Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo
Yet, they are models...just that...as are the basis of the doomsday predictions of the others that the politicians are so at ease to quote. It seems you missed my comment to Kijana about models.  |
I only read the articles you linked. I supposed it was the only substantial thing in the thread. The days that I read every post in every thread are long gone.
Am I to understand that you admit this particular article is a sloppy piece of work ? I even missed its biggest problem, probably because it's not even hinted at in the article. Where are the physical explanations for IMF 1-4 ? To which natural occurences correspond these "quasi-periodic" functions ? Until there is at least a hypothesis (in the scientific sense) that explains these oscillations and gives a physical basis for their existence, the whole thing is just Masturbating with Maths.
I note that you haven't responded to the actual substance of the critique of the article so far.
This isn't just a 'model'. It's a
lousy model. If you want to use it to suggest that all models are lousy, then that is most unscientific of you. If you want to attack any model that is used as corroborating evidence for climate change, please present it actually and completely, so it can be assessed scientifically and unblemished by any political, popularizing or vulgarizing influences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo
As most of my colleagues are from China, I am not so easily proned to dismiss the work of those from that country or those educated there. I find that they are quite apt at science, otherwise they would not be working with me, nor I with them. I also know that my colleagues in the world would not dismiss my work as having a political agenda because of my location. It is sad that so many who dabble in this particular area are willing to do just that.
|
It's not sloppy because it's Chinese. I observe that it is sloppy because of its scientific failures. Connecting it to its origin is but a consequential hypothesis as to the reason why it is sloppy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo
First of all, Springer is extremely reputable in the biological sciences, chemistry, and the medical sciences. Perhaps others are willing to dismiss this publishing house (who asks for reviewers...they are peer-reviewed journals), but my work would be limited if we allowed politics to dictate what publishers could be cited, rather than reputation based on the quality of the articles. Again, perhaps the political agenda is interfering with the science. Wiley is an American publishing house; so is the ACS (the ice-core article) - should these publishing houses be dismissed as well because the US opposes Kyoto?
|
I know they're peer reviewed. I read the article and most of the publisher's site. However, in these days of extreme specialization, it's -how shall I put this-
unusual to find an article on climatology, done by a Department of Geology, in an edition published by a company that is reputable for "biological sciences, chemistry, and the medical sciences". Why isn't it in a journal for climatology ? Not accepted ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo
Finally, I am obliged to respect copyrights. There would be potential ramifications for me if I violated those rules as we have strict policy at my place of work in this respect. If there is a specific question you have, I would be willing to (and within policy) to post an excerpt when I return to work on Wednesday.
|
Mighty nice of you, but nothing short of the full article would satisfy me. I don't do abridgements, extracts or Executive Summaries. Thanks anyway.