Looks like the world didn't get the AGW memo...

[Jccarlton]

Here's Dr. Anderson's paper:
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspo ... arths.html
Seems correct to me. At least he knows what energy balance is unlike the computer modelers.

[Stubby]

where was that paper published?

[Schneibster]

Nowhere State University Daily Journal.

The Daily Fail.

Faux Entertainment Channel.

The National Enquirer, in between reports on and Bat-Boy.

[Jccarlton]

where was that paper published?

Anderson didn't say. It might be in prepub or it may be that none of the journals would dare to publish something like this. Knowing the Climate teams habits and what they do to editors who dare to publish heritical papers, that wouldn't surprise me.

[Jccarlton]

A good analysis of how there is no such thing as an average global temperature:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/resear ... p.JNET.pdf
The fact is that temperature is dependent on so many things that a declared average can be nothing more than a statistical number to be used for comparison purposes and even that is a stretch.

[Schneibster]

where was that paper published?

Anderson didn't say.

Like I said, Nowhere State.

Jc here prolly thinks it means Now Here.

[Stubby]

where was that paper published?

Anderson didn't say. It might be in prepub or it may be that none of the journals would dare to publish something like this. Knowing the Climate teams habits and what they do to editors who dare to publish heritical papers, that wouldn't surprise me.

If you don't know if it has been peer reviewed and published, why is it here being used as evidence in an argument? The whole paper might be crap. "Seems correct to me" is not a valid endorsement.

[MSimon]

where was that paper published?

Anderson didn't say. It might be in prepub or it may be that none of the journals would dare to publish something like this. Knowing the Climate teams habits and what they do to editors who dare to publish heritical papers, that wouldn't surprise me.

If you don't know if it has been peer reviewed and published, why is it here being used as evidence in an argument? The whole paper might be crap. "Seems correct to me" is not a valid endorsement.

Peer review is not proof of anything. Reputable science publications are going to open review.

http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2013/10/pee ... lly-broken

[Jccarlton]

where was that paper published?

Anderson didn't say. It might be in prepub or it may be that none of the journals would dare to publish something like this. Knowing the Climate teams habits and what they do to editors who dare to publish heritical papers, that wouldn't surprise me.

If you don't know if it has been peer reviewed and published, why is it here being used as evidence in an argument? The whole paper might be crap. "Seems correct to me" is not a valid endorsement.

Because it DID look correct to me. I do have an engineering degree. I have worked at a nuclear physics lab. I do design analytical instruments. I have been interested in energy topics since I was fifteen. I do read scientific papers all the time. I've been doing that for a very long time. I know that I can spot BS when I see it and if I had you would not have seen the link. I looked over the paper, checked his arguments and they made sense. All the right stuff was there and there weren't any fancy equations and gobbledygook that is usually evidence that the paper is a publish or perish paper. Nor the wrong equations for the matter in consideration. Considering some of the stuff I have seen in nature or other journals I tend to trust my judgment more than I do the peer review process. To say nothing about what I have seen from the climate team. In a fair world the peer review process would work the way it was supposed to and not be a censorship of unpopular ponts of view. Since the process has been proven to be corrupt, you are better to rely on your own judgment than rely on peer review and it's assumed appeals to authority.

[JLawson]

Because it DID look correct to me. I do have an engineering degree. I have worked at a nuclear physics lab. I do design analytical instruments. I have been interested in energy topics since I was fifteen. I do read scientific papers all the time. I've been doing that for a very long time. I know that I can spot BS when I see it and if I had you would not have seen the link. I looked over the paper, checked his arguments and they made sense. All the right stuff was there and there weren't any fancy equations and gobbledygook that is usually evidence that the paper is a publish or perish paper. Nor the wrong equations for the matter in consideration. Considering some of the stuff I have seen in nature or other journals I tend to trust my judgment more than I do the peer review process. To say nothing about what I have seen from the climate team. In a fair world the peer review process would work the way it was supposed to and not be a censorship of unpopular ponts of view. Since the process has been proven to be corrupt, you are better to rely on your own judgment than rely on peer review and it's assumed appeals to authority.

But you're not a 'climate scientist'. I'll bet nobody ever even showed you the super-secret handshake. If you don't know the handshake, your opinion ain't worth squat. /sarc

Just for the record, I value your opinions and analyses highly. Some people's - not so much.

[paperburn1]

Well your right about one thing You got a sweet scope setup at home. Saw the picture on photo bucket

I have an NP-127is, a C-9.25, a Gemini-equipped G-11, a POD observatory on a concrete pad with an embedded post for my mount, and I'm still playing with astrophotography so I haven't yet replaced my megapixel astrocamera.
Unless you have an Astrophysics you don't have anything like my TeleVue, I guarantee it. And I customized the C-9.25 with mirror locks and a JMI two inch Crayford.

The best I got at home is a 6 inch reflector. But I do get to look at High res pictures. (shameless plug warning)
But as your such an enthusiast here is something you might consider joining
http://events.slooh.com/slooh-cooperative-program
Great stored footage and if your a member sometimes you can have a say it where it points next.

[Jccarlton]

Peer review is not proof of anything. Reputable science publications are going to open review.

http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2013/10/pee ... lly-broken[/quote]
This is becoming more and more obvious:
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... ot-trouble

[choff]

The thing I got from the last few sites I looked up was that there's always been more than enough CO2 to absorb all the infrared. The best analogy was, the first 200 ppm CO2 are like two thick blankets on a window blocking the light(standing in for the infrared) trying to get through. Every extra 100 ppm of CO2 you add is another thick blanket on the window and it isn't going to block much that hasn't already been. In essence, we've had all the warming from CO2 we're going to get, and adding more will feed the plants.

[Schneibster]

Peer review is not proof of anything.

Nope, for sure not a scientist of any kind.

Reputable science publications are going to open review.

So Nature or Science is going with open review?

Do tell.

One thing’s for sure, if there’s a sine qua non of an anti-science crank, it’s that he will attack peer review relentlessly, as HIV/AIDS denialist Dean Esmay did. Indeed, in the case of Medical Hypotheses, the lack of peer review let the cranks run free to the point where even Elsevier couldn’t ignore it any more. One thing’s for sure. Peer review may have a lot of defects and blindnesses, but lack of peer review is even worse. It’s no wonder why cranks of all stripes loved Medical Hypotheses.

My emphases.

Source: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2010/ ... er-review/

Some folks won't know who Orac is. He's David Gorski, a cancer surgeon who got tired of watching people die of alternative medicine, one of the foremost debunkers of the anti-vaxxers and at least partially responsible for the downfall of the father of anti-vax, Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield moved to the US to avoid lawsuits and prosecution in the UK; he has been stripped of his license to practice medicine.

And Orac doesn't write on global warming, either, as far as I've ever seen.

Liar deniers always say peer review is broken; the YECs all do it too. I might write Baez and have him add it to the Crackpot Index. 40 points, I'd say.