• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New Paper Finds Climate Sensitivity to be Only 0.43 degrees C

Lord of Planar said:
The list was a generalized list. There was nothing specific the Scientific Online, only that is was in the section that included "possible."

I suggest you pick up any dictionary you prefer and look up the meaning of "possible."
Click to expand...

Like I said, the evidence is glaringly obvious to any unbiased observer.

And I think it's pretty clear now what kind of observer you are.
 
Threegoofs said:
Like I said, the evidence is glaringly obvious to any unbiased observer.

And I think it's pretty clear now what kind of observer you are.
Click to expand...

That list was made by a librarian

In one thread, you berate a weatherman for not having the formal education in what he speaks of, and here, you believe a librarian knows if a publication is valid or not.

You sure are good for a laugh!
 
Lord of Planar said:
That list was made by a librarian

In one thread, you berate a weatherman for not having the formal education in what he speaks of, and here, you believe a librarian knows if a publication is valid or not.

You sure are good for a laugh!
Click to expand...

Yes. There was a list. Also some other stuff, including the background of the journal. You must have 'missed' that.

Like I said, any unbiased observer who has an inkling of scientific publishing today would know that the journal is trash.
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes. There was a list. Also some other stuff, including the background of the journal. You must have 'missed' that.

Like I said, any unbiased observer who has an inkling of scientific publishing today would know that the journal is trash.
Click to expand...

I didn't miss any of it. I just don't assume like you do.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That list was made by a librarian

In one thread, you berate a weatherman for not having the formal education in what he speaks of, and here, you believe a librarian knows if a publication is valid or not.

You sure are good for a laugh!
Click to expand...

You take denial to a new level. Jeffrey Beal isn't just some local county librarian, he is an Assistant Professor at Colorado University and this IS his field of expertise.

There are articles about him and his research into predatory publishers in Nature:


Predatory publishers are corrupting open access : Nature News & Comment

Investigating journals: The dark side of publishing : Nature News & Comment


You ignored the fact that their entire website is so poorly written, it's a joke. I already linked to their FAQ. Try reading it for a good laugh. All their "Journals" look the same. They use the same out-of-the-box template. Try actually looking at some of their "Journals", their editorial boards, and the poor quality of the papers.

You also ignore the evidence that Scientific Online Publishing has 2 fake addresses in the States (it's rather obvious they are actually based in India where most of the predatory pay-to-publish Open Source Journals seem to be popping up).

http://www.scipublish.com/about

Register Address: 5668 E. 61st Street Commerce, CA 90040, UNITED STATES
Service Address: 498 W. Alton St., Nashville, IL 62263, UNITED STATES

Their Service address is a residential home in Nashville Illinois which is also the address of a Chinese company which sells anti-corrosive paint:

SINA COVA - Reviews & Brand Information - Fangdai Wen nashville, IL - Serial Number: 86002760

Here's a Google Earth view of the address. It's the small house with the badly paved driveway.
SOP-IL.webp

Their Registry address is to a generic address occupied by Attorneys Corporation Service Inc - a company that specialise in do-it-yourself Corporation Kits. Do you know what that is?

SOP.webp


How much more evidence do you need that these publishers are shonky?
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
And I find your slanderous statement of a publisher without evidence something to be IGNORED, maybe along with you?

Is slander part of your moral character?
Click to expand...
I provided the evidence. Is telling bald-faced lies part of your moral character?

Lord of Planar said:
Sorry you lack the ability to comprehend.
Click to expand...
Sorry you lack the ability to be honest.

Lord of Planar said:
Me?

When have I referenced Watts?

You are imagining things. What are you high on?
Click to expand...

You are clearly a fanboi of Watts and his climate science denier/conspiracy blog >>

Lord of Planar said:
They are inaccurate agenda driven blogs that chronically uses weasel words. I'm sorry you don't have the understanding in the applicable sciences to see that. At least Anthony Watts well sources ALL of his material.
Click to expand...
Yes, Watts sources most of his material from other denier blogs. It's rare that he links to an actual Journal article but when he does he usually misrepresents it or just doesn't understand it. The comments from his rabid pack of conspiracy worshippers are often very entertaining - not that they mean to be.

Lord of Planar said:
No, I do understand. I don't post such links myself very much because you guys are so repelled by blogs. That's why I follow the source material to comment on if I do. It helps keep you deniers of true science from flat out denying science. Watts is a very good blog compared to those on the religious alarmist side of view. Watts uses multiple links to easily confirm what he is saying.
Click to expand...
You've shown that you're not very good at checking sources or judging whether something is complete crap or not.
 
Last edited:
Verax said:
I'm so confused, is that link supposed to discredit Beall? Because it sure seems like it positively confirms everything in spades... ???
Click to expand...

LOL. Apparently, to LoP, he thinks librarians are all the same, from the childrens librarian at a local village to the guy who is clearly going to go to Associate Professor with multiple publications on Library Science, which these days would also be known as Information Science. And it sure looks like the guy can spot a shoddy journal when he sees one, unlike certain posters who dont have any background in library science.
 
Threegoofs said:
LOL. Apparently, to LoP, he thinks librarians are all the same, from the childrens librarian at a local village to the guy who is clearly going to go to Associate Professor with multiple publications on Library Science, which these days would also be known as Information Science. And it sure looks like the guy can spot a shoddy journal when he sees one, unlike certain posters who dont have any background in library science.
Click to expand...

You would think this would all be clear from a cursory inspection... bias is a hell of a drug.
 
Verax said:
You would think this would all be clear from a cursory inspection... bias is a hell of a drug.
Click to expand...

There's something in this for both sides. He's at UC Denver, not UC Boulder (the main and more prestigious campus). But he's an Associate Professor, not a mere Assistant Professor.
 
Jack Hays said:
There's something in this for both sides. He's at UC Denver, not UC Boulder (the main and more prestigious campus). But he's an Associate Professor, not a mere Assistant Professor.
Click to expand...

UC Denver is actually the Medical Center campus (primarily), and therefore is on par with Boulder. I would imagine this particular prof has an interest in medical journals, since that is a major area of scientific publishing, and in particular, bad and dangerous scientific publishing.
 
Threegoofs said:
UC Denver is actually the Medical Center campus (primarily), and therefore is on par with Boulder. I would imagine this particular prof has an interest in medical journals, since that is a major area of scientific publishing, and in particular, bad and dangerous scientific publishing.
Click to expand...

UC Denver is a specialty campus. Outside that specialty it's just a commuter and night school campus.
 
If anyone is interested in Beall and his (very well regarded and you might even say famous) list, you can read about it in wikipedia under 'Predatory journals".

Sounds like this paper was a prime candidate to criticize based upon the publication in a predatory journal.

Predatory open access publishing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I liked this part. I forgot about this story:

Preceding Beall's efforts was the well-known case of a manuscript consisting of computer-generated nonsense submitted by a Cornell graduate student, Phil Davis, which was accepted (but withdrawn by the author) for a fee by one of the open-access publishers now included on Beall's List.[5]
Click to expand...

I bet it would have been accepted on Anthony Watts blog! (of course, it must have criticized AGW though).
 
Threegoofs said:
If anyone is interested in Beall and his (very well regarded and you might even say famous) list, you can read about it in wikipedia under 'Predatory journals".

Sounds like this paper was a prime candidate to criticize based upon the publication in a predatory journal.

Predatory open access publishing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I liked this part. I forgot about this story:

I bet it would have been accepted on Anthony Watts blog! (of course, it must have criticized AGW though).
Click to expand...

The only recourse left is to dismiss the entire predatory publishing construct as a liberal backslapping circle, corrupted by those librarian wages.
 
Threegoofs said:
If anyone is interested in Beall and his (very well regarded and you might even say famous) list, you can read about it in wikipedia under 'Predatory journals".

Sounds like this paper was a prime candidate to criticize based upon the publication in a predatory journal.

Predatory open access publishing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I liked this part. I forgot about this story:



I bet it would have been accepted on Anthony Watts blog! (of course, it must have criticized AGW though).
Click to expand...

Even the most prominent academics are sometimes easy prey. Sokal and Jean Bricmont later set out more examples in their book, Fashionable Nonsense.

[h=3]Sokal affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affairWikipedia


The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax, was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan .... The anthropologist Bruno Latour, criticized in Fashionable Nonsense: ..... Alan Sokal Articles on the Social Text Affair Alan Sokal's own page with very ...
 
Jack Hays said:
Even the most prominent academics are sometimes easy prey. Sokal and Jean Bricmont later set out more examples in their book, Fashionable Nonsense.

[h=3]Sokal affair - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/h]en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affairWikipedia


The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax, was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan .... The anthropologist Bruno Latour, criticized in Fashionable Nonsense: ..... Alan Sokal Articles on the Social Text Affair Alan Sokal's own page with very ...
Click to expand...


Well... no.

That refers to a commentary on science, which would be considered humanities, or maybe 'soft' science. Its full of BS - thats what they do.

This article was hard science, and any qualified academic would be rightly embarassed to publish in it that journal. But it fools some people, I guess.
 
Threegoofs said:
Well... no.

That refers to a commentary on science, which would be considered humanities, or maybe 'soft' science. Its full of BS - thats what they do.

This article was hard science, and any qualified academic would be rightly embarassed to publish in it that journal. But it fools some people, I guess.
Click to expand...

So assured, so uninformed . . . . :shrug:
 
Verax said:
I'm so confused, is that link supposed to discredit Beall? Because it sure seems like it positively confirms everything in spades... ???
Click to expand...

How does being an associate professor make him an expert at determining that paper?
 
Threegoofs said:
If anyone is interested in Beall and his (very well regarded and you might even say famous) list, you can read about it in wikipedia under 'Predatory journals".

Sounds like this paper was a prime candidate to criticize based upon the publication in a predatory journal.

Predatory open access publishing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I liked this part. I forgot about this story:



I bet it would have been accepted on Anthony Watts blog! (of course, it must have criticized AGW though).
Click to expand...

But you don't know for sure.

Two lists were generated, and Scientific Online was not on the "bad" list. It was only put on the list that included "possible" meaning absolutely no bad information came form any investigation, except it was in the same class as these others.
 
:wow:

 
At the end of the day after the appeals to authority, the criticism of the publisher ect,
Harde paper still moves Science forward. His model, while simple included things not seen,
or at least not discussed with the other models.
Free CO2 in the atmosphere would cause a reduced mean free path as the altitude increased.
During the day incoming solar energy would leave more CO2 in an excited state and reduce their chances
of absorbing ground emissions, ( a sort of population inversion something a laser spectroscopist would consider).
What do we really know about CO2 sensitivity?
We know that the 1.2C number from the IPCC is from Baede, et al, and is based on a doubling of CO2
causing a reduction of energy out by 4 watts per meter squared.
We have observed a .8 C increase in average Global temperatures since 1880.
CO2 has increased from 280 ppm to 400 ppm in that same time.
Weather you plot it on a graph or calculate it, at 42% towards doubling CO2,
the effects should be just above 50% of the total,(about .6C).
This would leave only .2 C over 133 years for all of the other variables known and unknown.
Harde may not be accurate about CO2's sensitivity, but he is likely correct
that the 1.2C number is too high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom