Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 11041 - 11060 of total 21516 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 28, 2013 - 01:53pm PT
Ed did you hear the one about the FALSE paper being sent for review that was accepted by MANY?



http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2013/10/18/fake-research-paper-accepted-into-hundreds-of-online-journals-open-access-peer-review-process-is-a-joke/




Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 28, 2013 - 02:03pm PT
Ron, it happens I did just read that paper, it's in the issue of Oct 4 Science. Very interesting paper. But I'm gonna guess that you did not read it, and don't understand what hypothesis the author was testing, or what he found out. Think you do? Take a shot.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 28, 2013 - 02:04pm PT
Hhehe Chief,, i guess turn about is fair play..


And SHEEEESH Men,, even BERKELEY is thrashing the peer review processes.. NOW YOU KNOW its bad lol!;-)


http://blogs.berkeley.edu/2013/10/04/open-access-is-not-the-problem/





edit : And Chiloe,, No m not going to read that bogus paper, as that had NOTHING to do with my post in and of itself eh.

.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 28, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
Ok fartmental.. Let me clear it up for you,, that paper had NOTHING to do with my post OTHER THAN its falseness and the fact it was accepted. Thats what i was refrencing after all- the PEER REVIEW process. Not the individual paper. So in your zest to demean and insult,, youve made yourself clearly the stooge here.

I will submit a paper for peer review on this for a consensus AMONG MY GOOD OL BOYEEE GROUP.. How do you think it will go?
raymond phule

climber
Oct 28, 2013 - 02:38pm PT
Ron once again show a very impressive understanding of something...

How is it possible to be wrong all the time?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 28, 2013 - 02:43pm PT
do elaborate RAYmund.

Tell me where i was "wrong" about one thing in one post this am. Please be SPECIFIC or STFU.



and Bruce RED state?? I WISH! back to bent nails for you..
raymond phule

climber
Oct 28, 2013 - 02:50pm PT
You just completely missed for example Chiloe's point. I should try to explain.

Someone (Buhannon?) wrote a fake paper and send it to a group of journals.

He then wrote a serious paper that was published in "science" about his findings.

You draw a incorrect conclusion about that paper.

Chiloe has read the paper in science and asked you to read it.

You thought he meant the fake paper.

The serious paper published in "science" have information that show that your first conclusion of that paper are wrong.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 28, 2013 - 02:55pm PT
that paper had NOTHING to do with my post OTHER THAN its falseness

Ron, you could not sound more witless if you held your breath until you turned blue. "That paper" is not the fake paper that was accepted, "that paper" was about the fake paper that was accepted. Which is the whole point of your post. You're not a reading or thinking man so this still goes over your head, but for others, here's the abstract to "that paper" which has Ron hopelessly befuddled.

Science 4 October 2013:
Vol. 342 no. 6154 pp. 60-65
DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60

Who's Afraid of Peer Review?
John Bohannon

A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals.

On 4 July, good news arrived in the inbox of Ocorrafoo Cobange, a biologist at the Wassee Institute of Medicine in Asmara. It was the official letter of acceptance for a paper he had submitted 2 months earlier to the Journal of Natural Pharmaceuticals, describing the anticancer properties of a chemical that Cobange had extracted from a lichen.

In fact, it should have been promptly rejected. Any reviewer with more than a high-school knowledge of chemistry and the ability to understand a basic data plot should have spotted the paper's short-comings immediately. Its experiments are so hopelessly flawed that the results are meaningless.

I know because I wrote the paper. Ocorrafoo Cobange does not exist, nor does the Wassee Institute of Medicine. Over the past 10 months, I have submitted 304 versions of the wonder drug paper to open-access journals. More than half of the journals accepted the paper, failing to notice its fatal flaws. Beyond that headline result, the data from this sting operation reveal the contours of an emerging Wild West in academic publishing.

Why did Bohannon run this experiment, and which journals fell for his bait? Anyone (who can read) can learn that by checking out this neat paper themselves.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 28, 2013 - 03:01pm PT
CEEEZUS RICE,,, I KNOW THE FAKE PAPER WASNT THE PAPER


That wasnt even my point. see second link i posted for further clariffication.,. Holeeeeshite.



I feel like im dealing with two deaf duds. IS THIS MIC ON!???




Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 28, 2013 - 03:17pm PT
see second link i posted for further clariffication.,. Holeeeeshite.

Say it in your own words, Ron, clarify your own thinking for us.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 28, 2013 - 03:55pm PT
Bohannon's real paper about a fake paper is part of this thematic issue on "Communication in Science: Pressures and Predators."



We've heard much about pressures but what are these predators? you might wonder. Well, they are what Bohannon is writing about: the new flood of open-access journals [and meetings] that make money by charging the authors. His experiment shows that many such journals just pretend to do peer review. Some really do, however. For example, the respectable PLOS ONE bounced his fake paper.

But OA predators aside, there certainly is room for experiment and reform ideas to improve the process of peer reviews. As someone who has been through this many times as author and as reviewer, I could tell bad stories but also plenty of good ones, where the system worked more or less as it should. Peer review seems necessary to science, and I'm sure there is not one answer to make it all work better.

Peer review is mistakenly described at times as a "gold standard" for whether research is good. It is nothing of the sort, just one step in the process. Closer to a gold standard is whether the research findings can be replicated by other studies (are they real?) and whether they open further research or practical doors (are they useful?).

Publication of peer reviewed papers is in this respect just a first step toward scientific confirmation. And if other scientists give a damn about your topic there will almost certainly be later studies that say something like "Yes, but it's more complicated than that...."
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Oct 28, 2013 - 04:02pm PT
Chief...You don't look so bad all dressed up..RJ
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 28, 2013 - 04:48pm PT
I more than proved this theory of peer review being accepted right here in this thread back a ways, when i suggested to ED that Americans were getting phat due to AGW, and he instantly accepted that proposal saying" you know,, there could be something to that".. BOOOOM,,,"peer reviewed" and "accepted'..Due ONLY to the fact it was yet another angle to bolster ones opinion on AGW..


NOW do you get my point????>?>?>!
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 28, 2013 - 04:53pm PT
NOW do you get my point????>?>?>!

No Ron, you made an idiot of yourself by not understanding what your own cut and paste was about, or what other people meant when they pointed this out to you. In case you've forgotten, here's what you actually wrote. I've bolded your paper references.

Ed did you hear the one about the FALSE paper being sent for review that was accepted by MANY?
edit : And Chiloe,, No m not going to read that bogus paper, as that had NOTHING to do with my post in and of itself eh.
Let me clear it up for you,, that paper had NOTHING to do with my post OTHER THAN its falseness and the fact it was accepted. Thats what i was refrencing after all- the PEER REVIEW process. Not the individual paper. So in your zest to demean and insult,, youve made yourself clearly the stooge here.

But then finally a light dawns and you try to retcon: pretending you knew all along.

CEEEZUS RICE,,, I KNOW THE FAKE PAPER WASNT THE PAPER
That wasnt even my point. see second link i posted for further clariffication.,. Holeeeeshite.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 28, 2013 - 04:55pm PT
its called pre-disposition fart mental.. Id rather be an azzhole than a pussy,, pussy.. Give me your name...


and Chiloe,, you must be sooo smart as to NOT see the forest for the trees.

Really.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 28, 2013 - 04:59pm PT
I'm smart enough to read, Ron. And write.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 28, 2013 - 05:13pm PT
perhaps,, if you ate some logic, you could have logic turds as well FARTmental. Who knows,, some of it might get in your system to stay...
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Oct 28, 2013 - 05:29pm PT
The Chief, your attempt at humor has hit an all time low lately.

Is it your knee jerk reaction to be an as#@&%e and conduct personal attacks when you feel threatened?

Or, are you just an a-hole?

I'm going with the former.

You should be ashamed of yourself. You try to make a point, but your dickish writing makes everyone think that you're a kook with no knowledge who yells like a child when questioned. Apparently, shame or personal responsibility aren't a part of your lexicon.

Why do you bring this derision upon yourself?
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Oct 28, 2013 - 05:32pm PT
Although both are dangerous which group is worse for civilization
- Zombies or Warmists?
Need a government funded study to find out.


Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Oct 28, 2013 - 05:50pm PT
So says the young ZOMBIE BOY who truly believes that the INTERNET is the gospel truth.

Not really. You just seem to be flying off the deep end in this thread.

I'm concerned for you.
Messages 11041 - 11060 of total 21516 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews