10,000-year-old Antarctic ice shelf will disappear by 2020

[jc456]

I'll argue with you until the sun falls out of the sky that is not true. So, I disagree. Peer review makes sure any submitted document meets a specific criteria and scientific is far from the requirement. Dude, we know this, there is now the internet and papers still get published and everyone interested can find out why papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge.

That is so absolutely not true. Where did you get "papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge"? Did you just make that up? Read it in a blog?
I think you have a total naivety about the whole publication process from paper submission, reviewer selection, assessment of reviewers critique, rewrite suggestions another review, and publication decision. If a reviewer wants to reject a paper, he must scientifically support his rejection to the same extent that the paper must be scientifically valid. It more often happens that bad papers get accepted than good papers rejected.

no sir, I scan the internet and go to various sites. Go to Judith Curry site, Climate etc. go read. Go to Watts up with that. Go to any web site that isn't acknowledged for peer review. READ. it isn't that hard to see the patterns.

here's a abstract from her site (Judith Curry)
Peer review is f***ed up
Posted on November 12, 2011 | 308 comments
by Judith Curry But the truth is that peer review as practiced in the 21st century biomedical research poisons science. It is conservative, cumbersome, capricious and intrusive. It slows down the communication of new ideas and discoveries, while failing to accomplish most … Continue reading →

See, I trust her views.

 

[jc456]

I'll argue with you until the sun falls out of the sky that is not true. So, I disagree. Peer review makes sure any submitted document meets a specific criteria and scientific is far from the requirement. Dude, we know this, there is now the internet and papers still get published and everyone interested can find out why papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge.

That is so absolutely not true. Where did you get "papers are rejected and most often it is due to opposing views rather than scientific knowledge"? Did you just make that up? Read it in a blog?

He made it up.

hahahahahahahahahaha go read my last post. bazinga!!!

 

[jc456]

He made it up.

I have to agree with that. The amazing thing about this Environment forum is that some (you know who you are) come up with crap they make up, and shout it with such a force of conviction that it makes it difficult to have a reasonable dialog.
That sort of behavior is so prevalent in conservative circles that Stephen Colbert gave it a name, truthiness.

a quality characterizing a "truth" that a person making an argument or assertion claims to know intuitively "from the gut" or because it "feels right" without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.​

no you come in here with no knowledge of anyone. you pre judge based on your own beliefs. I laugh at jokers like you. You have no desire to know the truth. I do. that's what separates me from you. now, say you're sorry.

 

[jc456]

oh and another abstract from Ms. Curry:

UK SciTech peer review inquiry
Posted on March 17, 2011 | 279 comments
by Judith Curry The UK House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology has launched an inquiry into peer review.

What? Why would anyone do that? It is the most up front organization that survives today!!!! Hahahahahhahahaahahahha. Made up.

 

[bripat9643]

One of many graphs that show lower sea ice in the late 60's, early 70's. Then there was a deluge of sea ice that topped out in 1978. Funny how your alarmist graphs never include the earlier dated material.

Care to explain what that graph is suppose to be showing? Watt? Really? Got anything that is peer reviewed?

do you always ignore what info you get from us? Just curious. how many fnn times have we all said to take your peer review and throw it away. It means absolutely nothing today. The good old boys club is exposed, so it is no longer valuable to the discussion. So, getting back to the OP, I see you didn't have any follow up on the antarctic ice shelf history I provided and lack of validation it gives your beliefs. So, I assume then you agree that there really is no credibility to the 2020 date projection? Good, finally somewhere.

I asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.

hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOL

Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.

Unfortunately that isn't what it does any longer, especially in the case of climatology.

 

[jc456]

oh and here, here is some more made up stuff....

from Nature (weekly journal)
Peer Review Debate Nature

Come now boys, the good ole boys club.

 

[jc456]

Care to explain what that graph is suppose to be showing? Watt? Really? Got anything that is peer reviewed?

do you always ignore what info you get from us? Just curious. how many fnn times have we all said to take your peer review and throw it away. It means absolutely nothing today. The good old boys club is exposed, so it is no longer valuable to the discussion. So, getting back to the OP, I see you didn't have any follow up on the antarctic ice shelf history I provided and lack of validation it gives your beliefs. So, I assume then you agree that there really is no credibility to the 2020 date projection? Good, finally somewhere.

I asked wally a question to which he didn't respond. But others did in spades, and proved that he was having a spas attack with his silly claim. So I left the issue alone because it was already addressed. Of course you want peer review to go away. We can't have people who actually know what they are talking about looking at those papers, can we? Yes, I know it is less expensive for you to hire a mechanic do your brain surgery, but I believe that suicide is still illegal in most states.

hahahahahahaha, Peer review is ok as long as all ideas are allowed. As stated over and over and over on here that isn't how it works today. With the Internet available and other means of getting information at one's finger tips, to disregard opposing views is disingenuous and leaves the public tasting bull shit repeatedly as good ideas and valuable data are pushed aside because opposing ideas and data are not allowed in today's peer review. That's definitely too bad. Valuable input ignored is not good for anyone. But hey, the money can only go the true believers. LOL

Nonsense. Peer review is intended to make sure the paper meets the requirements of the scientific method, not to be used as a sounding board for every crackpot who wants to promote an agenda.

Unfortunately that isn't what it does any longer, especially in the case of climatology.

I love it when they challenge me.

 

[jc456]

You have yet to give us any real info. Just unsupported flap yap and professional liars.

sure i did. can you read and follow along?

 

[Wuwei]

no sir, I scan the internet and go to various sites. Go to Judith Curry site, Climate etc. go read. Go to Watts up with that. Go to any web site that isn't acknowledged for peer review. READ. it isn't that hard to see the patterns.

here's a abstract from her site (Judith Curry)
Peer review is f***ed up
Posted on November 12, 2011 | 308 comments
by Judith Curry But the truth is that peer review as practiced in the 21st century biomedical research poisons science. It is conservative, cumbersome, capricious and intrusive. It slows down the communication of new ideas and discoveries, while failing to accomplish most … Continue reading →

See, I trust her views.

I read what you cited. Poor girl wants her papers published right away. The problem is that the reviewer doesn't just have to read the paper, he has to thoroughly understand it. To get three reviews to respond right away is difficult. If just one lags, the whole process lags. Scientists are often bad writers. Often the english is very poor and the reviewer has to get the author to try a rewrite, or suggest a professional editor. Sometimes he is not a native English speaker. Once the paper is accepted, it has to go into the publication queue. The better journals often have a large backlog. The author doesn't want to submit to a lesser journal because of a lower status.

So Curry has a gripe. I have seen papers that take almost a year to get to final publication. That is necessary to ensure crap doesn't get published.

So my assessment still stands. You have no idea what your are talking about when it comes to peer review.

 

[jc456]

no sir, I scan the internet and go to various sites. Go to Judith Curry site, Climate etc. go read. Go to Watts up with that. Go to any web site that isn't acknowledged for peer review. READ. it isn't that hard to see the patterns.

here's a abstract from her site (Judith Curry)
Peer review is f***ed up
Posted on November 12, 2011 | 308 comments
by Judith Curry But the truth is that peer review as practiced in the 21st century biomedical research poisons science. It is conservative, cumbersome, capricious and intrusive. It slows down the communication of new ideas and discoveries, while failing to accomplish most … Continue reading →

See, I trust her views.

I read what you cited. Poor girl wants her papers published right away. The problem is that the reviewer doesn't just have to read the paper, he has to thoroughly understand it. To get three reviews to respond right away is difficult. If just one lags, the whole process lags. Scientists are often bad writers. Often the english is very poor and the reviewer has to get the author to try a rewrite, or suggest a professional editor. Sometimes he is not a native English speaker. Once the paper is accepted, it has to go into the publication queue. The better journals often have a large backlog. The author doesn't want to submit to a lesser journal because of a lower status.

So Curry has a gripe. I have seen papers that take almost a year to get to final publication. That is necessary to ensure crap doesn't get published.

So my assessment still stands. You have no idea what your are talking about when it comes to peer review.

I never claimed to be a scientist. Yep you're right. However, as you continue to ignore, is that Judith Curry is a very well respected climatologist. Her view is very much respected world wide. For her to claim what it is she does, is evidence that there is a problem. You choose to ignore it like I said. One day it will be blowed up. I'll pump my chest when it does.

Keep that head in the sand there till then.

 

[jc456]

no sir, I scan the internet and go to various sites. Go to Judith Curry site, Climate etc. go read. Go to Watts up with that. Go to any web site that isn't acknowledged for peer review. READ. it isn't that hard to see the patterns.

here's a abstract from her site (Judith Curry)
Peer review is f***ed up
Posted on November 12, 2011 | 308 comments
by Judith Curry But the truth is that peer review as practiced in the 21st century biomedical research poisons science. It is conservative, cumbersome, capricious and intrusive. It slows down the communication of new ideas and discoveries, while failing to accomplish most … Continue reading →

See, I trust her views.

I read what you cited. Poor girl wants her papers published right away. The problem is that the reviewer doesn't just have to read the paper, he has to thoroughly understand it. To get three reviews to respond right away is difficult. If just one lags, the whole process lags. Scientists are often bad writers. Often the english is very poor and the reviewer has to get the author to try a rewrite, or suggest a professional editor. Sometimes he is not a native English speaker. Once the paper is accepted, it has to go into the publication queue. The better journals often have a large backlog. The author doesn't want to submit to a lesser journal because of a lower status.

So Curry has a gripe. I have seen papers that take almost a year to get to final publication. That is necessary to ensure crap doesn't get published.

So my assessment still stands. You have no idea what your are talking about when it comes to peer review.

here additional info off the internet site Nature weekly journal
abstract:
ي
Publishing: The peer-review scam


When a handful of authors were caught reviewing their own papers, it exposed weaknesses in modern publishing systems. Editors are trying to plug the holes.

• Cat Ferguson,
• Adam Marcus
• & Ivan Oransky

26 November 2014

 

[Wuwei]

oh and here, here is some more made up stuff....

from Nature (weekly journal)
Peer Review Debate Nature

Come now boys, the good ole boys club.

Sure peer review is under review. It has been that way for decades. There is always contention between the impatient author and the publisher. Your citing of sites that include the words "peer review" is meaningless unless you give some reason you cite them because often what they say is well known.

 

[jc456]

oh and here, here is some more made up stuff....

from Nature (weekly journal)
Peer Review Debate Nature

Come now boys, the good ole boys club.

Sure peer review is under review. It has been that way for decades. There is always contention between the impatient author and the publisher. Your citing of sites that include the words "peer review" is meaningless unless you give some reason you cite them because often what they say is well known.

you claimed I made it up. I'm waiting for an apology since I did not. I'll add more if you'd like. insulting me is a losers way of posting. You have no idea about me or who I am. I'm quite tired of folks like you who only resort to insults and then think you made a point.

 

[jc456]

oh and here, here is some more made up stuff....

from Nature (weekly journal)
Peer Review Debate Nature

Come now boys, the good ole boys club.

Sure peer review is under review. It has been that way for decades. There is always contention between the impatient author and the publisher. Your citing of sites that include the words "peer review" is meaningless unless you give some reason you cite them because often what they say is well known.

oh, and why it is called the good ole boys club.

 

[Wuwei]

oh, and why it is called the good ole boys club.

Because you choose to call it that out of ignorance of what the process is.

 

[jc456]

oh, and why it is called the good ole boys club.

Because you choose to call it that out of ignorance of what the process is.

right!!!! when they review their own work, that doesn't point to a good ole boy at all. Right?

 

[jc456]

Credit--theguardian--
Link,
Climate change emails between scientists reveal flaws in peer review Fred Pearce Environment The Guardian

abstract:
"Many of the emails reveal strenuous efforts by the mainstream climate scientists to do what outside observers would regard as censoring their critics. And the correspondence raises awkward questions about the effectiveness of peer review – the supposed gold standard of scientific merit – and the operation of the UN's top climate body, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."

 

[jc456]

yep, I made it up!!!!Look how far I got with it.

good ole boy club!!!!

 

[jc456]

back to the OP:
credit NASA:
World of Change Collapse of the Larsen-B Ice Shelf Feature Articles

2002 --abstract:
"In the Southern Hemisphere summer of 2002, scientists monitoring daily satellite images of the Antarctic Peninsula watched in amazement as almost the entire Larsen B Ice Shelf splintered and collapsed in just over one month. They had never witnessed such a large area—3,250 square kilometers, or 1,250 square miles—disintegrate so rapidly."

org man, where is the back pressure run out?

 

[jc456]

a bit off topic, but I think that Norwegian cruise ship that was stuck on the reef off the shore of Bermuda could have used that six feet of extra water in the sea eh?

LOL.