Science Not Settled

[Arete]

I agree it should at least raise eyebrows when someone who has no credentials in a field, criticizes it. However, like that 50 page paper I linked being dismissed as a “vanity” publication.

 

I think you still don't understand what a vanity publication is - another term of these journal is predatory publications. Since you've expressed the opinion you don't trust Nature, and the previous article I linked to educate you on the subject as I presume dismissed - here's a wiki artile explaining the pitfalls of this publishing model:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predatory_open_access_publishing

 

 

One of the criticisms I found was it was a simple two layer model. What is it when one layer has over 200 sub layers? Is it still just a simple 2 layer model? Another was he didn’t follow the right formula, but what he did was add more variables to the formula. I see these as rather stupid reasons to claim the paper invalid.

 

 

I would call it a highly parameterized, simple model. I personally work more in Bayesian models, but the basics I imagine hold true. The problem is, that generally, a model needs to become more complex in order to model a large number of parameters accurately. Simple models are great for small parameter spaces, but become much more likely to fail as they overparameterized. It sounds like a poor model fit for the parameter space being searched, and from what I've read from those working more closely with climate models, that seems to be the case - poor model selection, overparameterization, failed estimation.

 

As an analogy, with engines, generally speaking, to increase power you would increase displacement. You can make a high power, low displacement engine, but they tend to be more prone to failure.

 

 

As for publishing it like he did, are you considering all possibilities, or just jumping to one conclusion?

 

Virtually every journal out there offers an open access licence as an option, so it's no excuse. Nature simply assesses the probability of a paper being high impact. If this publication was done well, I see absolutely no reason it wouldn't be very high impact - it's generating a lot of discussion as it is having been published obscurely.

 

Assuming it was submitted to other journals, the only reason I can see them not wanting to pick it up is because the methodology was found wanting. This is why the location of the publication is reason for suspicion.

 

Additionally, the author has a researchgate - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hermann_Harde a better assessment of the author's standing than a random Hindawi list which a third of is conference proceedings.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Arete

[Wild Cobra]

Arte.

 

You are assuming I don't look things up.

 

Please don't assume anything with me, besides, doesn't your claim fall under "poisoning the well?"

 

Do you think Nature would use 50 pages of it's magazine to accept the article? have you ever read their publication submission criteria?

 

Damn. I said I was done, yet what do I do.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[iNow]

Remind you of anyone?

 

12 Things That You Can Do That Are Guaranteed To Annoy Logical People

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/ways-to-annoy-logical-people-2013-7

 

Just some food for thought...

[CharonY]

From what I can see he specializes in spectrometry of simple system and to some extent in material sciences (I actually can read German) which does not translate to climate sciences. The work is also published after his retirement which indicates that it is not part of his main research.

 

Nature does actually accept longer papers, but you have to put a lot of it (e.g. the model) into supplementary material and limit your main manuscript to the main conclusions and the most relevant data. There is a huge gap between Nature and a journal that is not even indexed.

 

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "atomic and laser physics" a branch of particle physics?

 

Here is his bio:

 

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1724-7451

 

I have a difficulty with German, but there were several links at the university he studied at when I searched 'atomic and laser physics'

 

Another university link has this about that course with that title:

 

 

http://www.mark-fox.staff.shef.ac.uk/PHY332/

 

 

Oxford says this about that title:

 

 

http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/research/atomic-and-laser-physics

 

It is obvious to me that his field of study is far more in depth for leaning spectral interactions with molecules than what is required to get a degree in climatology. Ever look at those courses?

[swansont]

OK, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "atomic and laser physics" a branch of particle physics?

 

 

No, you're wrong. (BTW, I am an atomic and laser physicist.)

[Arete]

You are assuming I don't look things up.

 

Please don't assume anything with me, besides, doesn't your claim fall under "poisoning the well?"

 

 

Actually, I would call it a deduction. You've repeatedly ignored the fact that there are serious issues with the predatory publication model - which I actually gave you the benefit of the doubt as to not having looked it up, rather than understood and ignored the issue.

 

Additionally, it is not poisoning the well to point out that the claim of peer review of an article may be dishonest. I cited a blog post in the other thread which you dismissed based on it being a blog post - vanity papers are even worse as they dishonestly claim peer review.

 

Do you think Nature would use 50 pages of it's magazine to accept the article? have you ever read their publication submission criteria?

 

Now here's the Tu quoque of assumption. I am very aware of the submission requirements for Nature. I've reviewed for them and only a few months ago was lucky enough to have one of my articles published as a cover in a Nature Publishing Group journal.

 

Like any other short format journal, most of minutia of an Nature article (i.e. methods and results) gets pushed to the supplementary online material. Many articles published there are long and highly technical, with a brief write up in the journal itself, and the bulk of the content online. The fact that you don't know that indicates that you probably don't submit articles yourself, and yet you're assuming that you know more about publication models and process than many of the members here, who do actively publish...

[Wild Cobra]

 

No, you're wrong. (BTW, I am an atomic and laser physicist.)

 

OK so my termonology is incorrect. However, understanding the interactions between photons and matter at specific spectra still applies, right?

 

Additionally, it is not poisoning the well to point out that the claim of peer review of an article may be dishonest. I cited a blog post in the other thread which you dismissed based on it being a blog post - vanity papers are even worse as they dishonestly claim peer review.

 

"May be" is one thing. It's coming across that they are.

 

I don't recall anyone saying it "might" or "may" be tainted because of where it was published. The claim of this publisher was clearly seen to me as being attacked.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[swansont]

 

OK so my termonology is incorrect. However, understanding the interactions between photons and matter at specific spectra still applies, right?

 

Still is. I think you mean wavelengths.

[Arete]

"May be" is one thing. It's coming across that they are.

 

I don't recall anyone saying it "might" or "may" be tainted because of where it was published. The claim of this publisher was clearly seen to me as being attacked.

 

I'm being careful with my language to honor the benefit of the doubt - however the publisher is listed on a predatory journal blacklist and the journal itself is not indexed. I would seem that the burden of proof would be on the claim that the journal is legitimate. The point is that you are still suggesting that the article is relevant.

 

What I'm doing is using a legitimate concern about the peer review process the article may or may not have been properly peer reviewed to shift the burden of proof to its rightful place. To quote Carl Sagan "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The result in this paper is different to thousands of other studies... given its a simple, well used model (just highly parameterized, which is not necessarily a good thing) what exactly makes it right, and the others incorrect?

[Wild Cobra]

How accurate is the claim of publication putting them on a blacklist, and what evidence did they offer?

 

I hope you aren't simply appealing to authority without verification, of what could be an unwarranted attck.

 

Trust but verify...

 

Was that the Nature link offered earlier?

 

Are you speaking of this?

 

http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/

 

 

Beall’s List: Potential, possible, or probable predatory scholarly open-access publishers

This is a list of questionable, scholarly open-access publishers. We recommend that scholars read the available reviews, assessments and descriptions provided here, and then decide for themselves whether they want to submit articles, serve as editors or on editorial boards. The criteria for determining predatory publishers are here.

We hope that tenure and promotion committees can also decide for themselves how importantly or not to rate articles published in these journals in the context of their own institutional standards and/or geocultural locus. We emphasize that journal publishers and journals change in their business and editorial practices over time. This list is kept up-to-date to the best extent possible but may not reflect sudden, unreported, or unknown enhancements.

 

Hmmm....

 

Potential, possible, probable...

 

That's real solid!

 

Have anything that has solid information showing science Online as a bad self publishing publisher?

 

How about some evidence specific to the publisher if you are going to make such allegations, otherwise it can be viewed as slander!

Am I wrong, or is all this questionable hype traced and caused by one man. A librarian named Jeffrey Beall?

Edited October 29, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[iNow]

Oh, hi there red herring. I've missed you. How are the kids?

[Arete]

How accurate is the claim of publication putting them on a blacklist, and what evidence did they offer?

 

Ok, I'm going to stop being polite at this point in time - Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

The evidence has been presented to you about the journal's providence, use the search function. It shouldn't be too difficult. YOU are claiming this is a legitimate source, then DEMONSTRATE it. YOU are demanding others take the time to sort through 50 pages of text, PROVE it's worth doing. Otherwise I have some 50 page, 10 point font blog posts that prove all sorts of things, and if you don't go through them all and tell me exactly what is flawed in them, bigfoot is real, 9/11 was a hoax, chemtrails control thoughts and crystals cure cancer.

 

And no, that's not the link - So the whole "don't assume anything about me" line was rubbish. You never read the linked article, you don't really understand what a predatory publication is, and from subsequent posts (i.e. Nature won't publish a 50 page article) you don't have a solid grasp on scientific publication at all. In fact with the whole - "Nature's peer review is questionable" "The concept of predatory publications is hype". etc it seems like anything that either "questionable" or sacrosanct depending on how it supports or contradicts you ideology - in other words, you're beginning to sound like an ideologue rather than a rational thinker.

 

YOU are claiming this is a better model than all the others out there. Now come on - explain it like I'm a five year old. Why is it better than the others? Don't appeal to the author's credentials, or the number of "sublayers" in the model, or any other irrelevant details, just tell us. And we will listen. At the moment, you've posted absolutely nothing apart from a questionable article followed by a series of dodges when asked to explain why the article is relevant at all.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Arete

[Wild Cobra]

 

Ok, I'm going to stop being polite at this point in time - Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

The evidence has been presented to you about the journal's providence, use the search function. It shouldn't be too difficult. YOU are claiming this is a legitimate source, then DEMONSTRATE it. YOU are demanding others take the time to sort through 50 pages of text, PROVE it's worth doing. Otherwise I have some 50 page, 10 point font blog posts that prove all sorts of things, and if you don't go through them all and tell me exactly what is flawed in them, bigfoot is real, 9/11 was a hoax, chemtrails control thoughts and crystals cure cancer.

 

Just because it is a pay to publish site does not mean it is illegitimate.

 

I did search. I only found it listed among journals that included “possibly.” I linked that, and you have not shown me any evidence to believe otherwise.

 

Please stop construing “possible” to “is.” It hurts your reputation.

 

Please… Words have meaning.

 

I can construe your words as a lie when you say I am “claiming this is a legitimate source.” I didn’t go that far in its defense, I only said there is no proof it isn’t legitimate. To take the side that it is automatically worthless is denying real science in my opinion. You are denying other possible facts.

 

Words have meaning! Please keep up.

 

 

 

And no, that's not the link - So the whole "don't assume anything about me" line was rubbish. You never read the linked article, you don't really understand what a predatory publication is, and from subsequent posts (i.e. Nature won't publish a 50 page article) you don't have a solid grasp on scientific publication at all. In fact with the whole - "Nature's peer review is questionable" "The concept of predatory publications is hype". etc it seems like anything that either "questionable" or sacrosanct depending on how it supports or contradicts you ideology - in other words, you're beginning to sound like an ideologue rather than a rational thinker.

 

 

There you go misrepresenting what I said AGAIN!

 

I never said the 50 pages was why. I said "what if," and it was one of a few possibilities I was pointing out.

 

 

 

YOU are claiming this is a better model than all the others out there. Now come on - explain it like I'm a five year old. Why is it better than the others? Don't appeal to the author's credentials, or the number of "sublayers" in the model, or any other irrelevant details, just tell us. And we will listen. At the moment, you've posted absolutely nothing apart from a questionable article followed by a series of dodges when asked to explain why the article is relevant at all.

 

Again, you are taking the polar opposite and misconstruing my words. I offered it as another study, and one I agree with because I long ago decided 0.55 degrees was the most I could account for, for a doubling of CO2.

 

I am open to the idea that it is wrong, but you are so polarized here, I find myself defending something I shouldn't have to.

 

For a forum that moderators keep calling skeptics on "logical fallacies," how is it you get away with it?

 

Possible questionable... = wrong...

 

My God!

 

What if it is valid? You are just flat out dismissing it. I call that being a denier of real science.

 

Many of here you fully supporting the AGW consensus do nothing but find real poor reasons to attack the paper, author, etc.

 

I find that appalling.

[iNow]

Are evasion and hand waving logical fallacies?

[John Cuthber]

If I chose, I could set up a web page (it would probably cost me a little money if I didn't want it too plastered with adverts).

And then I could post more or less anything I liked on it.

I could even get my friends to say that they agreed with what I posted. I could get them to post other stuff that's not true too.

 

But the fact that the stuff was published on a web page wouldn't make it trustworthy, or accurate.

It certainly wouldn't be a valid source of evidence for a scientific debate.

 

How is that different from vanity publishing.

Edited October 29, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Arete]

What if it is valid? You are just flat out dismissing it. I call that being a denier of real science.

 

You conveniently missed this:

I would call it a highly parameterized, simple model. I personally work more in Bayesian models, but the basics I imagine hold true. The problem is, that generally, a model needs to become more complex in order to model a large number of parameters accurately. Simple models are great for small parameter spaces, but become much more likely to fail as they overparameterized. It sounds like a poor model fit for the parameter space being searched, and from what I've read from those working more closely with climate models, that seems to be the case - poor model selection, overparameterization, failed estimation.

 

As an analogy, with engines, generally speaking, to increase power you would increase displacement. You can make a high power, low displacement engine, but they tend to be more prone to failure.

 

 

So far we have legitimate queries about the veracity of the journal, legitimate queries about the author's expertise, legitimate queries about the methodology in the paper, and are simply asking why we should accept its result. Instead of actually offering anything tangible to support it, you've evaded the question, multiple times. I can only conclude that you are unable to answer it.

[swansont]

Add to this the query: if an atomic physicist came up with a model that had a climate sensitivity larger than the IPCC range, would we be having this discussion — the same people defending the report because the person involved was a spectroscopist?

 

IOW, what is there about the science of this model to appeal to people, other than liking the answer it gives? I have a hard time believing that if I were to publish a model that had such a sensitivity in it (say, twice what the IPCC reports) that anyone who questions the IPCC would be trumpeting my atomic and laser physics credentials and defending the journal of publication. I strongly suspect you'd be calling it alarmist crap and pointing out that I lack the proper background to make such models.

[Wild Cobra]

If I chose, I could set up a web page (it would probably cost me a little money if I didn't want it too plastered with adverts).

And then I could post more or less anything I liked on it.

I could even get my friends to say that they agreed with what I posted. I could get them to post other stuff that's not true too.

 

But the fact that the stuff was published on a web page wouldn't make it trustworthy, or accurate.

It certainly wouldn't be a valid source of evidence for a scientific debate.

 

How is that different from vanity publishing.

 

It might not be accurate or true, but just because it is a "vanity publication" doesn't make bad or wrong either.

 

That is where your logocal fallacy arises. Automatically assuming it to be bad, unworthy, etc. I don't know about you, but I don't care much for such elitist attitudes.

 

You conveniently missed this:

 

 

So far we have legitimate queries about the veracity of the journal, legitimate queries about the author's expertise, legitimate queries about the methodology in the paper, and are simply asking why we should accept its result. Instead of actually offering anything tangible to support it, you've evaded the question, multiple times. I can only conclude that you are unable to answer it.

 

I didn't miss what you said. I disagree with the unuendo of "possible" being classed as bad as others.

 

I see this as an excuse to deny another scintist his veiwpoint.

Add to this the query: if an atomic physicist came up with a model that had a climate sensitivity larger than the IPCC range, would we be having this discussion — the same people defending the report because the person involved was a spectroscopist?

 

IOW, what is there about the science of this model to appeal to people, other than liking the answer it gives? I have a hard time believing that if I were to publish a model that had such a sensitivity in it (say, twice what the IPCC reports) that anyone who questions the IPCC would be trumpeting my atomic and laser physics credentials and defending the journal of publication. I strongly suspect you'd be calling it alarmist crap and pointing out that I lack the proper background to make such models.

There are papers that are extreme in their values. As for this one, I like his detail and different approach to modeling. It would take to much space and time to defend it, and I shouildn't have to. If I were to critisize it, it would be because of merit. Not elitism.

 

I find it laughable that there is no valid critism over the paper, onlly logical fallacies.

 

I need not defend it at all over such fallacies.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Wild Cobra

[Arete]

I didn't miss what you said. I disagree with the unuendo of "possible" being classed as bad as others.

 

 

Then address it. Please tell us why this model is preferable to others.

 

To give an example of how this kind of result works in other sciences, in my field (population genetics) people generally use at least two models, and sometimes over 100 to assess the robustness of estimates. If estimates significantly vary between models, at the bare minimum some discussion of the varying model assumptions and fits, and how it relates to the data is expected. This allows for a reconciliation of the different results, and aids interpretation of the data. That's all I'm asking for. If you want the model, and it's substantially outlying estimates to be considered, just a quick breakdown of how the model differs from others and why it's more appropriate.

 

Other people in the field have suggested that an overparamaterized two step model is likely to perform poorly, thus explaining the outlying result. If that is incorrect, explain why, instead of crying "fallacy" and dodging it.

 

find it laughable that there is no valid critism over the paper.

 

 

There is valid criticism of the paper. You're just choosing to ignore it, i.e.

 

It would take to much space and time to defend it, and I shouildn't have to.

 

 

That's evasion - it makes it look like you can't explain.

Edited October 29, 2014 by Arete

[John Cuthber]

 

It might not be accurate or true, but just because it is a "vanity publication" doesn't make bad or wrong either.

 

That is where your logocal fallacy arises. Automatically assuming it to be bad, unworthy, etc. I don't know about you, but I don't care much for such elitist attitudes.

 

OK, progress at last.

You accept that it might, or might not, be true.

Well, if it might not be true, you shouldn't use it as evidence should you?

 

That's not a logical fallacy is it?

So there's no basis for the name calling is there?

[swansont]

I find it laughable that there is no valid critism over the paper, onlly logical fallacies.

 

Like appeal to ignorance? Oh, wait, that's a fallacy from a proponent of the paper

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

[Wild Cobra]

OK, progress at last.

You accept that it might, or might not, be true.

Well, if it might not be true, you shouldn't use it as evidence should you?

 

And just exactly what context did I bring it up?

 

Did I say this paper represented the truth?

 

Please.

 

Show me what I said that was wrong.

 

Your assumptions are not my problem, so please stop trying to make them my problem.

[swansont]

Did I say this paper represented the truth?

That's implied by the way you presented it. You offered it as a defense of what you "know" to be true.

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/57883-who-here-is-a-global-warming-skeptic/?p=833193

 

It is not a reasonable inference that you thought the paper was false or even questionable, nor did you ask for criticism of the paper.

[John Cuthber]

 

And just exactly what context did I bring it up?

 

Did I say this paper represented the truth?

 

Please.

 

Show me what I said that was wrong.

 

Your assumptions are not my problem, so please stop trying to make them my problem.

Well, here's what you said about it at the outset.

"Well, I agree CO2 warms the planet, but by far less than the consensus agrees to. A new paper has the sensitivity for CO2 at 0.43 degrees / doubling.

http://www.scipublis...ad/3001-846.pdf

Years back, I looked at the absolute maximim possible for CO2 sensitivity to be 0.55 degrees.

This paper also quantifies the solar changes to well over what the consensus says, and also is more in like with my assessments years back."

And, while you didn't explicitly say you thought it was the truth, you did say it gave results that tallied better with those you had calculated- so presumably you thought those were the truth.

But that's hardly the point; if you didn't think it was true, why did you cite it?

[Wild Cobra]

I would ask why do you all have your panties in a bunch over it.

 

You guys fail to accept anything I say. I elaborate, and all you do is hound me over and over.

 

Get over it.

Edited October 31, 2014 by Wild Cobra