tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post4691471415589669610..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: The Lysistrata Solution - Do not cite, do not quote, do not reviewEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-2034196799597221702017-11-26T21:55:20.649-05:002017-11-26T21:55:20.649-05:00I look forward to a future replete with this kind ...I look forward to a future replete with this kind of thing, as Trump continues to stuff the judiciary with his true believers.<br />https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2017/1002/As-high-court-term-begins-Trump-reshapes-federal-judiciary-from-top-to-bottom<br /><br />If you can't buy the science you want in the free market, sue the bastards who disagree with you.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-24805737764794744052017-11-05T00:25:02.722-04:002017-11-05T00:25:02.722-04:00All of you kindly write to the judge for the purpo...All of you kindly write to the judge for the purpose of explaining that the courts are not how scientific disputes are resolved. Ask that the case be dismissed with prejudice. David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15914145623997712113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-50545515558062181542017-11-03T15:42:52.633-04:002017-11-03T15:42:52.633-04:00Interestingly, but predictably, Jacobson goes afte...Interestingly, but predictably, Jacobson goes after Ken Caldeira claiming a conflict of interest and that KC is a nuclear advocate. <br /><br /><a href="https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira/status/926057588793282562" rel="nofollow">KC retorts:</a><br /><br /><i>I don't prefer nuclear. I prefer anything that works</i><br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-22111318279953318262017-11-03T15:36:04.093-04:002017-11-03T15:36:04.093-04:00Good title, Eli.
A sorry mess that prompted it t...Good title, Eli. <br /><br />A sorry mess that prompted it though. <br /><br />A certain Gavin Schmidt <a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/925825221227147264" rel="nofollow">tweets:</a><br /><br /><i>Using courts to resolve sci issues? Generally a bad idea</i><br /><br /><br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60007750476328329172017-11-03T13:55:04.955-04:002017-11-03T13:55:04.955-04:00Publishing a paper does not mean the journal endor...Publishing a paper does not mean the journal endorses the work, at least not in science. Clearly the response to Jacobson's paper is a legitimate publication. If PNAS refused to let Jacobson comment, there is a problem but that does not warrant a lawsuit.<br /><br />I have no idea of the back story, but Jacobson's reaction seems way over the top.Old_salthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11660908947626378366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77865982041563227402017-11-03T12:43:09.518-04:002017-11-03T12:43:09.518-04:00Heartland is already lawyered up<a href="https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/10/will-real-troglodyte-please-stand-up.html" rel="nofollow">Heartland is already lawyered up</a>THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7213545264193313032017-11-03T10:26:42.153-04:002017-11-03T10:26:42.153-04:00The manditory mediation will be interesting as wil...The manditory mediation will be interesting as will the identity of the mediator Eli Rabrtthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13793489993164786719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-8020326501773271392017-11-03T07:10:11.836-04:002017-11-03T07:10:11.836-04:00I had a close read of both papers when the Clack e...I had a close read of both papers when the Clack et al paper came out and the brou-ha-ha erupted. It was impossible from the papers themselves to see who was more right. But Clack et al essentially accused Jacobsen of gross negligence at the very least. By publishing their paper, PNAS had endorsed those views.<br /><br />I don't think Clack et al proved that Jacobsen's thesis was implausible. Instead, they went at his modelling and assumptions. Without being able to look under the hood of either truck, it's difficult to see who has the bigger motor. Clack et al may have been right, but did not prove that 100% renewables was out of the park, either.<br /><br />This isn't a suit about science per se. It's a suit about process. Jacobsen is right that publishing the paper endorses the criticisms of his work.<br /><br />I think that closed review might be on trial. If that's the case, it's not an Overton window that suggests every review decision can be brought to court. It's whether a submission has a right to be respected until it is brought down on scientific grounds. And it's not clear in this case, that it has.<br /><br />The best way to sort this would be reproducible modelling out in the open, by neutral parties, but that's way outside the review process also.Roger Joneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13558413693023988451noreply@blogger.com