tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post439894105891641472..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-78174142198252030082008-10-23T18:49:00.000-04:002008-10-23T18:49:00.000-04:00Hmmm, either Eli agrees with me or he doesn't or m...Hmmm, either Eli agrees with me or he doesn't or maybe some of each :-)<BR/><BR/>I observe that pretentious papers (and really wrong ones) are somewhat "protected" by a 3-month letter-to-editor lag, and the narrow bandwidth accord to letters.<BR/><BR/>If one really wants to have unrefereed "papers", one might publish them as blog topics, and lightly moderate replies, so that dumb things were quickly and exposed to appropriate challenge in the same venue, and all this looked bloggish, rather than looking more like serious publication.<BR/><BR/>===<BR/>These guys were babes in the woods, totally unused to this sort of thing. I still say people should consider APS Fellow Dr Gerald Marsh's role in all this. For his publications on climate, see my lists at:<BR/><A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/langswitch_lang/sp#comment-93523" REL="nofollow">RC #1</A><BR/>and<BR/><A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/langswitch_lang/sp#comment-94048" REL="nofollow">RC #2</A>.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35339869598695727402008-10-22T11:57:00.000-04:002008-10-22T11:57:00.000-04:00yes and no. the forum on physics has always been...yes and no. the forum on physics has always been the home of the pretentious physicists, which given how pretentious physicists are in general says something<BR/><BR/>-ee rabettEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58468185468882297182008-10-21T20:48:00.000-04:002008-10-21T20:48:00.000-04:00These days, a non-peer-reviewed newsletter, with a...These days, a non-peer-reviewed newsletter, with a 3-month turnaround cycle ...<BR/>is an anachronism, and they really need to rethink its role & structure in a Web/Blog era.<BR/><BR/>If anybody else thinks so, let them know.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76157065945651834092008-10-21T11:20:00.000-04:002008-10-21T11:20:00.000-04:00Hey, good point about the real climate wiki, I had...Hey, good point about the real climate wiki, I hadn't checked that out recently. Lots of good stuff there, but there could certainly be more... anybody on this list contributed to that yet?Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-87534850393918878752008-10-20T10:50:00.000-04:002008-10-20T10:50:00.000-04:00Arthur,The best vehicle for what you seek might be...Arthur,<BR/><BR/>The best vehicle for what you seek might be the Real Climate Wiki. OTOH, praise the IPCC and pass the ammunition.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71792804988081230412008-10-20T09:04:00.000-04:002008-10-20T09:04:00.000-04:00Anon has a good point; a simple internet search fo...Anon has a good point; a simple internet search for "Monckton" would have told the editors much, and one wonders if they were so incurious about this alleged 'dark horse' that they did not do it, or whether they did but chose to proceed regardless.<BR/><BR/>Arthur<BR/>While not a place for discussion per se, the realclimate wiki http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki is working to assemble and organize the demonstrations of bunk.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-16320411991811961112008-10-19T16:42:00.000-04:002008-10-19T16:42:00.000-04:00Spencer Weart's article there is the only item in ...Spencer Weart's article there is the only item in the issue that actually addresses the science - and it isn't in any way a direct response to Monckton. I'm a little disappointed (specifically that they didn't publish my piece!) but I'm guessing there was a decision not to induce a long-running debate with back-and-forth from Monckton. So a reasonable decision in the context of the newsletter and the forum.<BR/><BR/>However, even apart from the issue of my own response article, it leaves me somewhat unsatisfied - it seems like there *ought* to be a place to discuss the details of claims like those Monckton makes, perhaps outside of the formal peer review system, or perhaps through some new variant on it. What Jochen Ebel did to Gerlich and Tscheuschner's article here:<BR/><BR/>http://www.ing-buero-ebel.de/Treib/Hauptseite.pdf<BR/><BR/>for instance - wouldn't it be nice to take "papers" like this and subject them to sufficiently exhaustive analysis to demonstrate their level of bunk to all the world? Or perhaps I'm dreaming...Arthurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06249922708053689717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65022293821864061622008-10-18T11:36:00.000-04:002008-10-18T11:36:00.000-04:00These guys are babes in the woods."No they are not...These guys are babes in the woods."<BR/><BR/>No they are not -- at least not the ones who were responsible for printing Monckton's "paper".<BR/><BR/>They understood all too well what they were doing.<BR/><BR/>Anyone with an internet connection and a brain could have discovered all they needed to know about Monckton before they printed his nonsense.<BR/><BR/>I hate to say it, but that "apology" is a bunch of crap.<BR/><BR/>These people think that if they simply issue an apology everything will be hunky dory.<BR/><BR/>No one took any real responsibility for the whole debacle, as far as i can see.<BR/><BR/>Certainly no one got fired at APS as should have happened.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-47939251687098558082008-10-18T09:49:00.000-04:002008-10-18T09:49:00.000-04:00Personally the moment I saw the statement I smelle...Personally the moment I saw the statement I smelled a louse. <BR/><BR/>The claim “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree ..." and they could not find a single physicist among their 40,000 members to write the skeptic paper? Not one? Not even one scientist of any discipline?<BR/><BR/>This begged a much more intriguing question which I asked on various forums at the time, ... whats a really big number that is less than one? <BR/><BR/>Clearly a question for the theoretical mathematicians, but I would like to propose we call this subclass of imaginary numbers "Moncktons".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com