Climategate: "Hide the Decline"

[BrownOut]

Well, first of all, peer review isn't accept/decline. Most often it's a feedback/review/revise method; otherwise, it wouldn't be very helpful to make the research better. Yeah, it's like that. So, if you have feedback on the data, quantities or methods, I've love to hear them. BTW, the Wikipedia article was better referenced than most links I've seen on this thread, so it is more than appropriate.

 

[ke5frf]

Huh?

Obviously you have never been anywhere near a peer review process. My ex-wife's publications most certainly got "accepted" and "declined" and often with short quips offered as reasons. You do have an idealistic and uninformed world view.

 

[Mickster]

If I remember correctly, I did. You'll have to go back and find the post though.

If your work is thoroughly documented and indexed, in a presentable form for peer-review, points which come into question should be easily accessible, with a minimum delay.....

 

[ke5frf]

And I did offer feedback. Don't use Wikipedia, and no, it is never appropriate. EVER. I'd like you to link us to one peer-reviewed publication in the climate sciences where a Wikipedia article was cited. Just one.

No serious research institution allows Wikipedia as a reference, not even for undergraduate papers.

 

[ke5frf]

feedback/review/revise method

feedback: No Wikipedia
review: Not wasting my time with poorly cited work.

REVISE METHOD: That is your job as the researcher. Get to it.

 

[BrownOut]

Obviously you have never been anywhere near a peer review process. My ex-wife's publications most certainly got "accepted" and "declined" and often with short quips offered as reasons. You do have an idealistic and uninformed world view.

So has your wife submitted her work for peer review? Or is she just trying to get something published. Two different things. Guess you're pretty idealistic and uninformed too.

And I did offer feedback. Don't use Wikipedia, and no, it is never appropriate. EVER. I'd like you to link us to one peer-reviewed publication in the climate sciences where a Wikipedia article was cited. Just one.

No serious research institution allows Wikipedia as a reference, not even for undergraduate papers.

I reapeat for the hard of reading, if you have feedback on my data, quantities or methods, then I'd love to hear them. I never claimed I'm a serious research instution or undergraduate, I only said when someone found errors, that's a simple example of peer review.

 

[killivolt]

Crap, now I have to go back to page 9 where I left off to see where this is going.

Maybe I can squeeze this thread out before the night is over.

kv

 

[BrownOut]

If your work is thoroughly documented and indexed, in a presentable form for peer-review, points which come into question should be easily accessible, with a minimum delay.....

I agree. What's your point?

 

[ke5frf]

So has your wife submitted her work for peer review? Or is she just trying to get something published. Two different things. Guess you're pretty idealistic and uninformed too.



I reapeat for the hard of reading, if you have feedback on my data, quantities or methods, then I'd love to hear them. I never claimed I'm a serious research instution or undergraduate, I only said when someone found errors, that's a simple example of peer review.

Huh? No, my ex wife. She is a psychologist and indeed she has submitted research papers on gibbons (a kind of monkey) for peer review AND publication. If it doesn't pass peer review, it will not be published. Not in any kind of reputable periodical anyway.

She is also a statistician so I learned a lot from her about fudging data to get significant results.

Man, you just don't get it. I've been screwing with you all day to try and get you to see a point but you will never get it. Don't preach to people about peer review and its glories when you don't even know how to submit material properly yourself. It was you who wanted to "play pretend" and speak as if we were peers doing peer-review on a scientific submission. So I have been going along EXACTLY as a referee on a review committee would. Yet YOU keep demanding that I (the pretend referee) show proof. That isn't how it works. I know firsthand, I've seen with my ex-wife how political and trite the peer review concept is. In theory it is great, but in practice not so much. Yes, something as small as a poor citation will get a paper handed back to you and if the reviewer wants to be a real jerk he can make sure it never sees the light of day again.

There is a huge and expansive void where plenty of good research has been dumped into the ether because of peer-review.

 

[killivolt]

Post to moderators

I just read this back on page 10 Post #139 (tcmtech)

Administration, Nigel, and Brian1 will be along with the ban hammers shortly. We all will see who's standing tomorrow. Odds are this thread gets locked and likely deleted soon anyway.

Please don't say it's so.

kv

 

[BrownOut]

Huh? No, my ex wife. She is a psychologist and indeed she has submitted research papers on gibbons (a kind of monkey) for peer review AND publication. If it doesn't pass peer review, it will not be published. Not in any kind of reputable periodical anyway.

She is also a statistician so I learned a lot from her about fudging data to get significant results.

Man, you just don't get it. I've been screwing with you all day to try and get you to see a point but you will never get it. Don't preach to people about peer review and its glories when you don't even know how to submit material properly yourself. It was you who wanted to "play pretend" and speak as if we were peers doing peer-review on a scientific submission. So I have been going along EXACTLY as a referee on a review committee would. Yet YOU keep demanding that I (the pretend referee) show proof. That isn't how it works. I know firsthand, I've seen with my ex-wife how political and trite the peer review concept is. In theory it is great, but in practice not so much. Yes, something as small as a poor citation will get a paper handed back to you and if the reviewer wants to be a real jerk he can make sure it never sees the light of day again.

There is a huge and expansive void where plenty of good research has been dumped into the ether because of peer-review.

It's you who doesn't get it. I whimsically compared that way someone's comments improved my post, and you went all ape over think I was preaching, which I've not done and don't make a habit of doing. You've pretty much wasted a whole day over a simple and non-serious comment I made, and wasn’t even all the serious about in the first place. Man, you are really out in left field. Anyway, I do know about the review process, and I'm am very aware that researchers or authors get feedback from their peers on their work, and urged to make improvements. That's what I was trying to make a simple demonstration of. But that doesn't happen in every case, each publication does things differently, so if you have an experience with one pub, you might have a different experience with another one. Such is life.

Either way, my request for you to show where my quantities are wrong have nothing at all to do with the review comment I made. You go all over the map about every little minute word here or typo there, but you have nothing significant to offer with respect to the data, methods, quantities or results. You obsess over the small stuff, but have nothing significant to offer.

 

[Mickster]

I agree. What's your point?

An open question was raised pertaining to AGW Vs GW and the hiding of a 'decline'.

The question was addressed to no-one in particular.

You chose to take on the responsibility of providing an answer to the post and stated that you had previously covered the question in a previous post.

As the author of a previously-published work (yourself), it should be a reasonable expectation that a peer (myself) making a review of your work, should have expedient access.

Please provide a link.

 

[BrownOut]

Sorry, you'll just have to look for it.

 

[ke5frf]

well, the least you could do is tell us about your experiences with the peer review process. Or the connections you have with it. My admission is that I work in industry at a testing and research lab, and the publications that our work is published in is generally inter-industrial. Seldom is there a rejection because the science is well established.

But my ex-wife did research at the university graduate school level years ago, and the political game is much different and more harsh. As I said, I know that many published papers have fudged statistics despite peer review. In fact, my ex-wife's committee chair GAVE here a false statistical method that would produce significance in research that she had floundered so that it would pass the committee. This is because her research was based on his work and supported it. She still jokes about her thesis work.

So, how have you come to be familiar with and such an admirer of peer review?

 

[Mickster]

Sorry, you'll just have to look for it.

"Peer-review of Mr Brownout's publication:

Polite requests were made with regard to the production of published material pertaining to the substantiation of claims made by the applicant, in respect of the current debate between GW and AGW proponents.

Unfortunately, the applicant failed to comply with reasonable requests and instead, chose not to freely cite previous works for critique...."

 

[killivolt]

What a leg slapper..hahahaha!

Page 14 (HarveyH42) Post # 199

The CO2 emission being the core, Edit: Greenhouse gases and the key to the 'crisis' is mainly what I take issue with.

(Co2 emissions)

Ok, 6 more to go.


kv

 

[kchriste]

wanted to "play pretend" and speak as if we were peers doing peer-review on a scientific submission. So I have been going along EXACTLY as a referee on a review committee would. Yet YOU keep demanding that I (the pretend referee) show proof.

What make you think that you are the referee and not simply one of the "peers" in this discussion?

 

[killivolt]

Whew'' swipe" I'm in tears.

Ok, go ahead Moderators if you will. I made it.

Thank you for all who participated.

You've made one old man happy today.

(Now, I can go home.)

Marry Christmas !!!! and all a good night.


kv

 

[Mikebits]

What make you think that you are the referee and not simply one of the "peers" in this discussion?

Agreed, does not the review process follow some form of democratic process where an objection to the presented material by one member may be refuted by another reviewer or the reviewed?

The following is an excerpt from a USDA peer review bulletin.
https://www.electro-tech-online.com/custompdfs/2009/12/peer_bulletin.pdf

The critique provided by a peer review often suggests ways to clarify assumptions, findings, and conclusions. For instance, peer reviews can filter out biases and identify oversights, omissions, and inconsistencies.3 Peer review also may encourage authors to more fully acknowledge limitations and uncertainties. In some cases, reviewers might recommend major changes to the draft, such as refinement of hypotheses, reconsideration of research design, modifications of data collection or analysis methods, or alternative conclusions. However, peer review does not always lead to specific modifications in the draft product. In some cases, a draft is in excellent shape prior to being submitted for review. In others, the authors do not concur with changes suggested by one or more reviewers.

 

[ke5frf]

If you guys have objection to my review, that is fine. Are you guys OK with citing Wikipedia in a research submission? Or horrible syntax and spelling? I don't think such things would typically pass peer review and certainly it wouldn't if the submitting researcher argued with the reviewers that it was OK.