Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Alleging 'Malpractice' With Climate Skeptic Papers, Publisher Kills Journal

timothy posted about 9 months ago | from the public-scrutiny dept.

Earth 314

sciencehabit writes "A European publisher today terminated a journal edited by climate change skeptics. The journal, Pattern Recognition in Physics, was started less than a year ago. Problems cropped up soon afterward. In July, Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver, noted 'serious concerns' with Pattern Recognition in Physics. As he wrote on his blog about open-access publishing, Beall found self-plagiarism in the first paper published by the journal. 'In addition,' says another critic, 'the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Killed because of the message (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 9 months ago | (#45994109)

The journal had no problems any other journal did. But evidence that REAL scientists did not all buy into the cultish AGM doomsday thinking could not be allowed to exist.

Sorry, real science. You'll have to take a back-seat a while longer to the politicians.

Meh. (0, Offtopic)

MrEricSir (398214) | about 9 months ago | (#45994209)

0/10. Not very original or funny.

Re:Meh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994285)

Awww, what is this shit, fark now?

Re:Meh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45995109)

Moran!

Re:Meh. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994373)

It's really hard to find much originality in right-wing conspiracy nuts these days. The only one I've read recently is a batch of loons on CNN claiming that the U.S. News & W.R. list of recommended diets has the paleo diet listed tenth as part of a government conspiracy to keep Americans sick in order to benefit the health care industry (and maybe insert something about protecting farmers' profits.)

Re:Killed because of the message (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994229)

Agreed. Practicing scientists know this stuff is par for the course. It could all be assumed fraud until replicated at this point. I know nothing about climate science in particular, actually they seem better at sharing data than other fields.

Re:Killed because of the message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994983)

It wasn't just self-plagarism, it was also "the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing."

Re:Killed because of the message (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45995447)

Well, it is common. Go get your phd to find out.

Re:Killed because of the message (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994235)

So some scientists wrote a paper that warming isn't going up, easily provable fact, and isn't likely to match IPCC predictions, it never has. Because they pointed out some basic provable facts it had to be ended because they couldn't be countered with "science".

When you can't win the debate with facts, I guess censorship is your next best chance of winning. Yep, science isn't what it used to be.

Anonymous Coward (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994301)

Sea level temp. hash't raised much in recent years because we haven't had an el nino year (a year in which heat from the ocean moves into the atmosphere) in recent years, yet we have managed to get year equal or even slightly surpassing the last el nino year. Arguing global warming has ended because of no el nino years is like arguing global warming has ended because winter has not been any warmer the summer 6 months ago.

Re:Killed because of the message (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994277)

oh snap, you did a doody one

Re:Killed because of the message (1, Insightful)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 9 months ago | (#45994311)

there can be no dissenting opinion because the science is SETTLED!

*fist banging*

There is a consensus. Now repeat after me.

There is a consensus.
There is a consensus.
There is a consensus.

Re:Killed because of the message (5, Insightful)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 9 months ago | (#45994469)

That's exactly what they told Galileo.

Re:Killed because of the message (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994513)

Galileo was a dick to the pope. He put a character with the name "Idiotocrotis" or something like that who used the popes arguments in his book. He actually was friends with the pope previously. No one gave Kepler any problems and he was around at the same time.

Interesting blogs on the history of that:
http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html#more

Re:Killed because of the message (2)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 9 months ago | (#45994953)

Galileo was a dick to the pope. He put a character with the name "Idiotocrotis" or something like that who used the popes arguments in his book. He actually was friends with the pope previously. No one gave Kepler any problems and he was around at the same time.

Galileo lived in the Papal states, where the Canon law was the effective civil law and the Pope was the temporal king. Kepler lived in the Holy Roman Empire the Duchy of Wurttemberg, where Roman authority was depised. This fact has the most bearing on their disparate treatment.

Re:Killed because of the message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994989)

Interesting info, thanks. Do you have a source to recommend on the history of astronomy?

Re:Killed because of the message (1)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 9 months ago | (#45995111)

Interesting info, thanks. Do you have a source to recommend on the history of astronomy?

Not me: I looked it up just now and Kepler actually did his work in Denmark with Tycho Brahe and in Graz, but he was the official astronomer to the Holy Roman Empire, so tomato/tomahto.

Re:Killed because of the message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45995149)

This fact has the most bearing on their disparate treatment.

Then it is ok for me to take this as speculation? If you have good background in history I would like to get your opinion on the series of blogposts I mentioned.

Re:Killed because of the message (1, Flamebait)

iluvcapra (782887) | about 9 months ago | (#45994555)

That's exactly what they told Galileo.

...and David Irving, and Peter Duesberg, and L. Ron Hubbard... Truly they will all be proven right!

Re:Killed because of the message (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 9 months ago | (#45994609)

What you're missing is that it's evidence that results in changing the accepted scientific view. If you want to claim an accepted scientific view is incorrect, simply show the evidence. A snarky remark just won't cut it. Sorry.

Re:Killed because of the message (0, Troll)

crutchy (1949900) | about 9 months ago | (#45994951)

What you're missing is that it's evidence that results in changing the accepted scientific view. If you want to claim an accepted scientific view is incorrect, simply show the evidence.

what a load of nonsense.

like like everything else (including religion and politics) it is popularity that results in changing accepted scientific view, mainly because it is popularity that drives scientific funding from governments and educational institutions.

too many scientists rely on the inherent credibility of science to push their own agendas... they come up with a hypothesis and spend a fuckload of taxpayer money trying to prove it and then brag about their nobel prizes and patents whilst the taxpayer who forked out the money for the research in the first place is then forced to pay again to purchase products and services that derive from that research.

science has become as corrupt as any other institution.

Re:Killed because of the message (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 9 months ago | (#45995269)

I said nothing about whether science is or is not corrupt. In either case, when public opinion (or popularity) in science changes, it is due to evidence. Mere innuendo will not change popular opinion -- only solid evidence will do it. It may take some time, as in the cases of tectonic plate theory or H. pylori causing ulcers, but in the end it's the evidence that changed hearts and minds, not mere rhetoric.

Re:Killed because of the message (1)

Oligonicella (659917) | about 9 months ago | (#45995409)

when public opinion (or popularity) in science changes, it is due to evidence

You mean like string theory?

Re:Killed because of the message (3, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 9 months ago | (#45995545)

Yeah, like string theory. Currently, there's no evidence to support string theory, so we don't use it in engineering calculations. We do use Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics, because those theories have lots of evidence to support them. Only highly theoretical physicists take string theory seriously (or really consider it at all), and they all realize it could be completely wrong. That's why they're attempting to devise experiments to test it.

Re:Killed because of the message (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 9 months ago | (#45995465)

Mere innuendo will not change popular opinion -- only solid evidence will do it

you're confusing evidence with propaganda

propaganda is almost always the cause of change in popular opinion... ask any military strategist, politician, priest, etc.

he who controls the media, controls the masses

Re:Killed because of the message (4, Interesting)

laird (2705) | about 9 months ago | (#45995451)

Nope. While you, clearly not understanding science, may not believe it, scientists hold it a virtue to give up positions when they are disproven. So in science, if a popular idea is conclusively disproven, it becomes quite unpopular quite quickly. And this has happened many times in the past. Look, for example, at relativity, which was an "insane" idea when first proposed, but was widely validated by independent researchers, and adopted as the concensus by the scientific community.

When a scientist tries to use their personal agenda using their reputation, what always happens is someone smarter and more right comes along, and being right his research survives peer review and is validated by other researchers, and the guy who was wrong loses. It's happened for centuries. It's not that scientists are angels - the reason the scientific method works is that it assumes that everyone has biases and their own agenda, and the entire system is structured to use people's individual agendas and biases and force them to compete, with whoever's theories are provably correct winning. It's important to understand that, unlike politics, scientific theories can be objectively proven or disproven, by having competing teams try to repeat your research, with strong incentives to prove that you're wrong because they want to beat you. So if your research is right, and nobody can disprove it, your theory wins, and you win. That's happened over and over again for centuries, and it's resulted in constant change in science, as mankind's understanding of the world advances.

Sure, there's corruption. But the scientific method is designed to provide disincentives to corruption, because collectively scientists care about, and reward, truth. For example, if you do flawed research, meaning that your results can't be independently duplicated by others, instead those others come along and disprove your research, and they're rewarded for doing so. If a journal doesn't do proper peer review, then they lose credibility and go out of business. And if an industry (e.g. cigarettes, oil) tries to pay researchers to do corrupt research, they'll find some willing to take the money, but journals have a strong incentive not to publish research that's flawed, because if they publish flawed research they'll lose credibility (which they care quite a bit about), and thus sales. And peer reviewers have a strong incentive not to let flawed research make it past them, because individually they'll lose credibility, and not get paid to do peer reviews in the future. And other scientists have strong incentives to disprove any flawed research that's published, because disproving someone else's research is very impressive. So while the corrupted research may be useful politically (e.g. cigarette companies published lots of quotes from "research" that "proves" that cigarettes didn't cause cancer, letting them sell more cigarettes and give more people cancer for a few more decades), ultimately their research was flawed, often with falsified data, and the authors and journals involved were discredited, while the accurate research survived peer review and other teams' challenges and was proved correct. So the scientific method worked despite all of the money and other incentives that were applied to try to corrupt it.

So no, the scientific method works, and has worked for centuries, and will continue to work as long as scientists are rewarded based on the scientific method.

Re:Killed because of the message (-1, Flamebait)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 9 months ago | (#45995523)

So no, the scientific method works, and has worked for centuries, and will continue to work as long as scientists are rewarded based on the scientific method

Very true. However climate science isn't doing this, they are "hiding the decline" and fudging numbers and silencing critics. Oh and beating other scientists who disagree with them to a pulp with their bare fists. Talking about doing that, at any rate.

Re:Killed because of the message (0)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 9 months ago | (#45995595)

Nope. While you, clearly not understanding science, may not believe it, scientists hold it a virtue to give up positions when they are disproven.

Ah, naiveté.

Seriously, scientists are just as human as the rest of us... and if you think for one moment that they all are eager to watch their professional reputations (and thus careers) go down the toilet just like that?

Sheyah, right.

Re:Killed because of the message (3, Insightful)

PPH (736903) | about 9 months ago | (#45995171)

there can be no dissenting opinion because the science is SETTLED!

Then it isn't real science. Theories are always up for review and revision in the face of new evidence and research.

Yes, there are some people who attempt to re-submit old, refuted work in an attempt to get it into the public record. But others have legitimate complaints in that their original research doesn't get much more that a response of, "Shut up! This has been settled."

Sadly, sometimes one does have to repeat themselves, more slowly and with simpler words to get everyone to understand them.

P.S. I think you forgot your <sarcasm> tags.

Re:Killed because of the message (3, Interesting)

BergZ (1680594) | about 9 months ago | (#45995227)

A scientific consensus forms when almost all scientists within a field of study are convinced, based on the strength of the available evidence, that a theory that is within their field of study is correct.

Global Climate Change has become the consensus position of Climatologists the same way that Evolution has become the consensus position of Biologists and the same way that General Relativity has become the consensus position of Physicists.

Re:Killed because of the message (5, Insightful)

laird (2705) | about 9 months ago | (#45995309)

That's not how science works. There are "revolutions" in science, disproving consensus, regularly. Because in science, popularity isn't relevant, being provably right is what matters. And, if anything, the incentives are strongly towards disproving what everyone believes, because they guy that pulls that off just proved that he's smarter and more right than everyone else, which gets him published, winning awards, etc. Scientists all need to do original research, since they don't publish the other kind, and disproving what everyone believes is HIGHLY original, while agreeing with what everyone believes is true is only marginally valuable, but isn't going to make anyone famous or rich. So you get some really weird theories (relativity, for example, etc.) that overturn the consensus because they're provably right, and amazingly enough, it's a virtue in a scientist that they change their mind when confronted with evidence that disproves their previous beliefs, and a career-ending failure to not to so. So all of the incentives are to disprove consensus, and then when that's successful for other scientists to take up the newly proven position.

Add to that the oil companies paying researchers tons of money to write anything that "disproves" global warming, and the complete lack of peer-reviewed research that disproves global warming probably means that there's not enough support for that position to stand up to any peer review at all.

Heck a publisher TRIED to run a journal dedicated to anti-global-warning research. The fact that they could only find an oil industry hack, and a bunch of "scientists" who used it as an opportunity to hire their buddies, and writers who tried to pass off old work as "original research" doesn't speak well to to the credibility of the people or the research supporting the anti-global-warming position.

Re:Killed because of the message (1, Flamebait)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 9 months ago | (#45994357)

Politics? You mean like the Editor in cheif working for the Algerian petroleum institute? That kind of politics?

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/17/climate-skeptic-journal-shuttered-following-malpractice-in-nepotistic-reviewer-selections/ [retractionwatch.com]

Science is easy when you have your mind made up for you by your employer, and only look for the data your employer wants.

Remember, get ALL your science data from politicians. They'd never ever lie. Nor would people who have a monetary interest in disproving something

Re:Killed because of the message (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994397)

Just like if someone published to continue their career because they just had a kid. They need to publish something and results that go against the status quo or are "negative results" are not "interesting" so they look at stuff enough ways to find something to publish even if they don't believe it. Everyone is biased and has external agendas.

Re:Killed because of the message (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 9 months ago | (#45994599)

Just like if someone published to continue their career because they just had a kid. They need to publish something and results that go against the status quo or are "negative results" are not "interesting" so they look at stuff enough ways to find something to publish even if they don't believe it. Everyone is biased and has external agendas.

But that doesn't address the other issues. Your world would have the child as part of the peer review group for their parent's papers.

Re:Killed because of the message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994699)

No, my world would have science rely on making correct predictions and have competing groups collecting data on the same phenomenon. The LHC teams seem to do the latter, although I am not sure how much competition there really is between the two. It is impossible to get rid of the bias and fraud.

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994881)

The idea that there is no money in Global scepticism is simple untrue. First there are plenty of people who will give you money for poor science that supposedly shoes global warming isn't happening. Secondly if you can do real science putting doubt on global warming, thats not going to suddenly kill any need to study climate.

Re:Killed because of the message (3, Insightful)

laird (2705) | about 9 months ago | (#45995099)

What an odd claim. In the real world, disproving a widely believed theory is a huge success that will make the scientist famous, sell lots of copies of magazines, etc., while doing research that supports what everyone knows doesn't get you much at all. In science, the incentive is _always_ to challenge the status quo. Add in that the oil companies are paying scientists extremely well if they can produce research to disprove global warming, and you'd think that if there was anything to the anti-global-warming theories there would be plenty of proof getting published because people like getting famous and paid well. If, despite all the incentives, there's no credible anti-global-warming research getting published in any scientific journals, that probably means that there's no credible way to support their arguments.

Yes, everyone has biases. That's why the scientific method is designed assuming that everyone has biases, so the truth must be based on facts and on multiple, independent scientists ability to reproduce experiments to validate them. The science doesn't care what your motivations or biases are. And no matter what your biases are, other teams' motivation and bias is to prove that you are wrong. And peer review panels' motivation is to not let any flawed research get published. So everyone's competing agendas end up countering each other, and the truth emerges from that competition, validated as the truth not due to popularity, but due to being able to withstand scrutiny and be validated. In science, popularity doesn't matter, being right matters, and right can be objectively measured.

Pretty much the opposite of politics. Which is probably why politicians can behave in ways that seem so absurd to a scientist, such as by promoting as "truth" something that's clearly not true, but which furthers a personal agenda. Which is effective for politicians, because the truth can't be objectively determined most of the time. But if scientists promote as "truth" something that's clearly not true, but which furthers a personal agenda, someone else comes along, proves that they're right and the first guy is wrong, and the first guy loses and the truth wins. And while individuals are imperfect, the system as a whole works remarkably well, getting us advancing at a remarkable rate scientifically for hundreds of years.

If only someone could work out a system for politics that worked as well...

Re:Killed because of the message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45995199)

That's why the scientific method is designed assuming that everyone has biases, so the truth must be based on facts and on multiple, independent scientists ability to reproduce experiments to validate them.

I agree. Unfortunately that does not happen in practice in my field. It is actively discouraged as "uninteresting" because people think a significant p-value means something is true unless they have prior reason to think otherwise. I do not know in the case of climate research, but no longer assume it to be true.

Re:Killed because of the message (0, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45994769)

Remember, get ALL your science data from politicians. They'd never ever lie. Nor would people who have a monetary interest in disproving something

Lets try flipping that and see how it works.

Remember, many scientists get their funding from politicians. They'd never stretch the truth, nor pervert science according to ideology. Nor would they pursue research out of a monetary interest or exaggerate its importance to keep the money flowing. And if disproving the claim that resulted in receiving most of their funding meant that the funding would then be lost, well then ....

Re:Killed because of the message (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 9 months ago | (#45995159)

Do you really think the entire field of climatology would collapse if AGW were not a threat? I would also think that if there was some good evidence that AGW is not happening that the researcher who provided the evidence would get lots of fame and funding. If politicians wanted to convince the general populace of something, why would they bother paying thousands of scientists worldwide? I don't think the conspiracy theories fly, especially because it would rely on making sure that none of the thousands in on it would blow the whistle. If AGW isn't happening, then only one person need provide the evidence.

Re:Killed because of the message (2, Insightful)

sunyjim (977424) | about 9 months ago | (#45995329)

Yes. Lets try this on for size. We have been coming out of the last ice age for ALL of human history. "An ice age, or more precisely, a glacial age, is a period of long-term reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed "glacial periods" (or alternatively "glacials" or "glaciations" or colloquially as "ice age"), and intermittent warm periods are called "interglacials". Glaciologically, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in the northern and southern hemispheres.[1] By this definition, we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist.[2]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age [wikipedia.org] Once we have said that we know the general slope of temperature has been warmer for a steady 2.6 million years. Yes there is some fluctuation with minor times getting colder or warmer. But global climate not weather over centuries has been warmer and warmer. We know that it will continue in general terms to get warmer than it is currently until there are no glaciers, no sea ice, no ice caps at all. Having said that, and you can check, it's fact. How much would you bet that a trace gas, measured in parts per million, representing 0.04% of the atmosphere and created by humans for perhaps the last 200 years of that 2.6 million years actually has anything at all even slightly to do with why we are coming out of this ice age? If you knew these facts how many scientists would you pay to do research on that trace atmospheric gas and it's affect on long term global climate? Yes climatology would fall apart pretty quickly.

Re:Killed because of the message (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 9 months ago | (#45995455)

I'm sure there's plenty of climatology research to do without considering greenhouse gases at all. It was a serious field of study long before the idea that burning fossil fuels could lead to warming was widely accepted. It's as if you're claiming that astronomy would fall apart if we developed an asteroid shield, or that geology would fall apart if we could stop earthquakes, or that meteorology would fall apart if we could prevent hurricanes.

Re:Killed because of the message (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 9 months ago | (#45995187)

Lets try flipping that and see how it works.

Remember, many scientists get their funding from politicians. They'd never stretch the truth, nor pervert science according to ideology. Nor would they pursue research out of a monetary interest or exaggerate its importance to keep the money flowing. And if disproving the claim that resulted in receiving most of their funding meant that the funding would then be lost, well then ....

Yes. And as humans, scientists are subject to the same shortfalls as the rest of us. It is not common for a scientist to be caught fudging the data, or sometimes total fabrication. Yes, it happens.

But part of the scientific system is to root out any fraud that exists. Professional Librarians take their jobs seriously - it was a librarian who noted the discrepancies involved in this Journal. And self plagiarism and narrow selection of reviewers, as well as heavily vested interests are big red flags.

So the question after turning my argument around, is what are the checks and balances on the people who would determine the truth or lack thereof of a scientific principle based on political motives?

Is there a peer review of politicians who say that Global warming is a hoax?

The same with other "statements ot truth" from politicians - added here not as a false equivalence, but as a political statement that has scientific implications

The world was created by one particular Deity less than 10,000 years ago.

A woman who is legitimately raped has a body function that keeps her from becoming pregnant.

All words from politicians that are a sort of alternative science. One that doesn't seem to have a basis in fact. Or is this just more scientific facts kept from us by those scientists?

I haven't had the chance ot read the papers in question. I'll work at that though. I think that what is needed is instead of the business of what might be called cherry picking, deniers might start out with the premise of why increased percentage of "Greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere does not raise the heat retention of the atmosphere. That would be a good start, and would be the core of any denial of AGW would be a good start. Some solid research that doesn't rely on being employed by a petroleum institute would help also. Solid research, impeccable credentials would be great also.

As for me, I would love for AGW to be false. Let's drill, baby, drill in that case. dig all that coal. Burn that stuff, and away to a glorious future, unfetterd by concerns, Someone without a vested interest in the coal and oil needs to show me that though, because otherwise I'm seeing a money based interest that relies on denial rather than actual research.

Re:Killed because of the message (4, Informative)

bored_engineer (951004) | about 9 months ago | (#45994879)

Apparently, the journal publishes more than just climate articles [pattern-recogn-phys.net] .

I was going to point out that I didn't think much of your conclusion that a geophysicist working for a school that specializes in teaching how to drill for oil should necessarily be viewed as acting in strictly political interests. I also thought that you were being disingenuous in not pointing out that there are two geophysicists, the other from Stockholm, who are co-editors.

That was until I realized that I recognized the name of the editor you don't mention: Nils-Axel Morner [wikipedia.org] . Apparently, among his other talents, he douses water [randi.org] . Instead, I'm going to pull an "ad hominem" out of my hat and suggest that we should be skeptical of a journal edited in part by a water-douser.

Re:Killed because of the message (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 9 months ago | (#45995115)

At first I was "huh? How can you douse water?"
Then I realised you meant *dowse*...

Re:Killed because of the message (1)

bored_engineer (951004) | about 9 months ago | (#45995179)

. . .And I did it twice! :-) Thanks. It's been a long day.

Re:Killed because of the message (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 9 months ago | (#45995273)

Apparently, among his other talents, he douses water [randi.org] . Instead, I'm going to pull an "ad hominem" out of my hat and suggest that we should be skeptical of a journal edited in part by a water-douser.

I didn't mention that - true enough. There are so many red flags on this stuff that it becomes difficult to defend it with a straight face.

If the deniers are going to make any real headway, they are going to have to stop relying on oil company employees and people who might otherwise end up on reality shows right after people who make duck calls or people who cut down trees in swamps. Or have a stock answer of "Ancient Aliens".

As someone who might be sort of in the middle, I would love for the AGW ideas to be disproved. I certainly am not for mountaintopping or running roughshod over th environment, but responsible drilling and mining are okay if they are not making a mess.

I even support Natural gas as a bridge to real sustainable energy. I demand responsible extraction though.

But I'm not political. I've seen enough political dissembling to let me know that I have to be skeptical about everything they say. And I am really, really skeptical about people whose science can be bought.

Re:Killed because of the message (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 9 months ago | (#45994607)

But evidence that REAL scientists did not all buy into the cultish AGM doomsday thinking could not be allowed to exist.

what is AGM?

Re:Killed because of the message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994995)

Ass Gushing Madness

Re:Killed because of the message (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45995025)

if you rtfa, you'll notice that the journal was called "Pattern Recognition in Physics," yet it focused mainly and squarely on arguments against climate change.

If they had instead called it "Pattern Recognition in Historic Climate Patterns," all of us probably would've never heard of this journal.

"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (0)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 9 months ago | (#45994261)

Curious minds want to know what sort of "self-plagarism" in a journal's content rates shutting the journal down.

Re:"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (3, Insightful)

artor3 (1344997) | about 9 months ago | (#45994313)

Curious minds want to know what sort of "self-plagarism" in a journal's content rates shutting the journal down.

Apparently not curious enough to read the fine article.

The editors of the journal copy-pasted from an earlier work without crediting their earlier coworkers. So "Ouadfeul, Aliouane, Hamoudi, Boudella, and Eladj" became just "Ouadfeul and Aliouane".

Re:"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994473)

The editors of the journal copy-pasted from an earlier work without crediting their earlier coworkers.

Not quite. Self-plagiarism is passing off one's own previous work as new work. For example, a college student who reuses a paper from one class to fulfill the requirements of another class. Or, an academic who submits an already published work to another journal.

Re:"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (1)

zidium (2550286) | about 9 months ago | (#45994549)

Wow! That means as a software developer, I must self-plagiarize all the time!

Re:"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | about 9 months ago | (#45994669)

But you aren't presenting that reused code as new research advancing the state of the art of the field, right?

Re:"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (2)

meerling (1487879) | about 9 months ago | (#45994731)

Thank you. I was wondering how the heck you could steal your own writings and pass them off as your own.

Re:"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (4, Informative)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 9 months ago | (#45994491)

Even if it was a single author, just copying from an earlier work is enough to be considered self-plagiarism. You must publish original research.

Re:"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (1)

dmbasso (1052166) | about 9 months ago | (#45994539)

Btw, Stanford has a MOOC titled "Writing in the Sciences", that covers plagiarism and other stuff you should avoid. I highly recommend that course.

Re:"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994679)

How can you publish original research when it's based on e=mc^2... like everything else?

Unique interpretation makes sense in research, but really, what has been original in the last 10 yrs?

Re:"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45995027)

what has been original in the last 10 yrs?

Round corners on handheld devices, according to Apple.

Re:"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (1)

laird (2705) | about 9 months ago | (#45995133)

If it's not original, it's not research. It might be nice writing, but if you're not moving the state of the art forward, you might as well be in Marketing. :-)

Re:"Self-Plagarism"? Care to define that? (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about 9 months ago | (#45995075)

In case anyone wants to know the full extent of the self-plagiarism, here it is [scholarlyoa.com] .

Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994281)

Many conservatives are climate-change skeptics. And many engage in lying about scientific fact in order to 'win' their argument. The first is ignorance, but the second -- think about that sentence. How dumb do you have to be to lie about your own safety in catastrophic situation?

Conservatism has become a joke. They are so caught up in the power of lies, that they have left reality behind.

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994407)

One can easily say the same thing about liberals an GMO's.

No, the issue is there are so many dumbfucks alive today that they actually have power (thanks democracy!)

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (1, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | about 9 months ago | (#45994461)

One can easily say the same thing about liberals an GMO's.

Yep, that's true. But allowing global warming to continue unchecked is far, FAR more harmful than forcing companies to label their GMO products. The two types of anti-science behavior are alike in kind, but not in scale. Only one is threatening human civilization.

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994803)

Yeah you don't talk to GMO activists much..

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (0)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 9 months ago | (#45995141)

FAR more harmful than forcing companies to label their GMO products. The two types of anti-science behavior are alike in kind,

Waaaait... so NOT labeling foods with the types of ingredients they contain... is sound science?

Wut?

Does the sound science also support repealing the rest of the labeling laws already in place?

I guess I'm having a hard time wrapping my unscientific hillbilly brain around that one, slick.

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (2)

artor3 (1344997) | about 9 months ago | (#45995587)

There's no science to support the idea that GMO foods need special warning labels. All the hippy nonsense about "toxins" is born of ignorance.

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (1, Insightful)

zidium (2550286) | about 9 months ago | (#45994583)

Hmm. I'm neither liberal nor conservative, and I do not see the evidence for Anthropogenic Global Warming (tho it does seem as though the Solar system is warming), however, I also see tons of evidence that genetically modified foods are deletrious to the biosphere, human health, etc.

What does that make me?

Re: Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994795)

An idiot.

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994885)

wrong

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994899)

A person who doesn't understand science

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45995029)

"seem as though the solar system is warming"

Oh?

Care to point to anything credible?

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (4, Insightful)

meerling (1487879) | about 9 months ago | (#45995043)

Actually I haven't seen ANY evidence of negative results from genetically modified organisms that has withstood scientific scrutiny.
On the other hand, Global warming has had significant scrutiny, and it still stands with around 100% support with the experts in that field, the climatologists.

After all, if you are asking questions about rocks you consult a geologist, not a dentist. So why are so many people listening to the dentist that disagrees with the worlds climatologists.

I've heard some people say there's a conspiracy. Maybe, but it's not among the scientists. Don't forget that the scientists get nothing from it whether it exists or not, they are dedicated to the scientific principle where the theories must be supported by the evidence, and they often quibble about details and would dearly love to find something to prove everyone else wrong and themselves the founder of a new discovery.

Don't forget that Scientific Journals have to meet certain criteria to be accepted. That criteria is not based on whether or not it makes other scientists happy or sad, but rather that it is properly attributed and backed by evidence. In this case, it also looks like one of the reasons that one got canned was because it was consistently off topic, and with troll articles not backed by evidence. Then there's that whole self-plagiarizing thing. I'm not sure to consider that repeating the same dross while trying to flog it off as new, or doing a bit of circular logic by using yourself as reference for your self is the worst part of this mess, but no matter how you look at it, both are bad and definitely violations of Scientific Journals.
So hey, if you can't follow the rules and meet the requirements, you're going to get bounced. Don't like it? Well maybe you shouldn't have tried to scam the system.

because the journal got cancelled.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45995529)

I find it hilarious that you use that argument about consensus when the big subject is cancelling the journal with a non-conforming viewpoint. Just a little bit of self-lickking ice cream cone we have going on there. We need to crush the anti-science anti-vax and anti-GMO crowd in our party before we worry about pointing out how stupid the republitards look.

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (3, Informative)

hey! (33014) | about 9 months ago | (#45995599)

There is no evidence the solar system is warming. There is plenty of evidence the Earth is warming. There is no evidence that GMO foods *in general* are deleterious to human health, although there may well be specific exceptions. It seems reasonable to assume that the safety of any particular GMO depends on the organism itself and the nature of the modifications made.

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (1)

hey! (33014) | about 9 months ago | (#45995295)

I'm pretty liberal, but I have no problem with GMO per se -- at least as far whether they're safe to eat. I think there were some concerns raised twenty years ago that were worth looking into.

I *do* have a problem with enforcement of IP against farmers whose crops were contaminated by GMO cross-pollination, and forbidding poor farmers from saving seed.

I also have concerns about plants bred to produce insecticidal molecules, not because things like BTI are toxic (they aren't to humans), but because the widespread cultivation of these crops might lead to the development of pesticide resistance. An integrated pest management approach which uses such pesticides only as needed is more likely to preserve their usefulness.

Re:Again, hard to take conservatives seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45995045)

not hard to spot an obama supporter... how's that healthcare.gov website workin' for ya? fucking idiot

Wait- There's More! (3, Informative)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 9 months ago | (#45994319)

It's always interesting to follow the money - The journal’s editor-in-chief, Sid-Ali Ouadfeul, works for the Algerian Petroleum Institute

http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/07/16/recognizing-a-pattern-of-problems-in-pattern-recognition-in-physics/ [scholarlyoa.com]

Then again, there is Retraction Watch in case deniers just want to claim that the scientists are sitting on their billion dollar yachts sipping their mojitos, and selectively killing only articles about global warming - hey, might as well add creationism while we are into denialism.

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/01/17/climate-skeptic-journal-shuttered-following-malpractice-in-nepotistic-reviewer-selections/ [retractionwatch.com]

Re:Wait- There's More! (1, Troll)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#45995095)

Since I think we know that few scientists are billionaires, and yet scientific fraud is documented to exist, you just might be distorting the picture. (I like the bit about, "might as well add creationism while we are into denialism." It really added to your argument. You should have suggested a more sophisticated cocktail for sipping on a "billion dollar yacht" though.) Thank goodness that everyone associated with climate science is clean [weather.com] , eh?

False positives: fraud and misconduct are threatening scientific research [theguardian.com]

The psychologist, who admitted "massaging" the data in some of his papers, resigned from his position in June after being investigated by his university, which had been tipped off by Uri Simonsohn from the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Simonsohn carried out an independent analysis of the data and was suspicious of how perfect many of Smeesters' results seemed when, statistically speaking, there should have been more variation in his measurements.

The case, which led to two scientific papers being retracted, came on the heels of an even bigger fraud, uncovered last year, perpetrated by the Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel. He was found to have fabricated data for years and published it in at least 30 peer-reviewed papers, including a report in the journal Science about how untidy environments may encourage discrimination.

The cases have sent shockwaves through a discipline that was already facing serious questions about plagiarism.

Spring (and Scientific Fraud) Is Busting Out All Over [scientificamerican.com]

Verbeke and Tijdink cast a wide net, with support they received from the Pascal Decroos Fund for Investigative Journalism. They contacted researchers from the medical science faculties of every university in Flanders, sending out more than 2,500 questionnaires and receiving 315 fully completed anonymous responses in return.

The answers startled. Four of the researchers who responded, or 1.3 percent, acknowledged that they had fabricated data at least once during the past three years, misdeeds that may still be unpunished. What’s more, 23, or 7.3 percent, of those who sent back questionnaires had engaged in the quaint term “massaging”—in which data or results were removed to make their work true up with original hypotheses. The roughly 8 percent of fraudulent practices found at the universities in Flanders compared with an average of 2 percent of smelly stuff going on that turned up in a 2009 meta-analysis in PLoS ONE of studies from around the world. .....

Respondents said the publish or die imperative was one of the main reasons for the infractions. The survey found that two thirds of the professors polled ran into excessive pressure to get their work into journals and nearly 70 percent of all of those surveyed had added the name of one author who had not participated in a study.

Study: Scientific research fraud on the rise [cbsnews.com]

Re:Wait- There's More! (0)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 9 months ago | (#45995229)

It's always interesting to follow the money - The journal’s editor-in-chief, Sid-Ali Ouadfeul, works for the Algerian Petroleum Institute

It is good to follow money trails. But I wonder how many people lambasting this journal are noticing the money trail behind GMO crops that leads back to Monsanto. Seems that folks here tend to cherry-pick what science they care to believe, regardless of how tainted it might be.

And (while not pointing fingers at you) the popular belief here seems to be that AGW and GMO are sound, settled science, no matter who pays for the research. I have to just say that that's not a rational or scientific way to develop one's world view.

Re:Wait- There's More! (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 9 months ago | (#45995319)

And (while not pointing fingers at you) the popular belief here seems to be that AGW and GMO are sound, settled science, no matter who pays for the research. I have to just say that that's not a rational or scientific way to develop one's world view.

My thoughs on GMO are that there is more than one type. GMO that simply improves yield under normal conditions, or confers disease resistance is one thing. I have no problem. But GMO that allows us to drench the stuff in pesticide is quite another.

GMO like Roundup Ready is just silly and stupid. Yes, it will kill 99 percent of the "bad" plants for a few years, but then the 1 percent of the plants that weren't killed will then be 100 percent of the plants that would compete with the roundup ready corn. In the meantime, we would be running an experiment on ourselves. And how long before all of the weeds just think of Roundup as a nice cool sip of water? Time for the next pesticide!

Re:Wait- There's More! (4, Interesting)

ApplePy (2703131) | about 9 months ago | (#45995413)

And how long before all of the weeds just think of Roundup as a nice cool sip of water? Time for the next pesticide!

We're already seeing it. Several species of weeds in the midwest (including the already nearly indestructible pigweed and lamb's quarter) have developed not only resistance to Roundup, but a taste for it as a fertilizer. Glyphosate-loving superweeds are not science fiction or theory; they are already reality.

Talk of stronger herbicides is already happening, including the resurrection of Agent Orange:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/07/13/the-escalating-chemical-war-on-weeds/ [counterpunch.org]

Trying to censor decenting opinions is bad science (0, Troll)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 9 months ago | (#45994349)

Full disclosure: I'm one of those 'climate skeptics' that journals are trying to silence. Not that I'm trying to write a paper about it. But the 'debate' about climate change really has started to degenerate into the level of fanaticism in decent years. And this news story is a perfect example of that.

The whole idea of writing a previewed scientific paper is to get your research out there and present it to so that the scientific community as a whole can pick it apart. Call it Darwinian research, if nothing else. And this is done via these journals. But if journals beginning throwing out papers that don't agree with their ideology the entire system starts to go all to shit!

It should not be the job of these editors to weed out dissenting options. What they need to be doing is letting people with 'crazy ideas' embarrasses themselves enough that they go away. If their idea is 'that crazy'.

Re:Trying to censor decenting opinions is bad scie (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994429)

When the whole point of a journal, though, is to only publish one viewpoint of an issue, it ceases to become an academic journal. Those people publishing can always start their own journal or publish to web sites they own, although neither of those options would carry the credibility of publishing into an academic journal would.

Re:Trying to censor decenting opinions is bad scie (4, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | about 9 months ago | (#45994449)

The issue isn't dissent. The issue is malpractice. The authors rehashed their old papers without crediting the old papers' co-authors, and the peer reviewers tampered with the review process to favor their own or colleagues' papers.

Re:Trying to censor decenting opinions is bad scie (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994537)

Full disclosure: I am not one of those 'climate skeptics', and oil companies are trying to silence me. Scientists found out that our pollution is causing temperatures to rise. Oil companies found out that they were the cause. They then began a campaign to discredit 97% of the scientists who study the phenomenon. They bought their own scientists. They pandered to people so desperate to belong to a tribe that they were willing to believe the president was not born in Hawaii (despite a news artice announcing his birth), evolution was a myth (forget science, our literal interpretation of the Bible must be true, or it's disaster for us all!!) and any other self delusion that allowed them to be counted among the rabble.

You seem to be fitting right in.

Re:Trying to censor decenting opinions is bad scie (3, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 9 months ago | (#45994695)

Do you have some evidence that journals are trying to silence climate skeptics? Don't journals publish papers from well-known skeptics such as Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer? If there actually was some sort of conspiracy, I think a skeptic that had good evidence would be able to simply put his papers on the web for all to see, yet I never see any posts pointing me to an article such as that.

Re:Trying to censor decenting opinions is bad scie (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994815)

The whole idea of writing a previewed scientific paper is to get your research out there and present it to so that the scientific community as a whole can pick it apart. Call it Darwinian research, if nothing else. And this is done via these journals. But if journals beginning throwing out papers that don't agree with their ideology the entire system starts to go all to shit!

Apparently you are no scientist or you would know that the point of peer-reviewed journals (not sure what previewed papers are) is to make sure that they are of reasonable quality before they are published. The reviewers, who have experience in the field, review the data collection and analysis techniques used in the paper and look for systemic or logical errors that would lead to incorrect conclusions/reporting. Sometimes the reviewers miss something, limitations of existing equipment and techniques, or an ambiguity in interpretation of the results means further research is indicated, which may invalidate the original paper. The idea is to only waste at most a few people's time (the reviewers') instead of a whole scientific community's, to filter out the the chaff and improve the quality above what would normally found under Sturgeon's Revelation [wikipedia.org] . In theory there's also an earlier filter at the grant submission stage that avoids funding the more obviously flawed proposals, but funding from industry to promote a financially beneficial result bypasses that filter (for prior examples, see research on morbidity caused by tobacco use). Generally climate skeptic papers aren't censored because what they report is unpopular, they are rejected because of blatant or more subtle flaws identified by the reviewers and which the authors are unwilling to correct. Back into the slush pile. Too bad, so sad.

When you have politically/economically sensitive areas, there can be attempts to manipulate the system to promote certain views. It would appear that there were multiple indicators that this was the case with this journal, starting with an editor with strong petroleum industry ties and choices in reviewers that were likely to be one-sided and leading to substandard peer-review.

Many publishers make plenty of money selling subscriptions to journals and collecting publishing fees from researchers. They would prefer to publish journals, so when they discontinue a journal like this it's going to be either

  1. - because distribution is so low as not to be economical/profitable, or
  2. - because misconduct within a particular journal's administration risks compromising the reputation (and circulation) of other journals owned by that publisher, affecting profitability.

The only censorship here is the same kind as that of people who walk away furtively from the loony or the crooked politician haranguing people from his soapbox in the middle of a park.

Posting as Anonymous because I've already moderated.

Re:Trying to censor decenting opinions is bad scie (4, Insightful)

Thangodin (177516) | about 9 months ago | (#45994905)

The issue here is that the ideas have been picked apart long ago by the scientific community. But these journals are not meant to address the scientific community. They exist to provide industrial boilerplate as quote fodder for politicians and pundits. The real target is people who don't know any better. Even when the journal has been discredited, they will still quote it, because few people will know that it has been discredited.

A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth has its boots on. That is the whole point of efforts like these.

Oh my God... (5, Informative)

Nezic (151658) | about 9 months ago | (#45994399)

There were three *entire* sentences that were self-plagiarized? They shouldn't just kill the journal, but the author himself!

The horror.

But seriously, it seems to me that the librarian-blogger is full of himself, and that the publisher may be hyper-sensitive to any form of criticism (or might have people making decisions whose virtually religious views on the topic of climate change align with the librarian, and this was used as an excuse to smack down the journal). Of course that is just supposition.

This instance of self-plagiarism doesn't exactly seem like it was malicious, I imagine it was an oversight that the journal and author(s) would have no problem correcting.

Re:Oh my God... (3, Informative)

GiganticLyingMouth (1691940) | about 9 months ago | (#45994591)

And what about the nepotism in the peer review process? Was that somehow by accident as well?

Re:Oh my God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994793)

That is so common its not worth mentioning (at least in medical research). You find papers with blatant flaws (like axes in figures mislabeled) in the highest tier journals when written by big, well-connected names. It is clear no one has read them carefully. Meanwhile it is hard as hell for anyone else to publish there.

Re:Oh my God... (0)

Alex Mackinnon (2836613) | about 9 months ago | (#45994851)

So, here is a thing - why can not we have access to the raw data the raw photos etc. Why can not we not have open source on the means they use to do the study etc. Why is it that only certain groups get the raw data. If I want to see the wind speed, temp, sun light on May 1st, 1855 (if measured) for all points on the global why is this data not there?

Re:Oh my God... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45995151)

Have you asked for it?

Re:Oh my God... (5, Informative)

laird (2705) | about 9 months ago | (#45995207)

The data is published. The reason that you didn't find what you want is that you apparently didn't bother to look.

Here's a nice data source packaged up so that you can connect to it really easily: http://datamarket.azure.com/dataset/weathertrends/worldwidehistoricalweatherdata [azure.com]

And here's all the US' weather data: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/ [noaa.gov] .

The only person hiding data from you is, apparently, you.

Steaming pile-o-crap (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#45994441)

This post is an incredible steaming pile of feces. So is this site.

Re:Steaming pile-o-crap (0)

i kan reed (749298) | about 9 months ago | (#45994621)

Oh well, guess you can always kill yourself. That solves both problems, right?

Re:Steaming pile-o-crap (0)

sjames (1099) | about 9 months ago | (#45995091)

And yet, here you are, of your own free will.

solution (0)

crutchy (1949900) | about 9 months ago | (#45995087)

the climate skeptic should just publish on wikipedia instead... they don't allow original research there ;-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?