No, you're not entitled to your opinion

[Bonam]

Sounds like opinion to me. Sorry but you're not entitled to it. Go to the back of the bus

[TimG]

In other words, you don't know the paper credentials of the submitter, but you make assumptions about who it may be.

The climategate emails had evidence of scientists passing around papers written by skeptics asking for ammunition so they could reject the paper. I assume this happens all of the time since that is what all the alarmists claimed that the climategate emails contained nothing but "scientists being scientists".

Here is one example:

Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc.

http://assassination.../1054756929.txt

So if these kinds of conversations are are regular part of climate science how can you possibly argue that reviewers don't know who wrote the papers that they are reviewing?

Edited October 11, 2012 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Getting the identities of the people whose paper you are reviewing is not typical, which is probably why the person says "some Korean guy and somebody from Berkley" because he doesn't know for sure who it is.

Also, the emails that you posted are pretty typical stuff. He's simply asking the original researcher for the data sets that are criticized in the article he's reviewing, so he can give proper feedback to the person (people) that submitted the original manuscript. He also briefly mentions what the problem is with the article: "it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense." In other words, the original paper criticized the original research without offering anything better in its place.

Your problem, Tim, is that you see the machinations behind the review of a single paper and you throw your hands in the air and say the entire scientific enterprise is useless. This would be the same as hearing about Clement purchasing those gazebos and throwing your hands in the air and saying our entire system of government is useless. You're making a huge unsubstantiated leap. Waldo has already pointed out to you in painful detail the particulars of these emails, so it doesn't need rehashing.

Edited October 11, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

By the bye, this is what people are talking about when they say your credibility is lacking. You got those emails from this source, which would be at home next to the website for the Weekly World News. Conspiracy theories and pseudoscience are exactly the things that don't deserve to be humoured as credible counterpoints to rigorous scientific studies.

[TimG]

Getting the identities of the people whose paper you are reviewing is not typical, which is probably why the person says "some Korean guy and somebody from Berkley" because he doesn't know for sure who it is.

The point is he knew the names which means the review was NOT anonymous. You say it is not typical but you have no evidence to support this assertion. You simply assume because that is what you have been told and you *never* question what you have been told. You are a good little soldier.

And waldo is a blind zealot who cut and pastes talking points. He is not capable of understanding the arguments presented and his posts are largely irrelevant. You also missed the the entire point - I only brought up the emails because it shows that you are wrong: anonymous peer review is often a fiction.

You got those emails from this source, which would be at home next to the website for the Weekly World News.

Pathetic. You know the emails are legitimate so it makes no difference what website I pull them from. The only person's whose credibility is undermined is you who thinks that you can disregard facts because you don't like the website they happen to be posted on. Edited October 11, 2012 by TimG

[bleeding heart]

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.

Yes, I was under a triply false impression: that you don't own words; that you don't get to determine the precise parameters of debate based on this ownership; and that you're not speaking in a hidden code, in which the meaning of terms remains your little secret, to be summoned only when another poster has the temerity to disagree with your selective denotation of matters such as "experts."