A Better Peer-Review Idea

Alarmists keep telling me to use the peer review process. I am all for that.

Journals should send me articles for review, and I will restore the climate peer-review process to respectability.

Once the process becomes legitimate, then I will publish.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to A Better Peer-Review Idea

  1. gator69 says:

    Sorry Steven, but you are peerless. 😉

    Rats and weasels have many peers upon which they can rely for support.

  2. Jason Calley says:

    Ha! Best laugh I have had today!

    Sadly, “peer review” has become the scientific equivalent of “star chamber”. Thank God for digital information technology! Open review on the Internet is MUCH closer to the true philosophy of science than what “peer review” has become.

  3. Andy DC says:

    Peer review, among people paid to say there is AGW, has absolutely no meaning.

  4. Theyouk says:

    That…was brilliant. (Spit my coffee out and gave a bit of a ‘hurrah’!) Amen to that!

  5. We’re already doing that with our blogs, to the extent it can be done at all right now–which is to say, all we can do is present definitive evidence that their system has brought forth a failed science. They won’t embrace any criticism, much less the actual disproof that has been handed them–and neither will the “lukewarmers” like Spencer, Lindzen, Monckton, Curry, Watts, and many more. (And even you still believe in the radiation transfer theory to calculate global warming from CO2, and I would not pass any paper that argued such wrong-headedness–the Earth is NOT a blackbody emitter, putting out more than the mean incident solar irradiation–390 vs. 342 W/m^2–for one thing. They measure temperature and call it radiation intensity. Really incompetent, totally clueless “science”.) There is NO valid climate science and no competent climate scientists.

    • _Jim says:

      the Earth is NOT a blackbody emitter,

      This needs further clarification otherwise it looks just plain wrong on the surface.

      Can you provide the Planck Curve that best describes the earth’s emitted spectra?

    • Colinjames says:

      I believe the downfall of Kirchoff’s law is relevant to this point. Carbon emissivity actually drops with increase in temperature. At all pressures.

      Pierre Marie Robitaille On The Validity of Kirchoff’s Law- Electric Universe Conference 2014

      • colinjames says:

        It’s actually Stefan’s Law ( the principle that the energy radiated per second by unit area of a black body at thermodynamic temperature T is directly proportional to T- 4th power) that carbon DIOXIDE doesn’t follow. Nor any gas. It actually does drop with temp.

      • _Jim says:

        Hmmm … “Electric Universe Conference” … Hmmm …

      • squid2112 says:

        Thank you for sharing. I had not watched this one yet. Very good presentation. If he is correct, and it certainly appears so on the surface, then there goes the proverbial “green house effect” hypothesis… As I have stated before, the GHE is not possible in this universe, and this discussion further bolsters that claim.

  6. darrylb says:

    How do you spell ‘To Shay’?

  7. talldave2 says:

    According to peer-reviewed research, most peer-reviewed research findings are wrong.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/

    I thank Steve for his gracious willingness to help correct this problem, and I look forward to the improved science that will surely result.

    🙂

  8. Deda Eda says:

    Great article, thanks!

  9. Dave N says:

    Peer-review is meant only to reduce the amount of crap that is published; it’s not a mechanism for divining absolute truth. Sadly, many alarmists will tell you that it is; the irony being that many articles discrediting CAGW theory have been peer-reviewed. Double irony: many alarmists downplay or totally ignore this fact.

    • _Jim says:

      ” Peer-review is meant only to reduce the amount of crap that is published; ”

      Sounds like the editors make use of selected specialists to review material they are not versed or well-versed in … understandable, and as you point out, no Imprimatur as to accuracy or authenticity.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s