot the recent unpleasantness.
>
> --
> --- Paul J. Gans
Are you two referring to the Richard Sternberg episode?
Rodjk #613
Paul J Gans
But to be honest, Wegener hung up on mechanism. One can't
just postulate moving continents, which are moderately massive,
without having a mechanism for moving them. Magic won't do.
I grew up in the years prior to the acceptance of moving
plates. And people did recognize the main parts of Wegener's
arguments. And they did not understand why those facts should
exist, but they admitted that they did.
The situation was not unlike data on black body radiation or
the Rutherford atom back in the days before quantum mechanics.
Once a mechanism was discovered for plate motion, Wegener's
ideas were rapidly accepted.
Paul J Gans
Of course I do. I may even be one. I'm too foolish to know.
Paul J Gans
There is a cottage industry in that. I've reviewed my share. The
pay is peanuts and the work fairly hard. I've never objected to
the approach taken by an author, but have looked for mistakes
in fact, typos (frequent) and illogic. And I've suggested asking
for supporting evidence when the author does something rather
strange.
Mitchell Coffey
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> In article <pBtOm.63918$Xf2.11...@newsfe12.iad>, Garamond Lethe
> >> <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >> > <snip>
>
> >> > > And while we are at it:
> >> > > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> >> > > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> >> > > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
>
> >> > the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch
> >> > der Radioaktivität, Zeitschrift für Elektrochemie und
> >> > angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift
> >> > (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
>
> >> > For a full list, see
>
> >ei
> >> > n
>
> >> This paper
>
> >>http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0208046v3
>
> >> implies that Einstein had not encountered peer review before 1937.
>
> >> And this one says that Einstein was not peer reviewed.
> >A forteriori, no one was peer reviewed
> >(in the modern sense) before WW II.
> >(excepting some American journals)
> >After WW II the Americans succeeded
> >in imposing their publication model
> >on the rest of the scientific world.
>
> were publishing and with a few exceptions (England, for one)
> most of the research was going on in the US.
>
> government funded) led many other nations to follow the
> US system.
I'm entirely serious when I ask, then, have we ever seen evolution
attacked because Darwin didn't publish under peer review, and, if not,
why?
Mitchell
Robert Grumbine
Cites? It doesn't seem entirely implausible, but something
more than a said-so would be nice.
Robert Grumbine
It's been thrown out by some creationists over the years here.
Usually it's the sort who also talk about him recanting on his
deathbed, so little attention gets paid to the peer review part.
Mitchell Coffey
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >> <snip>
>
> >> > And while we are at it:
> >> > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> >> > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> >> > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
>
> >> Do you have a cite for this?
> >when he discovered that this abomination existed.
> >(he had out of courtesy, submitted an article to Phys Rev)
> >Full story in Pais for example.
> >> Specifically, what were
> >> the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch
> >> der Radioaktivität, Zeitschrift für Elektrochemie und
> >> angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift
> >> (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
> >He could ask for specialist advice of course,
> >if he deemed that necessary.
> >Newcomers often were recommended by a beter known collegue,
> >whose name appeared explicitly in the header.
> >(like for example S. N. Bose, recommended by A. Einstein)
>
> That last being an interesting story in racial discrimination.
> The result is known as Bose-Einstein statistics because the
> editor insisted in sticking Einstein's name into the paper
> against Einstein's wishes. He'd contributed *nothing* to
> the paper.
>
> Bose of course was Indian and everybody knew that *they*
> couldn't do physics.
[snip]
This was about the same time it was discovered Indians could do math,
right?
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
> ><gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> And by the way, the Proceedings of the National Academy of
> >> Sciences (US) publishes articles by members without review,
> >> although the editor will, on occasion, discuss the paper
> >> with the author.
> >Not any more...
>
> Yeah. I forgot the recent unpleasantness.
Um, some 'o us'n's plum ign'r'nt. We could use some enlightening on
the matter, if you please.
Mitchell
Mitchell Coffey
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> In article <K5Sdnac8SZ2L3ZbWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
> >> <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> > In my lifetime,
> >> > I have lived through a number of scientific revolutions--radical ideas
> >> > that eventually got accepted, despite FIERCE opposition from peers:
>
> >> > 1. Most peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterium, not stress or spicy food.
>
> >> > 2. At least some species of dinosaurs were agile, lithe and warm blooded.
>
> >> > 3. The dinosaurs were wiped out by a bolide impact.
>
> >> Interesting idea. List the scientific revolutions you have lived
> >> through:
>
> >> Continental drift and plate tectonic theory.
> >A nice example.
> >The pig-headed American geologists of the time
> >did indeed organise an effective boycot of Wegener,
> >which made serious scientific discussiion of his ideas
> >effectively impossible for more than a generation.
> >They even organised a special Wegener-bashing conference
> >for the purpose.
>
> But to be honest, Wegener hung up on mechanism. One can't
> just postulate moving continents, which are moderately massive,
> without having a mechanism for moving them. Magic won't do.
>
> I grew up in the years prior to the acceptance of moving
> plates. And people did recognize the main parts of Wegener's
> arguments. And they did not understand why those facts should
> exist, but they admitted that they did.
Darwin even mused about the notion, in Journal of Researches, based on
the superficial fit of Africa and the Americas.
Mitchell
Ernest Major
<95e48ca2-c13a-4404...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> writes
troversia.html
http://acronymrequired.com/2009/10/publishing-special-thrust-privileges-s
ome-papers.html
http://paleocoll.blogspot.com/2009/09/pnas-publishes-worst-paper-of-year.
html
--
alias Ernest Major
heekster
<bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
>In article <1j9olh2.74...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <K5Sdnac8SZ2L3ZbW...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
>>> <sdli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> > In my lifetime,
>>> > I have lived through a number of scientific revolutions--radical ideas
>>> > that eventually got accepted, despite FIERCE opposition from peers:
>>> >
>>> > 1. Most peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterium, not stress or spicy food.
>>> >
>>> > 2. At least some species of dinosaurs were agile, lithe and warm blooded.
>>> >
>>> > 3. The dinosaurs were wiped out by a bolide impact.
>>>
>>> Interesting idea. List the scientific revolutions you have lived
>>> through:
>>>
>>> Continental drift and plate tectonic theory.
>>
>> A nice example.
>> The pig-headed American geologists of the time
>> did indeed organise an effective boycot of Wegener,
>> which made serious scientific discussiion of his ideas
>> effectively impossible for more than a generation.
>> They even organised a special Wegener-bashing conference
>> for the purpose.
>
> Cites? It doesn't seem entirely implausible, but something
>more than a said-so would be nice.
John Bode
> "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
>
> Read it at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
>
> Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> is going on?
>
> They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
> nothing but sea.
> – Francis Bacon
There was an unusually strong El Nino event in 1997/1998, resulting in
higher than normal surface temperatures, so if you pick that as your
starting point (and you squint just right and ignore some data sets),
you can claim that global warming has stopped or reversed.
Here's a link that explains it better than I can:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm
Paul J Gans
As far as I know, we have not. But he was peer-reviewed. The
standard back then was to publish and then await the slings and
arrows of your peers. And Darwin got them.
The interesting thing about the decades of "peer review" is that
(though Wilkins and others will correct me if I'm wrong) nobody
came up with a better explanation of the observed data.
Paul J Gans
The discovery was slow and initially limited to certain exaulted
precincts. The view then mutated to accept that a FEW Indians
could do decent math, but all of *those* worked in the west.
It wasn't really until about 30 years ago that Indian scientists
and mathematicians were recognized as fully equivalent collegues.
Paul J Gans
There's not only that, but the strata matches up on both sides,
including included fossils.
Stuart
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> In article <K5Sdnac8SZ2L3ZbWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
Actually A mechanism for PT was known in Wegner's time. By the late
'20s
Holmes had already proposed the earth was convecting and by 1933, had
already
understood the basic elements that were to comprise PT. His main
problem was Harold
Jeffrys who stubbornly held to the idea (I think this was his issue)
that after an overturn or two the mantle would strain harden and
convection would seize.
The problem is that Wegner didn't listen to the advice he got from
Holmes and Dutoit
(who supported his synthesis of observations in general, not his
mechanism) but Wegner
kept pushing his mechanism based on the Eotvos effect and along with
other mistakes he made
gave drift a bad name. It captured the publics imagination, but most
geologists were not
convinced.
Its a question as to whether PT would have been accepted earlier had
it not been
for the mess made by Wegner. I suspect either way, it would need to
have waited until
studies of the sea-floor in the 50's and early 60's confirmed some of
the predictions
of Holmes' theories.
Stuart
Stuart
> John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> > In article <K5Sdnac8SZ2L3ZbWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
> > <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > In my lifetime,
> > > I have lived through a number of scientific revolutions--radical ideas
> > > that eventually got accepted, despite FIERCE opposition from peers:
>
> > > 1. Most peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterium, not stress or spicy food.
>
> > > 2. At least some species of dinosaurs were agile, lithe and warm blooded.
>
> > > 3. The dinosaurs were wiped out by a bolide impact.
>
> > Interesting idea. List the scientific revolutions you have lived
> > through:
>
> > Continental drift and plate tectonic theory.
>
> A nice example.
> The pig-headed American geologists of the time
> did indeed organise an effective boycot of Wegener,
> which made serious scientific discussiion of his ideas
> effectively impossible for more than a generation.
> They even organised a special Wegener-bashing conference
> for the purpose.
>
First of all Wegner partially ripped off the American Geologist Frank
Taylor,
but thats another story.
Second, he was bashed by plenty of Europeans too, like Harold Jeffrys.
People who are an inch deep shouldn't pretend they are a mile wide.
Stuart
Stuart
Francis Bacon made the same observation in his Novus Organum.
Stuart
Stuart
> In article <1j9oleo.y9by5v1izx8...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
>
>
>
> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> > Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> ...
> > Why?
> > Textbook publishing still gets done without peer review.
> > Ask John if he had to rebut anonymous referees
> > to get his Species book published.
> > I guess not.
>
> I did. It was, in fact, rejected by one publisher because anonymous
> (and I think improper specialities) referees knocked it back. They were
> in fact very impolite.
>
> My book was also refereed by a number of historians of biology and
> biologists for UC Press. All up I'd say around 6 referees were
> involved. That's not including the editors, and those I had read and
> suggest changes before I submitted it; and the markers of the thesis
> (2) plus my advisors (2). All up it was a very reviewed book.
>
>
Does it still resemble what you originally wrote? :-)
Stuart
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
> >> >Since Velikovsky never passed any science peer review
> >> >process, you have no actual point.
>
> >> Actually, he does. The point is that without a massive
> >> protest on the part of the scientific community the entire
> >> Velikovsky phenomenon might have quickly sunk without a
> >> trace.
> >related peer review, not one bit.
> >> But there was not only a protest, but pressure put on the
> >> publisher. And the Velikovskians have been riding the
> >> wave of "what were the scientists afraid of" for years.
> >said, "see, they can't refute us!"...
>
> Would have made no difference. There are dozens of nutso
> groups out there, from Bermuda Triangle types to Atlanteans,
> and let me not forget Templar freaks. Nobody pays them any
> attention.
The point being, if they were able/allowed to get their crackpottery
into a scientific journal, they'd durely trumpet that as "proof" that
"science" agrees with them.
That's why that kind of balderdash shouldn't be let into such
journals, and why peer review is a (not-perfect) means to prevent
such.
> But the attention they got during the Great Publication Debate
> made a lot of folks think that the science folks had something
> to hide. And so we have Velikovskians with us today.
Sure. I quite agree that boycotts are always a Bad Idea, in the
field of ideas. But, not letting someone *into* a scientific journal
isn't a boycott.
> In fact, about eight or so years agoa they were right *here*
> in talk.origins protesting that we were all stupid and they
> had evidence.
How original of them.
> >> Being publically upset because a bad article passed peer
> >> review has the same effect. Tons of rotten papers are
> >> published every year. Most sink without a trace. There
> >> are journals that keep track of how many other papers
> >> referred to any given paper. When that number is zero
> >> or in the very low single digits, you know you've got a
> >> bad one there.
>
> >> And the paper sinks without a trace.
> >Sure.
Andre
Andre Lieven
> Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > Steven L. <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business
> > > > > > > Daily is claiming there has been no global warming during the
> > > > > > > past 10 years and is accusing the scientific community of
> > > > > > > "massive scientific fraud."
>
> > > > > > > Read it at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120i
> > > ssues01
>
> > > > > > > Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> > > > > > > is going on?
>
> > > > process, you have no actual point.
>
> > > and generally respected science textbooks
> > > publishing house. (Macmillan)
> > > Macmillan dropped it after Harlow Shapley threatened to organize
> > > a boycott of Macmillan by the science community.
>
> > Sounds about right; Why should the science community do
> > business with a firm that puts out that junk and labels it,
> > falsely, as science ?
>
> > > No doubt Macmillan had (and has) an editorial board,
> > > which advised the editor.
>
> > Which isn't peer review...
>
> All of science up to 1940 was (with few exceptions)
> done without peer review.
So ? Few cars then had catalytic converters, as well.
> What was good enough to pass for example Einstein 1905
> should have been good enough to reject Velikovsky.
> Alas, it wasn't, ad Macmillan can be blamed for it.
I have no problem with Velikovsky having got published.
I just maintain that his stuff was not worthy of a scientific
journal. Any can, and should be free, to sell any crackpottery
to any publisher who will buy it.
Just don't call the result "science".
> > > And also no doubt the editor can (and will)
> > > ask scientists he respects for their opinion.
> > > Textbooks are a low-volume business.
> > > (as were science journals a hundred years ago)
>
> > Loads of hand waving going on in your "argument"...
>
> Why?
> Textbook publishing still gets done without peer review.
Apples and Buicks...
> Ask John if he had to rebut anonymous referees
> to get his Species book published.
> I guess not.
Ibid the part about publishing/non scientific journals...
> > > And while we are at it:
> > > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> > > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> > > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
>
> > So ? Did I suggest that peer review was the ONLY path to
> > scientific testing and acceptance ?
>
> > You brung the straw hooker, feel free to do what else you
> > can with it on your own time...
>
> Quality control of textbook publishing
> is rarely done by anonymous peer review.
Once again, what has that got to do with scientific journals ?
> > > In short: You are hiding behind a formality.
>
> > Yeah, the primary means of ensuring that well examined science
> > gets published ahead of crank non-science, that surely can't matter...
>
> > You're very silly, but not in a good way.
>
> I share that opinion with respect to you dragging in
> peer review with respect to Velikovsky's book.
That's OK, you are allowed to be... wrong.
You're pretty good at it, too.
Andre
John Wilkins
<7af25f25-2056-41e8...@31g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Caranx latus <kar...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Nov 24, 1:57�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 10:37�am, Baron Bodissey <mct5...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
> > > claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
> > > is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."
> >
> > > Read it
> > > at:http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01
> >
> > > Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
> > > is going on?
> >
> > > Baron Bodissey
> > > They are ill discoverers that think there is no land when they see
> > > nothing but sea.
> > > � � � � � Francis Bacon
> >
> > Left-wingers want a clean non-industrial world. So they take advantage
> > of a natural cycle and blame it on pollution in order to obtain their
> > goals. Global warming is the secular appocalypse...."the sky is
> > falling."
>
> I suppose that I could be considered a left-winger. It isn't a non-
> industrial world that I want, but I would like a reasonably clean one.
> I suppose that you approve of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch:
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch>
>
Is that the one the Great Pumpkin arises out of each year?
John Wilkins
<e230b882-2b91-4cea...@x15g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
Stuart <bigd...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. It makes sense now.
John Wilkins
<05e565ac-a060-4f7f...@e31g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
Rodjk #613 <rjk...@gmail.com> wrote:
No. This:
John Wilkins
<5ec000d4-3c50-4195...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
> On Nov 23, 9:21�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> > J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >
> > >> <snip>
> >
> > >> > And while we are at it:
> > >> > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> > >> > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> > >> > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
> >
> > >> Do you have a cite for this?
> > >It is welll known that Einstein was furious
> > >when he discovered that this abomination existed.
> > >(he had out of courtesy, submitted an article to Phys Rev)
> > >Full story in Pais for example.
> > >> Specifically, what were
> > >> the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch
> > >> der Radioaktivit�t, Zeitschrift f�r Elektrochemie und
> > >> angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift
> > >> (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
> > >None. The editor decided what to accept.
> > >He could ask for specialist advice of course,
> > >if he deemed that necessary.
> > >Newcomers often were recommended by a beter known collegue,
> > >whose name appeared explicitly in the header.
> > >(like for example S. N. Bose, recommended by A. Einstein)
> >
> > That last being an interesting story in racial discrimination.
> > The result is known as Bose-Einstein statistics because the
> > editor insisted in sticking Einstein's name into the paper
> > against Einstein's wishes. �He'd contributed *nothing* to
> > the paper.
> >
> > Bose of course was Indian and everybody knew that *they*
> > couldn't do physics.
> [snip]
>
> This was about the same time it was discovered Indians could do math,
> right?
>
> Mitchell
>
I thought that was due to Ramachandran <sp?>
John Wilkins
<gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >On Nov 24, 2:31�ｿｽpm, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
> >> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> >John Wilkins <j...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >> >> In article <K5Sdnac8SZ2L3ZbWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
> >> >> <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > In my lifetime,
> >> >> > I have lived through a number of scientific revolutions--radical ideas
> >> >> > that eventually got accepted, despite FIERCE opposition from peers:
> >>
> >> >> > 1. �ｿｽMost peptic ulcers are caused by a bacterium, not stress or spicy
> >> >> > food.
> >>
> >> >> > 2. �ｿｽAt least some species of dinosaurs were agile, lithe and warm
> >> >> > blooded.
> >>
> >> >> > 3. �ｿｽThe dinosaurs were wiped out by a bolide impact.
> >>
> >> >> Interesting idea. List the scientific revolutions you have lived
> >> >> through:
> >>
> >> >> Continental drift and plate tectonic theory.
> >> >A nice example.
> >> >The pig-headed American geologists of the time
> >> >did indeed organise an effective boycot of Wegener,
> >> >which made serious scientific discussiion of his ideas
> >> >effectively impossible for more than a generation.
> >> >They even organised a special Wegener-bashing conference
> >> >for the purpose.
> >>
> >> But to be honest, Wegener hung up on mechanism. �ｿｽOne can't
> >> just postulate moving continents, which are moderately massive,
> >> without having a mechanism for moving them. �ｿｽMagic won't do.
> >>
> >> I grew up in the years prior to the acceptance of moving
> >> plates. �ｿｽAnd people did recognize the main parts of Wegener's
> >> arguments. �ｿｽAnd they did not understand why those facts should
> >> exist, but they admitted that they did.
> >[snip]
>
> >Darwin even mused about the notion, in Journal of Researches, based on
> >the superficial fit of Africa and the Americas.
>
> There's not only that, but the strata matches up on both sides,
> including included fossils.
And fauna and florae. Leon Croizat developed his panbiogeography
theories on the basis of "trackways" that posited dispersal patterns
rather than moving continents in the period leading up to tectonic
plates.
One point, though: tectonics was not accepted because of a *mechanism*,
which is still somewhat controverted, but because there was clear
evidence of sea floor spreading. The mechanistic explanations came
later - the phenomenon took priority. And acceptance took less than a
less once that evidence was available to all.
Paul J Gans
I'm sure that many others did as well. But Wegener's book
(which I've read in English translation) went beyond mere
fit. It discussed geology (the match in strata across the
Atlantic is amazing) and in fossils, some of which are found
near the Atlantic in South America and Africa and nowhere else.
He had other arguements as well, which now elude me.
But there was no mechanism to move something as gigantically
massive as a *continent*.
Paul J Gans
I come back to what I said earlier. Without a plausible
mechanism for continental movement, Wegener's notion amounted
to invoking magic.
*THAT* was the stumbling block, not lack of desire to believe.
Wegener's ideas were often discussed back in the 30's and 40's.
I believe that I first heard about them from my father in 1939
or 1940 after asking about the "fit" of South American and
Africa. The question was posed by possession of a *wooden*
map of the world whose jig-saw like pieces required the kid
(me) to place continents in frame based on their shapes. It
didn't take me long to discover that the two fit, allowing for
a bit of wear and tear.
Michael Siemon
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> In article
> <5ec000d4-3c50-4195...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
> Mitchell Coffey <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 23, 9:21�am, Paul J Gans <gan...@panix.com> wrote:
...
> > > That last being an interesting story in racial discrimination.
> > > The result is known as Bose-Einstein statistics because the
> > > editor insisted in sticking Einstein's name into the paper
> > > against Einstein's wishes. �He'd contributed *nothing* to
> > > the paper.
> > >
> > > Bose of course was Indian and everybody knew that *they*
> > > couldn't do physics.
> > [snip]
> >
> > This was about the same time it was discovered Indians could do math,
> > right?
> >
> > Mitchell
> >
> I thought that was due to Ramachandran <sp?>
Srinavasa Ramanujan, 1887-1920.
John Wilkins
<mlsiemon-1ACB12...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,
Michael Siemon <mlsi...@sonic.net> wrote:
Thanks. I had a memory once but I forgot what I did with it.
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >Garamond Lethe <cartogr...@gFNORDmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> On 2009-11-23, J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >>
> >> > And while we are at it:
> >> > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> >> > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> >> > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Do you have a cite for this?
>
> >It is welll known that Einstein was furious
> >when he discovered that this abomination existed.
> >(he had out of courtesy, submitted an article to Phys Rev)
> >Full story in Pais for example.
>
> >> Specifically, what were
> >> the peer-review policies of Annalen der Physik, Jahrbuch
> >> der Radioaktivität, Zeitschrift für Elektrochemie und
> >> angewandte physikalische Chemie, Physikalische Zeitschrift
> >> (et cetera) in the early 1900s?
>
> >None. The editor decided what to accept.
> >He could ask for specialist advice of course,
> >if he deemed that necessary.
>
> >Newcomers often were recommended by a beter known collegue,
> >whose name appeared explicitly in the header.
> >(like for example S. N. Bose, recommended by A. Einstein)
>
> That last being an interesting story in racial discrimination.
> The result is known as Bose-Einstein statistics because the
> editor insisted in sticking Einstein's name into the paper
> against Einstein's wishes. He'd contributed *nothing* to
> the paper.
You are a bit unfair here.
Bose had only done the (rather uninteresting) masssless case.
Einstein did the massive case,
which is where all the interesting applications are.
The name Bose-Einstein statistics is well justified.
> Bose of course was Indian and everybody knew that *they*
> couldn't do physics.
Can you name one everybody who said so explicitly?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
J. J. Lodder
It's more than a bit a bit silly
to call the normal conduct of science
'peer review'.
The word has acquired a well defined and much narrower meaning,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> On Nov 24, 5:42 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > On Nov 23, 5:10 am, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > Andre Lieven <andrelie...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 22, 6:15 pm, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) wrote:
> > > > > > Steven L. <sdlit...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > Baron Bodissey wrote:
> > > > > > > > "The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business
> > > > > > > > Daily is claiming there has been no global warming during the
> > > > > > > > past 10 years and is accusing the scientific community of
> > > > > > > > "massive scientific fraud."
Nothing.
-You- dragged it in, remember?
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
> >John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >> Interesting idea. List the scientific revolutions you have lived
> >> through:
> >>
> >> Continental drift and plate tectonic theory.
>
> >A nice example.
> >The pig-headed American geologists of the time
> >did indeed organise an effective boycot of Wegener,
> >which made serious scientific discussiion of his ideas
> >effectively impossible for more than a generation.
> >They even organised a special Wegener-bashing conference
> >for the purpose.
>
> But to be honest, Wegener hung up on mechanism.
A quite common situation in science.
> One can't
> just postulate moving continents, which are moderately massive,
> without having a mechanism for moving them. Magic won't do.
Lacking an explanation doesn't justify
closing ones mind to all experimental data,
and shooting at the messenger who brings them.
> I grew up in the years prior to the acceptance of moving
> plates. And people did recognize the main parts of Wegener's
> arguments. And they did not understand why those facts should
> exist, but they admitted that they did.
In a trivial sense yes,
(you can't very well deny the shape of the continents)
but it was denied quite vehemently
that these data had any scientfic relevance.
> The situation was not unlike data on black body radiation or
> the Rutherford atom back in the days before quantum mechanics.
Sure, but there never was a Rutherford boycot,
or a Rutherford-bashing event.
> Once a mechanism was discovered for plate motion, Wegener's
> ideas were rapidly accepted.
Even then the American Petroleum Geologists
dragged on behind everybody else,
Jan
J. J. Lodder
> In article <1j9oleo.y9b...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> > Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> ...
> > Why?
> > Textbook publishing still gets done without peer review.
> > Ask John if he had to rebut anonymous referees
> > to get his Species book published.
> > I guess not.
>
> I did. It was, in fact, rejected by one publisher because anonymous
> (and I think improper specialities) referees knocked it back. They were
> in fact very impolite.
>
> My book was also refereed by a number of historians of biology and
> biologists for UC Press. All up I'd say around 6 referees were
> involved. That's not including the editors, and those I had read and
> suggest changes before I submitted it; and the markers of the thesis
> (2) plus my advisors (2). All up it was a very reviewed book.
> >
> > > > And while we are at it:
> > > > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> > > > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> > > > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
> > >
> > > So ? Did I suggest that peer review was the ONLY path to
> > > scientific testing and acceptance ?
> > >
> > > You brung the straw hooker, feel free to do what else you
> > > can with it on your own time...
> >
> > Quality control of textbook publishing
> > is rarely done by anonymous peer review.
>
> I'd be very interested in a source for that claim. As far as I know
> from those who have published textbooks, they were very carefully
> vetted by their peers.
> ...
Of course, much more so than mere articles.
After all, a book represents a much greater investment.
It rarely takes the form of refereeing of journal articles,
that is, author writes book, sends completed book to publisher,
who passes it on to anonymous referees.
Rejection, on to the next publisher, etc.
It generally is a a more cooperative effort,
with for example an author first asking an editor
if they would want a book along such and such lines.
(with perhaps some parts)
Some authors are even invited by a publisher
to write a textbook for them.
The proces usually involves more editing than refereeing.
(continued in my reply to Paul Gans)
Jan
J. J. Lodder
J. J. Lodder
> John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> >In article <1j9oleo.y9b...@de-ster.xs4all.nl>, J. J. Lodder
> ><nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >> Andre Lieven <andre...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >...
> >> Why?
> >> Textbook publishing still gets done without peer review.
> >> Ask John if he had to rebut anonymous referees
> >> to get his Species book published.
> >> I guess not.
>
> >I did. It was, in fact, rejected by one publisher because anonymous
> >(and I think improper specialities) referees knocked it back. They were
> >in fact very impolite.
>
> >My book was also refereed by a number of historians of biology and
> >biologists for UC Press. All up I'd say around 6 referees were
> >involved. That's not including the editors, and those I had read and
> >suggest changes before I submitted it; and the markers of the thesis
> >(2) plus my advisors (2). All up it was a very reviewed book.
> >>
> >> > > And while we are at it:
> >> > > a certain nobody called A. Einstein never published
> >> > > a formally peer-reviewed article either,
> >> > > in your narrow sense. (except once by accident)
> >> >
> >> > So ? Did I suggest that peer review was the ONLY path to
> >> > scientific testing and acceptance ?
> >> >
> >> > You brung the straw hooker, feel free to do what else you
> >> > can with it on your own time...
> >>
> >> Quality control of textbook publishing
> >> is rarely done by anonymous peer review.
>
> >I'd be very interested in a source for that claim. As far as I know
> >from those who have published textbooks, they were very carefully
> >vetted by their peers.
>
> There is a cottage industry in that. I've reviewed my share. The
> pay is peanuts and the work fairly hard. I've never objected to
> the approach taken by an author, but have looked for mistakes
> in fact, typos (frequent) and illogic. And I've suggested asking
> for supporting evidence when the author does something rather
> strange.
As I said to John, this is editing, not refereeing,
whatever it may have been called.
Jan