|Mouse finding holes in Bob's post|
Three updates. Blimey. They might even say it's plain wrong in a minute.
|57 varieties, it says so on the label|
What anti-science folks of all their amazing Heinz 57 varieties misunderstand about peer review is this: it is not about keeping weird and unusual science out of the journals. It is about keeping poor and wrong science out, and making sure what is published is at least scientific, fits in with the well established bits of science and doesn't make such outrageous claims that it teeters on the edge of pseudoscience.
Peer review would, of course, have saved the embarrassment of three corrections within a handful of hours of posting. Those would have been smoothed out at the review stage.
So add this to the list of posts that are showing increasing desperation, are churned out like cornflakes in a never mind the quality, feel the width style climate denier factory. If they are so sure that AGW is wrong, then they have to take the time, the effort and the intellectual capacity and use it to really find out what is wrong. But what does go down at WUWT is grandstanding - trying to see who can hit the top of the tiles in the gents. It's not adult and it's not funny.
|An intellectual disagreement from WUWT|
Actually, Watts is not interested in really changing the post or actually reviewing what gets put on his site by the looks of things. He's interested in a fight. He makes fun and then lets his honchos do the actual beating. Sounds like bullying to me. And there's some people at WUWT for whom this is their sole form of entertainment, it seems. So Watts types this:
A considered piece of writing, I don't think.
Luckily there are some people who actually do know what they are talking about and that, after a bit of a barney, forces update 3:
which leads to this:
|Not the actual Bob blushing|
Should be embarrassing. Not a bit of it. There follows this straight after:
|Not the actual Bob throwing teddy out of pram|
So we have a pretty reasonable post from Steven Mosher followed by an angry one from Bob Tisdale. Just been called out for being wrong - don't like it, na, na, ne, na, nah. Ya, boo, sucks. Steven Mosher says: “Now, If I used re analysis data without disclosing it people would scream bloody murder.”
And you, Steven, are screaming bloody murder and being quite obnoxious about it. See update 3.
In closing this comment, Steven, I await your presentation of my Figures 7 & 8 using the RCP6.0-based model mean. If I have to do it, I won’t be as pleasant in my reply to you as I was with this one.I sense some issues. Know what I mean?
When I make mistakes, Steven, I correct them. Do you?
But this isn't what peer reviewing actually is. This is an argument on your front lawn about what colour the grass is, with someone denying it is green and others, who have training in grass colourology, showing what the reality is. Real scientists interested in the real world and understanding it would have not got it wrong in the first place because they would have spent ages (20 hours - pah) going through the work with care, passing it by colleagues who would have checked the results and made suggestions on how to improve it, before it ever got near a journal editor.
|Somebody not called Bob heading for one of Bob's holes|
Fake scientists are sitting at their laptops and churning this stuff out by the yard. Real scientists are cautious little animals who know that if they put out material with holes this big, they would soon not have a career. Simples.