No, you're not entitled to your opinion

TimG · October 8, 2012

Another point that needs to be made. Anyone can publish in a peer reviewed journal. You don't even need a degree. You just have to know what you're talking about. The reviewers that get your manuscript have absolutely no idea who you are or what qualifications you have. They simply look at your arguments and methods and evaluate them.

See post for a description about how this process works in practice.

If you want to make the case everything should be published in peer reviewed journals you need to repudiate alarmists who blacklist journals that publish skeptical papers or who reject papers that are not published in the "correct" journals (meaning has editors that reject skeptical papers). You can't pretend that these abuses do not go on.

cybercoma · October 8, 2012

And what kind of abuses go on with web blogs, Tim? What sort of criticism do you have for them?

TimG · October 9, 2012

And what kind of abuses go on with web blogs, Tim? What sort of criticism do you have for them?

I admit there is a lot of crap that goes on web blogs. But it is not all crap. The abuses of the peer review process in climate science have occurred and for that reason peer review cannot be the primary metric used to separate crap from substance. It is one criteria among many to consider.

cybercoma · October 9, 2012

This is the part where you admit that it's the best metric.

TimG · October 9, 2012

This is the part where you admit that it's the best metric.

Are you going to acknowledge that alarmists have corrupted the peer review process?

Michael Hardner · October 9, 2012

The issue is why is this the case? The op suggests that because the media allow alternate views to be aired. I take the reverse: by failing to distinguish between reasonable skeptics and unreasonable skeptics the alarmists have undermined their own credibility and enhanced the credibility of the unreasonable skeptics.

The only way to address the problem is to allow all views to be heard and have a public debate. At this point the alarmists are going to have to give ground and acknowledge the merits of the reasonable skeptics if they want to rebuild their credibility.

I feel like I see a way through the rocks here - in your identification of reasonable and unreasonable skeptics. At least, I feel that I would agree with you that the unreasonable skeptics were unreasonable.

But, if the public can't distinguish between reasonable and unreasonable skeptics right now, expecting them to figure it out in a debate doesn't make sense to me.

Have you ever seen a debate on evolution ? Creationists have a whole bag of tricks they can use to fool the uninformed - invoking all kinds of obscure cites that the informed debaters can't even respond to.

I don't believe in censorship but I do believe that you have to set up a mechanism to bring informed people into positions of influence. A global warming debate should be so long on dry facts that adherents of 'unreasonable skeptics' would not be able to sit through it, for example. Those who know the facts would find it interesting. My take on it, anyway.

Michael Hardner · October 9, 2012

More "cult of the expert" crap.

You yourself have distinguished between 'reasonable skeptics' and 'unreasonable skeptics' so how are you not part of the 'cult of the expert' problem ?

Michael Hardner · October 9, 2012

This is to say nothing about citizen opinions related to basic politics.

27% of Americans know that PBS takes less than 1% of the budget.

7% thought it was more than 50% of the budget.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/romneys-attack-on-big-bird-sows-confusion-abroad-and-feeds-it-at-home/?smid=tw-share

TimG · October 9, 2012

Have you ever seen a debate on evolution ? Creationists have a whole bag of tricks they can use to fool the uninformed - invoking all kinds of obscure cites that the informed debaters can't even respond to.

My response to creationists is this: science is about trying to explain nature according to predictable rules. The whims of a deity cannot be predicted and therefore have no part of any scientific inquiry. I don't know what the truth is so I can't rule out "intelligent design" and maybe you are right. But I do know that giving up whenever I don't understand something and claiming 'god did it' is not science and should not be considered science.

It is a mistake to claim that evolution can explain everything because it simply can't and trying to take that position in a debate with a creationist is a losing proposition.

The mistake climate scientists make is they want to ignore uncertainty. They want to pretend that their models are irrefutable facts rather than flawed but useful tools. This is not scientific either. If more scientists would simply acknowledge how little they really know they take away many of the arguments used by unreasonable skeptics.

I don't believe in censorship but I do believe that you have to set up a mechanism to bring informed people into positions of influence.

In my opinion a person with an open mind can quickly distinguish between a crank and someone with something useful to say (I you actually listened to Steve McIntyre talk you would never understand why he is so vilified by the establishment). The trouble comes because activists on one side of the debate want to control the message so the try to pressure the media into excluding people who don't support the activists line using the "false balance" argument. This is why I oppose any specific rules or guidelines. I think journalists should err on the side of airing more views than the other way around. Edited October 9, 2012 by TimG

Michael Hardner · October 9, 2012

It is a mistake to claim that evolution can explain everything because it simply can't and trying to take that position in a debate with a creationist is a losing proposition.

The point is that you can't rely on an unknowing public to figure out who is misrepresenting the truth and who is presenting facts in a debate.

In my opinion a person with an open mind can quickly distinguish between a crank and someone with something useful to say (I you actually listened to Steve McIntyre talk you would never understand why he is so vilified by the establishment).

I'm not going to comment on whether or why McIntyre may be vilified. The point is that the public can't be expected to determine what the truth is. They need a proxy.

The trouble comes because activists on one side of the debate want to control the message so the try to pressure the media into excluding people who don't support the activists line using the "false balance" argument. This is why I oppose any specific rules or guidelines. I think journalists should err on the side of airing more views than the other way around.

They don't do this for other areas of science, but in the area where doubt helps industries that are wrapped with the status quo they feel a need to be fair and balanced.

gunrutz · October 9, 2012

When science is still discorvering important things about climate, like the effects the deep oceans have on temperature, how can anyone say that we know for certain what is happening? If important things are still being discovered it is safe to assume others are yet to be investigated, in that case any attitude of certainty is one more based in beliefs then facts. I would like science to say we aren't sure a lot more often, but when you have a political motivation, a crusade to sell to the masses, one that just might be as important as they believe it to be, you must over reach, and when you do, you will be exposed. The road to hell and what not.

Michael Hardner · October 9, 2012

When science is still discorvering important things about climate, like the effects the deep oceans have on temperature, how can anyone say that we know for certain what is happening? If important things are still being discovered it is safe to assume others are yet to be investigated, in that case any attitude of certainty is one more based in beliefs then facts. I would like science to say we aren't sure a lot more often, but when you have a political motivation, a crusade to sell to the masses, one that just might be as important as they believe it to be, you must over reach, and when you do, you will be exposed. The road to hell and what not.

Some of these concerns may be valid, however the science is pretty well known and it's the opponents of the widely accepted theory that have the best reason to sway the debate due to politics.

Just because hippies are annoying, it doesn't mean that environmental science is invalid.

TimG · October 9, 2012

I'm not going to comment on whether or why McIntyre may be vilified. The point is that the public can't be expected to determine what the truth is. They need a proxy.

People listen to people who share their values. So if you want to ensure the public is well informed you need to reach the people in the different social groups that are capable of understanding the issues. These are the people that can read a scientific paper and understand when a establishment scientist is lying through his teeth. When these people go back to their social group and say they know the scientists are lying to protect their ego then they are believed. These are the proxies.

If you want people to adopt a rational view of the science you need to convince the proxies that already exist. You cannot force people to accept proxies that they do not trust.

Edited October 9, 2012 by TimG

bleeding heart · October 10, 2012

People listen to people who share their values. So if you want to ensure the public is well informed you need to reach the people in the different social groups that are capable of understanding the issues. These are the people that can read a scientific paper and understand when a establishment scientist is lying through his teeth. When these people go back to their social group and say they know the scientists are lying to protect their ego then they are believed. These are the proxies.

If you want people to adopt a rational view of the science you need to convince the proxies that already exist. You cannot force people to accept proxies that they do not trust.

You're still adhering to the "cult of the expert" which you elsewhere deride.

I don't blame you, mind; but what's good for the goose....

TimG · October 10, 2012

You're still adhering to the "cult of the expert" which you elsewhere deride.

You clearly don't understand that the 'cult of the expert' refers to use of paper credentials to determine who is entitled to speak on a topic. It does not mean that anyone can speak meaningfully on a topic.

bleeding heart · October 10, 2012

You clearly don't understand that the 'cult of the expert' refers to use of paper credentials to determine who is entitled to speak on a topic. It does not mean that anyone can speak meaningfully on a topic.

No, the "cult of the expert" does not rely on the use of paper credentials, thought that doubtless gives them an added air of respectability.

On the contrary, "cult of the expert" is what "cult of the expert" does.

I mean, surely we're not going to slide analogously into the poster-kraychik tautological abyss, in which everyone who behaves badly is automatically "not conservative"?

TimG · October 10, 2012

No, the "cult of the expert" does not rely on the use of paper credentials, thought that doubtless gives them an added air of respectability.

Considering the fact that I used the words it is rather arrogant to presume to know what I meant by them. You could argue that you don't agree with my definition but that makes your previous post completely nonsensical. Edited October 10, 2012 by TimG

cybercoma · October 11, 2012

You clearly don't understand that the 'cult of the expert' refers to use of paper credentials to determine who is entitled to speak on a topic. It does not mean that anyone can speak meaningfully on a topic.

When reviewers get papers for an academic journal, they have absolutely no idea what the "paper credentials" are of the submitter.

TimG · October 11, 2012

When reviewers get papers for an academic journal, they have absolutely no idea what the "paper credentials" are of the submitter.

The climategate emails shows that is not the case in climate science. Edited October 11, 2012 by TimG

Bonam · October 11, 2012

When reviewers get papers for an academic journal, they have absolutely no idea what the "paper credentials" are of the submitter.

Of course they do.

cybercoma · October 11, 2012

Of course they do.

No. They don't. And to add, if the person that submits the manuscript cites a source that they wrote, their name is removed from those citations are anonymized as well.

Also, you don't need a degree to publish in an academic journal. You just need to write something worth publishing.

Bonam · October 11, 2012

No. They don't. And to add, if the person that submits the manuscript cites a source that they wrote, their name is removed from those citations are anonymized as well.

Have you ever reviewed a paper submitted for review? I have. Let me tell you something. When you are actively doing research in a field, you tend to stay up to date on the experiments and research of other people working in that field. That means the moment you see the name of an experiment, a dataset presented a certain way in a graph, a certain writing style, etc, you immediately know which research group it came out of, which university, and who the lead author is likely to be.

Think about it. If you read one of my typical posts, would you really need to see the "Bonam" label to know it was me who posted it? TimG? Mr. Canada? dre? Michael Hardner? No, you'd know, because you know the way we post, what our positions are, our writing styles, etc. At least, if you are reasonably smart, perceptive, and have a good memory, you'd know these things, and that is true of a large number of scientists.