Summer Arctic Ice - Page 16

AlpineZone

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6141516
Results 151 to 157 of 157
  1. #151
    fbrissette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Montreal/Jay Peak
    Posts
    1,385
    Quote Originally Posted by jack97 View Post
    Latest paper published in a peer reviewed journal in statistics shows pauses for the following temperature anomaly data sets;

    RSS (troposhere) 26 years
    UAH (troposhere) 16 years
    HADCRUT4 (surface) 19 years

    if one is interested in the statistic method, here's the author's web page which links it to the paper.

    http://www.rossmckitrick.com/index.html



    Perhaps its time to move the goal post (again).
    Your failure to continuously misunderstand journal papers never ceases to amaze me.

  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by fbrissette View Post
    Your failure to continuously misunderstand journal papers never ceases to amaze me.

    ok... showing your arrogance again, so explain my misunderstanding.


    the cut and paste of his link is here... where is it that I mis understood?

    I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used. R Code to generate the graphs, tables and results is here.


    Last edited by jack97; Sep 2, 2014 at 8:08 PM.
    I rather be @ss noodling

  3. #153
    fbrissette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Montreal/Jay Peak
    Posts
    1,385
    Quote Originally Posted by jack97 View Post
    ok... showing your arrogance again, so explain my misunderstanding.


    the cut and paste of his link is here... where is it that I mis understood?

    I make the duration out to be 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere depending on the data set used. R Code to generate the graphs, tables and results is here.

    Look, seriously, it would take a fairly long message to outline everything that is wrong with the paper you are citing, and honestly, I'm not sure you have the tools nor the will to acknowledge these explanations. So I'm not gonna go into science and I will simply comment on the paper:

    The so called 'peer reviewed' paper you are citing was published in the Open Journal of Statistics, a journal published by a group called Scientific Research Publishing. Sounds good so far ?

    It is an open access journal from a well know 'predatory publisher'. You are likely not familiar with this so go read a little on the topic. I'm giving you wikipedia references but you'll find ample references with a google search.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predato...ess_publishing

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...rch_Publishing

    What this means is that you pay and your paper will be published within 1 week (online) without any peer-review. Publishing such a paper is now pretty much considered a credibility suicide.

    The truth is that unless you're well-versed in the process of writing/reviewing science papers, it has become very difficult to separate good journals from bad ones. And the journal above is not even bad, it is a scam. This has been good for a while to boost publication records but the scam is now widely known and granting agencies now specifically ask to indicate open access journal on academic CVs for this exact reason. This widespread scam (we're talking tens of thousands of journals) is pretty much killing the few existing legit open-access journals.

    For you to cite this paper simply indicates that you are unable to separate good journal from bad ones. And while there are exceptions, good science is almost always published in good journals.

    If this is 'important' work, why was it published in a fraudulent journal ?

  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by fbrissette View Post
    Look, seriously, it would take a fairly long message to outline everything that is wrong with the paper you are citing, and honestly, I'm not sure you have the tools nor the will to acknowledge these explanations. So I'm not gonna go into science and I will simply comment on the paper:

    The so called 'peer reviewed' paper you are citing was published in the Open Journal of Statistics, a journal published by a group called Scientific Research Publishing. Sounds good so far ?

    It is an open access journal from a well know 'predatory publisher'. You are likely not familiar with this so go read a little on the topic. I'm giving you wikipedia references but you'll find ample references with a google search.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predato...ess_publishing

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...rch_Publishing

    What this means is that you pay and your paper will be published within 1 week (online) without any peer-review. Publishing such a paper is now pretty much considered a credibility suicide.

    The truth is that unless you're well-versed in the process of writing/reviewing science papers, it has become very difficult to separate good journals from bad ones. And the journal above is not even bad, it is a scam. This has been good for a while to boost publication records but the scam is now widely known and granting agencies now specifically ask to indicate open access journal on academic CVs for this exact reason. This widespread scam (we're talking tens of thousands of journals) is pretty much killing the few existing legit open-access journals.

    For you to cite this paper simply indicates that you are unable to separate good journal from bad ones. And while there are exceptions, good science is almost always published in good journals.

    If this is 'important' work, why was it published in a fraudulent journal ?
    Other non open journals are corrupt themselves with their review process. There's a fake review system which corrupts the publishing process.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/07/10/scholarly-journal-retracts-60-articles-smashes-peer-review-ring/




    McKitrick's papers will time tested as done with the traditional process. His code and method is free for all to scrutinized. Can't say the same for some climate research paper cited in non open journals.
    Last edited by jack97; Sep 2, 2014 at 10:11 PM.
    I rather be @ss noodling

  5. #155
    latest report from environmental public works committee, US senate minority. It has claims by the doom and gloom alarmist where they are debunked by observations and experiments. Claims and debunked material has been mostly generated by testimony given to congress and are referenced given that they are on the record.

    Some good laughs about some acceleration of temps, how our children will never seen snow again and how sea levels will swamp our society. And those poor polar bears with no sea ice to walk on.

    http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...3-50c7d02fda24
    I rather be @ss noodling

  6. #156
    fbrissette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Montreal/Jay Peak
    Posts
    1,385
    Quote Originally Posted by jack97 View Post
    latest report from environmental public works committee, US senate minority. It has claims by the doom and gloom alarmist where they are debunked by observations and experiments. Claims and debunked material has been mostly generated by testimony given to congress and are referenced given that they are on the record.

    Some good laughs about some acceleration of temps, how our children will never seen snow again and how sea levels will swamp our society. And those poor polar bears with no sea ice to walk on.

    http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/ind...3-50c7d02fda24

    This report is idiotic and on par with many of Al Gore idiotic claims.

    Can't you see that ???

  7. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by fbrissette View Post
    This report is idiotic and on par with many of Al Gore idiotic claims.

    Can't you see that ???
    Care to expand on the ad hominem remark? What part of the senate minority report is as idiotic as the many Al Gore claims?

    Last edited by jack97; Sep 6, 2014 at 7:03 AM.
    I rather be @ss noodling

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:55 AM.