Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (2547)	9/21/2011 10:54:56 PM
From: Sdgla	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Wharf, Clearly you are the cream of the crop, cut and paste class. Highly educated and top of the heap at denigrating all with opposing views. I'm more interested in what you believe needs to be done to counter all this soon to be on us devastation your highly educated peers are projecting. Can you lay something like that out in your own words sans cut n pasties ? TIA S

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (2547)	9/22/2011 12:03:41 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

Here's a sad story that will embarrass almost everybody but you. Me? I'm embarrassed this guy is at Cal; he should be at Stanferd Junior U. Oh, well. He's not the worst guy on campus. I think his chances of snorting more koch has been severely compromised. Critics' review unexpectedly supports scientific consensus on global warming A UC Berkeley team's preliminary findings in a review of temperature data confirm global warming studies. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project was launched by physics professor Richard Muller, a longtime critic of government-led climate studies, to address what he called "the legitimate concerns" of skeptics who believe that global warming is exaggerated. What are you even talking about? The Berkeley project is trying to develop a good quality temperature dataset. From their website: A New Assessment of Global Warming The most important indicator of global warming, by far, is the land and sea surface temperature record. This has been criticized in several ways, including the choice of stations and the methods for correcting systematic errors. The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study sets out to to do a new analysis of the surface temperature record in a rigorous manner that addresses this criticism. We are using over 39,000 unique stations, which is more than five times the 7,280 stations found in the Global Historical Climatology Network Monthly data set (GHCN-M) that has served as the focus of many climate studies. Our aim is to resolve current criticism of the former temperature analyses, and to prepare an open record that will allow rapid response to further criticism or suggestions. Our results will include not only our best estimate for the global temperature change, but estimates of the uncertainties in the record. They announced initial findings concerning the analysis of a randomly chosen 2% of data. So far, so good, they say. Yet you talk as if they had found proof confirming the AGW thesis and models. They are a long way from even addressing the question of the accuracy of the models. You do understand that the global temperature datasets could be found to be perfectly accurate, and this would say NOTHING about the accuracy of the climate models they feed? Now, the reverse is not true -- if the data is low quality, then the model outputs cannot be high quality, even if the model software is perfect. Garbage in, garbage out. But the highest quality input data cannot prove the models correct. Only verifiable outputs can do that. You're not even reading what you paste, are you?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (2547)	1/20/2013 12:03:21 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Respond to of 85487

BEST finally makes peer review in journal that will publish anything: Berkeley Earth finally makes peer review – in a never before seen journal Posted on January 19, 2013 by Anthony Watts After almost two years and some false starts, BEST now has one paper that has finally passed peer review. The text below is from the email release sent late Saturday. It was previously submitted to JGR Atmospheres according to their July 8th draft last year, but appears to have been rejected as they now indicate it has been published in Geoinformatics and Geostatistics, a journal I’ve not heard of until now. (Added note: commenter Michael D. Smith points out is it Volume 1 issue 1, so this appears to be a brand new journal. Also troubling, on their GIGS journal home page , the link to the PDF of their Journal Flier gives only a single page, the cover art. Download Journal Flier. With such a lack of description in the front and center CV, one wonders how good this journal is.) Also notable, Dr. Judith Curry’s name is not on this paper, though she gets a mention in the acknowledgements (along with Mosher and Zeke). I have not done any detailed analysis yet of this paper, as this is simply an announcement of its existence. – Anthony =============================================================== Berkeley Earth has today released a new set of materials, including gridded and more recent data, new analysis in the form of a series of short “memos”, and new and updated video animations of global warming. We are also pleased that the Berkeley Earth Results paper, “A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011? has now been published by GIGS and is publicly available. here: http://berkeleyearth.org/papers/. The data update includes more recent data (through August 2012), gridded data, and data for States and Provinces. You can access the data here: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/. The set of memos include: Two analyses of Hansen’s recent paper “Perception of Climate Change” A comparison of Berkeley Earth, NASA GISS, and Hadley CRU averaging techniques on ideal synthetic data Visualizing of Berkeley Earth, NASA GISS, and Hadley CRU averaging techniques and are available here: http://berkeleyearth.org/available-resources/ ============================================================== A New Estimate of the Average Earth Surface Land Temperature Spanning 1753 to 2011 Abstract We report an estimate of the Earth’s average land surface temperature for the period 1753 to 2011. To address issues of potential station selection bias, we used a larger sampling of stations than had prior studies. For the period post 1880, our estimate is similar to those previously reported by other groups, although we report smaller uncertainties. The land temperature rise from the 1950s decade to the 2000s decade is 0.90 ± 0.05°C (95% confidence). Both maximum and minimum daily temperatures have increased during the last century. Diurnal variations decreased from 1900 to 1987, and then increased; this increase is significant but not understood. The period of 1753 to 1850 is marked by sudden drops in land surface temperature that are coincident with known volcanism; the response function is approximately 1.5 ± 0.5°C per 100 Tg of atmospheric sulfate. This volcanism, combined with a simple proxy for anthropogenic effects (logarithm of the CO2 concentration), reproduces much of the variation in the land surface temperature record; the fit is not improved by the addition of a solar forcing term. Thus, for this very simple model, solar forcing does not appear to contribute to the observed global warming of the past 250 years; the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic proxy. The residual variations include interannual and multi-decadal variability very similar to that of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Full paper here: http://www.scitechnol.com/GIGS/GIGS-1-101.pdf http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/19/berkeley-earth-finally-makes-peer-review/ David Davidovics says: January 19, 2013 at 6:45 pm Anthony, If the following link is true, it would certainly explain why you haven’t heard of this scientific journal before. It was launched in 2012: http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/05/05/omics-publishing-launches-new-brand-with-53-journal-titles/ Quote from link: “India-based OMICS Publishing Group has just launched a new brand of scholarly journals called “SciTechnol.” This new OMICS brand lists 53 new journals, though none has any content yet. We learned of this new launch because the company is currently spamming tens of thousands of academics, hoping to recruit some of them for the new journals’ editorial boards. “ .... Pointman says: January 19, 2013 at 6:55 pm Oh dearie me, and I thought they’d long ago published something. It was probably that those blizzards of press releases and interviews somehow left me with the impression that Muller had finally got something into a journal. Interesting though whose names are not on it … http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/06/22/mullering-the-data/ Pointman ..... john robertson says: January 19, 2013 at 6:58 pm Correct me if I’m out to lunch, but did Phil Jones not lose the CRU raw data and the MET was still promising to reconstruct that record? Or did that get done? ........ SteveB says: January 19, 2013 at 8:26 pm Hmm. The OMICS Publishing Group has been accused, in the past, of being “a predatory Open Access publisher” and “of tacitly saying it will publish anything”. http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/open-access-interviews-omics-publishing.html ...... MangoChutney says: January 20, 2013 at 4:25 am An interview with OMICS Publishing Group’s Srinu Babu Gedela http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/OMICSb.pdf Nevertheless, OMICS has published at least one article that even OMICS itself accepts should never have appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. So we can now make that 2 articles. Yes, OMICS operates an author-pays business model and authors are invoiced in relation to the funding available to them. In practice, this means that we provide complete waivers, or discounts of up to 90%, for some articles — depending on the request/research, and the effort the author has put into the respective article. Right now out of every ten articles, two will get a waiver, and another four will get a discount. Perhaps this is the answer to the question who paid and how it passed “peer” review having failed peer review in a real science journal I wonder what cAGWers will make of this publication when they constantly claim sceptics can only publish in crap journals .............. MangoChutney says: January 20, 2013 at 4:45 am More on OMICS owner of the journal: http://www.jfdp.org/forum/forum_docs/1013jfdp1040_1_032912094346.pdf OMICS offer a 21 day turn around, so it appears Muller used this journal to ensure publication will be in time for final submissions to the IPCC “The quality of work in the OMICS journals appears to vary widely. The company says that it rejects 30 percent of submissions due to poor quality and that each article is reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers, except for “rare cases” in which only one person reviews an article. But in some cases, that peer-review process does not appear to have happened. Last year, for example, the company’s Journal of Earth Science & Climatic Change published a paper that suggested a causal link between Stonehenge and global climate change. The paper was written by Otis D. Williams, a Detroit man with a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice who says he taught himself physics and biology in the past 10 years. In the published paper, Mr. Williams posits that Earth is literally a living organism and that Stonehenge is evidence of an infection on the European continent. Global climate change, he argues, is Earth’s immune system responding to the infection with “fever and chills.”" OMICS also publishes papers without permission. .......... MangoChutney says: January 20, 2013 at 5:22 am Ed MacAulay says: January 19, 2013 at 6:55 pm “..the entire change can be modeled by a sum of volcanism and a single anthropogenic proxy.”…. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joanne Nova showed how global warming was attributable to price rises in American Stamps: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/05/shock-global-temperatures-driven-by-us-postal-charges/