SC, if you think getting something published in the peer-reviewed literature involves nothing more than buying a round at the Nineteenth Hole, then I strongly suggest you have a go yourself.

Hint: you might be in for a nasty surprise!

Cheers - John

Originally Posted by: TomC 

I would think that to get peer reviewed consensus supporting research published is far far easier than for research that does not support the consensus. And that most probably, has always been the case.

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Do you really think that is the case?  I thought peer review was about checking the robustness of the work, not testing the conclusions against "accepted thinking"?

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Yes, I do think it's the case and is the same across many area's of science. In the climate science arena, the infamous leaked emails made it all too clear that anyone with non consensus research papers, seeking publication, were being denied by co-ordinated actions by leading figures of the AGW consensus. Or have you forgotten that already?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Well I am involved in peer review both giving it and getting it and I disagree. The main problem actually is people not having time to read a paper carefully and still commenting so there is some poor quality reviewing but that is very easy to deal with by the authors.

Originally Posted by: John Mason 

And, of course, Northern Sky is right  - much of the science review process is, as is no doubt, your involvement, Tom, totally above board.

Not so sure about the stem cell issue but in the case of MMR a poor paper (which went against the consensus at the time ) was published and found to be wrong later. I would say that there is concern about very poor and misleading papers getting through peer review in some journals. I do not see evidence of good work being stopped simply because it goes against some consensus. You really have to judge each case or paper on its own merits. I am sure some good work does fal foul of peer review at times but that is often because the authors haven't made their case well enough.

SC, if you think getting something published in the peer-reviewed literature involves nothing more than buying a round at the Nineteenth Hole, then I strongly suggest you have a go yourself.

Hint: you might be in for a nasty surprise!

Cheers - John

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

I would think that to get peer reviewed consensus supporting research published is far far easier than for research that does not support the consensus. And that most probably, has always been the case.

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

Do you really think that is the case?  I thought peer review was about checking the robustness of the work, not testing the conclusions against "accepted thinking"?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Yes, I do think it's the case and is the same accross many area's of science. In the climate science arena, the infamous leaked emails made it all too clear that anyone with non consensus research papers, seeking publication, were being denied by co-ordinated actions by leading figures of the AGW consensus. Or have you forgotten that already?

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Ahh, we're back to conspiracy theory again then?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

No theory, Devonian, the infamous leaked emails make it very, very clear, that leading AGW consensus scientists were co-ordinating their efforts to prevent the publication of non consensus research in peer reviewed publications.

Originally Posted by: John Mason 

Well, I guess I can't stop you reading what you want to into the malicious misinterpretation of some scientist's stolen correspondences by the usual politically far right wing suspects. But, I will tell it how it is .

SC, if you think getting something published in the peer-reviewed literature involves nothing more than buying a round at the Nineteenth Hole, then I strongly suggest you have a go yourself.

Hint: you might be in for a nasty surprise!

Cheers - John

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

I would think that to get peer reviewed consensus supporting research published is far far easier than for research that does not support the consensus. And that most probably, has always been the case.

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

Do you really think that is the case?  I thought peer review was about checking the robustness of the work, not testing the conclusions against "accepted thinking"?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

Yes, I do think it's the case and is the same accross many area's of science. In the climate science arena, the infamous leaked emails made it all too clear that anyone with non consensus research papers, seeking publication, were being denied by co-ordinated actions by leading figures of the AGW consensus. Or have you forgotten that already?

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

Ahh, we're back to conspiracy theory again then?

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

No theory, Devonian, the infamous leaked emails make it very, very clear, that leading AGW consensus scientists were co-ordinating their efforts to prevent the publication of non consensus research in peer reviewed publications.

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Well, I guess I can't stop you reading what you want to into the malicious misinterpretation of some scientist's stolen correspondences by the usual politically far right wing suspects. But, I will tell it how it is .

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

No, I didn't need anyone's interpretation, I read the emails myself. Did you?

Originally Posted by: John Mason 

No - I've done my very best to aviod so doing.

I'm not in the habit of reading other people's post. You might think it's fine, I don't.

So, if your or my PM's were stolen and made public that would be just fine? Sorry, I just can get my head around such thinking.

People obtained scientist's stolen emails, they then put twisted and malicious interpretations to them. If some did that here with PM's that person would be permanently banned and there would be unanimous outrage!

So we are back to this topic again are we?

So, let's be clear on where you stand on the ethics here, just so I understand.  Someone hacks (i.e. breaks through security deliberately and illegally) and steals a large amount of data including private emails.   This 'someone' was very clearly paid or induced to carry out this illegal act and the timing was very deliberately calculated to attempt to undermine the Climate Change meeting. So, the fingerprint of the wealthy and powerful denier/sceptic lobby is all over this action.

So, this stolen data is then released for public access (which also happens to contravene the data protection act, but wer'll pass on that).

You then take the time to read these emails and you conclude that the evidence makes it 'very very clear'.  Well, sorry Polarwind that is just your interpretation.  You simply cannot be 100% certain that anything was deliberate and intended to prevent publication of bona fide solid research. 

Anyhow, you have merely fallen into the intended trap of the denier/sceptic lobby groups by allowing this nonsense to divert attention from the reality, which is that there is plenty of solid evidence of AGW.

I don't think harping back to this rubbish does any good whatsoever and it certainly doesn't improve my opinion of people who have resorted to these tactics and sought to use the information to undermine efforts to address AGW.

Yes, I do think it's the case and is the same accross many area's of science. In the climate science arena, the infamous leaked emails made it all too clear that anyone with non consensus research papers, seeking publication, were being denied by co-ordinated actions by leading figures of the AGW consensus.

And clear it was!

 And neither am I, but these emails are in the public domain and as such are a different matter to that which you suggest. Being in the public domain, for whatever reason, they demonstrate shortcomings which I believe were the subject of apologies from one or more of those involved and these emails are now very much of public interest.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

So, if your or my PM's were stolen and made public that would be just fine? Sorry, I just can get my head around such thinking.

People obtained scientist's stolen emails, they then put twisted and malicious interpretations to them. If some did that here with PM's that person would be permanently banned and there would be unanimous outrage!

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

Give it a rest Dev, your blinkered views are getting more tiresome by the day. You can bleat on all you want about the rights and wrongs of how these e-mails came ito the public domain. But it's the content within them that is the issue, and that my friend shows up how the science is being manipulated to suite the theory. 

Polarwind wrote:

Translation: theft of personal corrspondences is acceptable (and those who protest at such conduct 'bleating') if it can be twisted to find what I want to read. You really are close to a very dodgy rubicon.

Anything goes for the alarmist camp though, vandalising powers stations etc ?
The email release is plainly still a major embarrassment - and rightly so.

No I haven't forgotten - but clearly you didn't get the point.  The emails were stolen and arguably you shouldn't have been looking at them. If someone hands you something that you know has been stolen I assume you hand it back or give it to the police?  Strange that different standards seem to be regarded as acceptable in this instance.

The end does most emphatically NOT justify the means.

So, frankly I don't care what the emails said and even if I did I wouldn't be daft enough to take things out of context.

Maybe you think this is an acceptable way to behave? Clearly you do.  Hence my question about ethics.

Go away Four, we've heard it all before.  Nothing new to add here.

The embarrassment should be with anyone who wants to be associated with theft.

 And neither am I, but these emails are in the public domain and as such are a different matter to that which you suggest. Being in the public domain, for whatever reason, they demonstrate shortcomings which I believe were the subject of apologies from one or more of those involved and these emails are now very much of public interest.

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

So, if your or my PM's were stolen and made public that would be just fine? Sorry, I just can get my head around such thinking.

People obtained scientist's stolen emails, they then put twisted and malicious interpretations to them. If some did that here with PM's that person would be permanently banned and there would be unanimous outrage!

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

Give it a rest Dev, your blinkered views are getting more tiresome by the day. You can bleat on all you want about the rights and wrongs of how these e-mails came ito the public domain. But it's the content within them that is the issue, and that my friend shows up how the science is being manipulated to suite the theory. 

Polarwind wrote:

You think it is OK to steal?

Your determination to clink to anything, however sordid, illegal or irrelevant, in your vain pursuit of the sceptic cause, does you no good.

You have the temerity to tell Dev to give it a rest?

But if the information was obtained illegally then the logic that it shouldn't be considered is irrefutable.  If you tried your line in a court of law you would be laughed out.

"I have here some evidence I stole to try to support my case."

Let me know when you want to try that line and I'll come and watch for amusement value.

When you say "I don't care what the emails said", ..........that says it all, well I thought so, but then you said "I wouldn't be daft enough to take things out of context"  - what arrogance.

Your views are fixed, your conviction is total and above all, apart from the arrogance, it demonstrates your disregard for seeking the truth.

If the information is in the public domain, I think you will find that the law takes a different view of things.

 And neither am I, but these emails are in the public domain and as such are a different matter to that which you suggest. Being in the public domain, for whatever reason, they demonstrate shortcomings which I believe were the subject of apologies from one or more of those involved and these emails are now very much of public interest.

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

So, if your or my PM's were stolen and made public that would be just fine? Sorry, I just can get my head around such thinking.

People obtained scientist's stolen emails, they then put twisted and malicious interpretations to them. If some did that here with PM's that person would be permanently banned and there would be unanimous outrage!

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

Give it a rest Dev, your blinkered views are getting more tiresome by the day. You can bleat on all you want about the rights and wrongs of how these e-mails came ito the public domain. But it's the content within them that is the issue, and that my friend shows up how the science is being manipulated to suite the theory. 

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Translation: theft of personal corrspondences is acceptable (and those who protest at such conduct 'bleating') if it can be twisted to find what I want to read. You really are close to a very dodgy rubicon.

Originally Posted by: Devonian 

"Bleating" Translation: Repetition of correspondents position regarding ethics (and upto a point is reasonable) - but isn't reasonable when repeated (hundreds of times probably) in reply to points that are raised using the information in the emails and with which the poster cannot find an answer and so wishes to avoid answering.

Polarwind wrote:

So, you'd have no problem if someone 'got hold' of (stole) the private emails of people like A. Watts and S. McIntyre? Indeed why don't they, as a gesture of good will, release all their emails? After all, they've nothing to hide - right?

You see where this goes? It's about creating an atmosphere of suspicion. It could be done with Watts and McIntyr but they're, I suspect, rather more clever about covering their tracks than scientists - Watts and McIntyre being political activists and all that.

But, lets not aviod this, please provide an answer as to why Watts and McIntyre keep their emails private. Just what DO they have to hide???

What surprises me is that 'sceptics' seem to want it both ways. They will claim in one breath that 'non-consensus' viewpoints are being supressed and they can't get published, yet in the next will tout the latest 'anti-consensus' paper that got published. Well, are they getting published or not? Someone has even compiled a list of 850 of them: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

True scientific scepticism is advanced when good papers get published that bring new data or new *reasonable* interpretations of data. It therefore seems unfortunate that such a large number of 'anti-consensus' papers don't do this. One recent paper on that list, "Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature" (McLean et al, 2009) has an unsupportable conclusion that ENSO has a large effect on temperature trends - unsupportable because their statistical method removed the temperature trend. There are too many other examples to list. Some of these papers actually do worthwhile work on constraining predictions, explaining inconsistencies and so forth, but to me that's a crucial part of maintaining a 'consensus'.

Taking this to an extreme, another person compiled a list of the ten best 'sceptical' papers:

http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/10/believing-ten-impossible-things-before.html

The thing that jumps out at you is that they can't all be correct. It's explained in fairly rambling fashion in that link. The point is that 'anti-consensus' papers do get published... but they tend to be anti-eachother as well!

Under common law I think that you will find that a breach of confidentiality imposes an obligation on the person disclosing data to take all necessary steps to remedy the breach.

If the information was obtained illegally then it was obtained illegally - you cannot get around that basic point.

Anyway, this is about what is right and what is wrong.  The data was obtained illegally.  I suggest respectfully that anyone with an ounce of decency would know it was wrong to use.

Repeat after me...

The end does not justify the means.

You can wriggle all you like.  You are using illegally obtained information.  It is wrong and you should know it is wrong and no amount of clever words or attempted justifications are going to alter that fact.

The hacking was done to order by sceptics/deniers for the specific purpose of deflecting attention away from the climate change conference.  It was deliberate, it was calculated and I think it was offensive.  It tells us all we need to know about the sheer desperation of the fossil fuel and deranged right wingers to try to stop action being taken to reduce GHGs.

Anyone daft enough to be sucked into this farce deserves no respect.  Sorry, you are completely and utterly in the wrong on this point for all of the reasons I have stated.

I don't suppose 'arrogance' extends to your attitude about law breaking?