Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Ice age rethink puts warming into context

Expand Messages
  • HappyChopperRecords
    Researchers challenge a fundamental principle of climate science – the effect of Earth s relationship to the sun – but underline that we are still
    Message 1 of 19 , Mar 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Researchers challenge a fundamental principle of climate science – the effect of Earth's relationship to the sun – but underline that we are still reversing what should be a long slow cool-off for the planet. Read more at: http://wp.me/pLahN-tS
    • ourphyl
      When are you going to stop promoting this particular popular science fiction???
      Message 2 of 19 , Mar 5, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        When are you going to stop promoting this particular popular science fiction???

        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@...> wrote:
        >
        > Researchers challenge a fundamental principle of climate science – the effect of Earth's relationship to the sun – but underline that we are still reversing what should be a long slow cool-off for the planet. Read more at: http://wp.me/pLahN-tS
        >
      • HappyChopperRecords
        It s not fiction. If we go by impact factors - which show the frequency with which papers in a journal are cited over a given period of time - Nature is top,
        Message 3 of 19 , Mar 12, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          It's not fiction. If we go by impact factors - which show the frequency with which papers in a journal are cited over a given period of time - Nature is top, when it comes to Earth Science. See this link:

          http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-online/toprankjournalsinearthscience

          Nature's pretty near the top in most fields, in general. That's why I pay it so much attention, as it comes up both in my day job and the blog.

          We can debate whether impact factors are a good way to judge anything, but virtually every scientist wants to get published in Science or Nature. I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise - and even trying further erodes any trust I might have in what you say.

          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:
          >
          > When are you going to stop promoting this particular popular science fiction???
          >
          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
          > >
          > > Researchers challenge a fundamental principle of climate science – the effect of Earth's relationship to the sun – but underline that we are still reversing what should be a long slow cool-off for the planet. Read more at: http://wp.me/pLahN-tS
          > >
          >
        • ourphyl
          My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is still only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal. ... frequency with which papers in a
          Message 4 of 19 , Mar 13, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is still
            only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.


            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
            <happychopperrecords@...> wrote:
            >
            > It's not fiction. If we go by impact factors - which show the
            frequency >with which papers in a >journal are cited over a given period
            of time - >Nature is top, when it comes to Earth Science. >See this
            link:
            >
            >
            http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onlin\
            e/toprankjournalsinearthscience
            <http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onli\
            ne/toprankjournalsinearthscience>


            You and your excellent link make a good case for the popularity of the
            well written articles in top science magazines such as Nature and
            Science. However, I don't see any magazine, no matter how excellent
            it's articles may be, as a "top science journal". For that honor I would
            prefer an offering such as from AGU <http://www.agu.org/pubs/>
            (American Geophysical Union) rather than from NPG
            <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Publishing_Group> (Nature
            Publications Group).


            > Nature's pretty near the top in most fields, in general. That's why I
            pay it so much attention, >as it comes up both in my day job and the
            blog.

            With all due respect, that does not make Nature, or any other
            publication of NPG, a scientific joirnal. Journals require peer review
            by competent specialists rather than (simple) editing

            > We can debate whether impact factors are a good way to judge anything,
            but virtually every >scientist wants to get published in Science or
            Nature.

            Well , yes, but they do so for many different reasons. Publication is
            usually faster, republication easier and cheaper and allows them to
            reach a much bigger and broader audience than the scientists who
            communicate using the more specialized journals. This is very
            important to many climate scientists who believe their results are
            important, not just to specialists, but to humanity as a whole and
            believe the larger audience helps them better spread the word.

            >I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise - and even trying further
            erodes any trust I might >have in what you say.

            Let me say only that publishing science magazines is business, matter
            of fact, - big business. As is true all over the publication industry
            computers used as communication mechanisms are placing great (financial)
            strain on publication resources. So I will argue that if they are doing
            so well as top scientific journals why the search for a new direction
            <http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_jlibrary&view=article&\
            id=3216> ?

            "...Science and Nature have ended their historic battle for the
            world's best basic science articles, agreeing to cease their
            respective publications and co-launch an open-access, online-only
            journal with an innovative democratic peer-review system, sources at
            both journals revealed this morning...."

            cheers

            j




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • lwaynes_world
            Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in any single field, it is respected world wide.
            Message 5 of 19 , Mar 14, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in any single field, it is respected world wide.

              --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              > My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is still
              > only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
              >
              >
              > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
              > <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
              > >
              > > It's not fiction. If we go by impact factors - which show the
              > frequency >with which papers in a >journal are cited over a given period
              > of time - >Nature is top, when it comes to Earth Science. >See this
              > link:
              > >
              > >
              > http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onlin\
              > e/toprankjournalsinearthscience
              > <http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onli\
              > ne/toprankjournalsinearthscience>
              >
              >
              > You and your excellent link make a good case for the popularity of the
              > well written articles in top science magazines such as Nature and
              > Science. However, I don't see any magazine, no matter how excellent
              > it's articles may be, as a "top science journal". For that honor I would
              > prefer an offering such as from AGU <http://www.agu.org/pubs/>
              > (American Geophysical Union) rather than from NPG
              > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Publishing_Group> (Nature
              > Publications Group).
              >
              >
              > > Nature's pretty near the top in most fields, in general. That's why I
              > pay it so much attention, >as it comes up both in my day job and the
              > blog.
              >
              > With all due respect, that does not make Nature, or any other
              > publication of NPG, a scientific joirnal. Journals require peer review
              > by competent specialists rather than (simple) editing
              >
              > > We can debate whether impact factors are a good way to judge anything,
              > but virtually every >scientist wants to get published in Science or
              > Nature.
              >
              > Well , yes, but they do so for many different reasons. Publication is
              > usually faster, republication easier and cheaper and allows them to
              > reach a much bigger and broader audience than the scientists who
              > communicate using the more specialized journals. This is very
              > important to many climate scientists who believe their results are
              > important, not just to specialists, but to humanity as a whole and
              > believe the larger audience helps them better spread the word.
              >
              > >I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise - and even trying further
              > erodes any trust I might >have in what you say.
              >
              > Let me say only that publishing science magazines is business, matter
              > of fact, - big business. As is true all over the publication industry
              > computers used as communication mechanisms are placing great (financial)
              > strain on publication resources. So I will argue that if they are doing
              > so well as top scientific journals why the search for a new direction
              > <http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_jlibrary&view=article&\
              > id=3216> ?
              >
              > "...Science and Nature have ended their historic battle for the
              > world's best basic science articles, agreeing to cease their
              > respective publications and co-launch an open-access, online-only
              > journal with an innovative democratic peer-review system, sources at
              > both journals revealed this morning...."
              >
              > cheers
              >
              > j
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • lwaynes_world
              Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in any single field, it is respected world wide.
              Message 6 of 19 , Mar 14, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in any single field, it is respected world wide.

                --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is still
                > only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
                >
                >
                > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
                > <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
                > >
                > > It's not fiction. If we go by impact factors - which show the
                > frequency >with which papers in a >journal are cited over a given period
                > of time - >Nature is top, when it comes to Earth Science. >See this
                > link:
                > >
                > >
                > http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onlin\
                > e/toprankjournalsinearthscience
                > <http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onli\
                > ne/toprankjournalsinearthscience>
                >
                >
                > You and your excellent link make a good case for the popularity of the
                > well written articles in top science magazines such as Nature and
                > Science. However, I don't see any magazine, no matter how excellent
                > it's articles may be, as a "top science journal". For that honor I would
                > prefer an offering such as from AGU <http://www.agu.org/pubs/>
                > (American Geophysical Union) rather than from NPG
                > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Publishing_Group> (Nature
                > Publications Group).
                >
                >
                > > Nature's pretty near the top in most fields, in general. That's why I
                > pay it so much attention, >as it comes up both in my day job and the
                > blog.
                >
                > With all due respect, that does not make Nature, or any other
                > publication of NPG, a scientific joirnal. Journals require peer review
                > by competent specialists rather than (simple) editing
                >
                > > We can debate whether impact factors are a good way to judge anything,
                > but virtually every >scientist wants to get published in Science or
                > Nature.
                >
                > Well , yes, but they do so for many different reasons. Publication is
                > usually faster, republication easier and cheaper and allows them to
                > reach a much bigger and broader audience than the scientists who
                > communicate using the more specialized journals. This is very
                > important to many climate scientists who believe their results are
                > important, not just to specialists, but to humanity as a whole and
                > believe the larger audience helps them better spread the word.
                >
                > >I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise - and even trying further
                > erodes any trust I might >have in what you say.
                >
                > Let me say only that publishing science magazines is business, matter
                > of fact, - big business. As is true all over the publication industry
                > computers used as communication mechanisms are placing great (financial)
                > strain on publication resources. So I will argue that if they are doing
                > so well as top scientific journals why the search for a new direction
                > <http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_jlibrary&view=article&\
                > id=3216> ?
                >
                > "...Science and Nature have ended their historic battle for the
                > world's best basic science articles, agreeing to cease their
                > respective publications and co-launch an open-access, online-only
                > journal with an innovative democratic peer-review system, sources at
                > both journals revealed this morning...."
                >
                > cheers
                >
                > j
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                >
              • lwaynes_world
                Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in any single field, it is respected world wide.
                Message 7 of 19 , Mar 14, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in any single field, it is respected world wide.

                  --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is still
                  > only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
                  > <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > It's not fiction. If we go by impact factors - which show the
                  > frequency >with which papers in a >journal are cited over a given period
                  > of time - >Nature is top, when it comes to Earth Science. >See this
                  > link:
                  > >
                  > >
                  > http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onlin\
                  > e/toprankjournalsinearthscience
                  > <http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onli\
                  > ne/toprankjournalsinearthscience>
                  >
                  >
                  > You and your excellent link make a good case for the popularity of the
                  > well written articles in top science magazines such as Nature and
                  > Science. However, I don't see any magazine, no matter how excellent
                  > it's articles may be, as a "top science journal". For that honor I would
                  > prefer an offering such as from AGU <http://www.agu.org/pubs/>
                  > (American Geophysical Union) rather than from NPG
                  > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Publishing_Group> (Nature
                  > Publications Group).
                  >
                  >
                  > > Nature's pretty near the top in most fields, in general. That's why I
                  > pay it so much attention, >as it comes up both in my day job and the
                  > blog.
                  >
                  > With all due respect, that does not make Nature, or any other
                  > publication of NPG, a scientific joirnal. Journals require peer review
                  > by competent specialists rather than (simple) editing
                  >
                  > > We can debate whether impact factors are a good way to judge anything,
                  > but virtually every >scientist wants to get published in Science or
                  > Nature.
                  >
                  > Well , yes, but they do so for many different reasons. Publication is
                  > usually faster, republication easier and cheaper and allows them to
                  > reach a much bigger and broader audience than the scientists who
                  > communicate using the more specialized journals. This is very
                  > important to many climate scientists who believe their results are
                  > important, not just to specialists, but to humanity as a whole and
                  > believe the larger audience helps them better spread the word.
                  >
                  > >I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise - and even trying further
                  > erodes any trust I might >have in what you say.
                  >
                  > Let me say only that publishing science magazines is business, matter
                  > of fact, - big business. As is true all over the publication industry
                  > computers used as communication mechanisms are placing great (financial)
                  > strain on publication resources. So I will argue that if they are doing
                  > so well as top scientific journals why the search for a new direction
                  > <http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_jlibrary&view=article&\
                  > id=3216> ?
                  >
                  > "...Science and Nature have ended their historic battle for the
                  > world's best basic science articles, agreeing to cease their
                  > respective publications and co-launch an open-access, online-only
                  > journal with an innovative democratic peer-review system, sources at
                  > both journals revealed this morning...."
                  >
                  > cheers
                  >
                  > j
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • ourphyl
                  Wayne, Methinks thou doth protest too much... j. ... any single field, it is respected world wide. ... still ... period ...
                  Message 8 of 19 , Mar 14, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Wayne,

                    "Methinks thou doth protest too much..."

                    j.
                    --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lwaynes_world" <kb0syf@...>
                    wrote:
                    >
                    > Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in
                    any single field, it is respected world wide.
                    >
                    > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" 701wizz@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is
                    still
                    > > only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
                    > > <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > It's not fiction. If we go by impact factors - which show the
                    > > frequency >with which papers in a >journal are cited over a given
                    period
                    > > of time - >Nature is top, when it comes to Earth Science. >See this
                    > > link:
                    > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onlin\
                    \
                    > > e/toprankjournalsinearthscience
                    > >
                    <http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onli\
                    \
                    > > ne/toprankjournalsinearthscience>
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > You and your excellent link make a good case for the popularity of
                    the
                    > > well written articles in top science magazines such as Nature and
                    > > Science. However, I don't see any magazine, no matter how excellent
                    > > it's articles may be, as a "top science journal". For that honor I
                    would
                    > > prefer an offering such as from AGU <http://www.agu.org/pubs/>
                    > > (American Geophysical Union) rather than from NPG
                    > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Publishing_Group> (Nature
                    > > Publications Group).
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > > Nature's pretty near the top in most fields, in general. That's
                    why I
                    > > pay it so much attention, >as it comes up both in my day job and the
                    > > blog.
                    > >
                    > > With all due respect, that does not make Nature, or any other
                    > > publication of NPG, a scientific joirnal. Journals require peer
                    review
                    > > by competent specialists rather than (simple) editing
                    > >
                    > > > We can debate whether impact factors are a good way to judge
                    anything,
                    > > but virtually every >scientist wants to get published in Science or
                    > > Nature.
                    > >
                    > > Well , yes, but they do so for many different reasons. Publication
                    is
                    > > usually faster, republication easier and cheaper and allows them to
                    > > reach a much bigger and broader audience than the scientists who
                    > > communicate using the more specialized journals. This is very
                    > > important to many climate scientists who believe their results are
                    > > important, not just to specialists, but to humanity as a whole and
                    > > believe the larger audience helps them better spread the word.
                    > >
                    > > >I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise - and even trying further
                    > > erodes any trust I might >have in what you say.
                    > >
                    > > Let me say only that publishing science magazines is business,
                    matter
                    > > of fact, - big business. As is true all over the publication
                    industry
                    > > computers used as communication mechanisms are placing great
                    (financial)
                    > > strain on publication resources. So I will argue that if they are
                    doing
                    > > so well as top scientific journals why the search for a new
                    direction
                    > >
                    <http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_jlibrary&view=article&\
                    \
                    > > id=3216> ?
                    > >
                    > > "...Science and Nature have ended their historic battle for the
                    > > world's best basic science articles, agreeing to cease their
                    > > respective publications and co-launch an open-access, online-only
                    > > journal with an innovative democratic peer-review system, sources at
                    > > both journals revealed this morning...."
                    > >
                    > > cheers
                    > >
                    > > j
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    > >
                    >
                  • ourphyl
                    Wayne, Methinks thou doth protest too much... j ... any single field, it is respected world wide. ... still ... period ...
                    Message 9 of 19 , Mar 14, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Wayne, "Methinks thou doth protest too much..."
                      j
                      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lwaynes_world" <kb0syf@...>
                      wrote:
                      >
                      > Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in
                      any single field, it is respected world wide.
                      >
                      > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" 701wizz@ wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is
                      still
                      > > only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
                      > > <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > It's not fiction. If we go by impact factors - which show the
                      > > frequency >with which papers in a >journal are cited over a given
                      period
                      > > of time - >Nature is top, when it comes to Earth Science. >See this
                      > > link:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onlin\
                      \
                      > > e/toprankjournalsinearthscience
                      > >
                      <http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onli\
                      \
                      > > ne/toprankjournalsinearthscience>
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > You and your excellent link make a good case for the popularity of
                      the
                      > > well written articles in top science magazines such as Nature and
                      > > Science. However, I don't see any magazine, no matter how excellent
                      > > it's articles may be, as a "top science journal". For that honor I
                      would
                      > > prefer an offering such as from AGU <http://www.agu.org/pubs/>
                      > > (American Geophysical Union) rather than from NPG
                      > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Publishing_Group> (Nature
                      > > Publications Group).
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > > Nature's pretty near the top in most fields, in general. That's
                      why I
                      > > pay it so much attention, >as it comes up both in my day job and the
                      > > blog.
                      > >
                      > > With all due respect, that does not make Nature, or any other
                      > > publication of NPG, a scientific joirnal. Journals require peer
                      review
                      > > by competent specialists rather than (simple) editing
                      > >
                      > > > We can debate whether impact factors are a good way to judge
                      anything,
                      > > but virtually every >scientist wants to get published in Science or
                      > > Nature.
                      > >
                      > > Well , yes, but they do so for many different reasons. Publication
                      is
                      > > usually faster, republication easier and cheaper and allows them to
                      > > reach a much bigger and broader audience than the scientists who
                      > > communicate using the more specialized journals. This is very
                      > > important to many climate scientists who believe their results are
                      > > important, not just to specialists, but to humanity as a whole and
                      > > believe the larger audience helps them better spread the word.
                      > >
                      > > >I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise - and even trying further
                      > > erodes any trust I might >have in what you say.
                      > >
                      > > Let me say only that publishing science magazines is business,
                      matter
                      > > of fact, - big business. As is true all over the publication
                      industry
                      > > computers used as communication mechanisms are placing great
                      (financial)
                      > > strain on publication resources. So I will argue that if they are
                      doing
                      > > so well as top scientific journals why the search for a new
                      direction
                      > >
                      <http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_jlibrary&view=article&\
                      \
                      > > id=3216> ?
                      > >
                      > > "...Science and Nature have ended their historic battle for the
                      > > world's best basic science articles, agreeing to cease their
                      > > respective publications and co-launch an open-access, online-only
                      > > journal with an innovative democratic peer-review system, sources at
                      > > both journals revealed this morning...."
                      > >
                      > > cheers
                      > >
                      > > j
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      > >
                      >
                    • ourphyl
                      Wayne, Methinks thou doth protest too much... [:))] ... any single field, it is respected world wide. ... still ... period ...
                      Message 10 of 19 , Mar 14, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Wayne, "Methinks thou doth protest too much..."

                        [:))]
                        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lwaynes_world" <kb0syf@...>
                        wrote:
                        >
                        > Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in
                        any single field, it is respected world wide.
                        >
                        > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" 701wizz@ wrote:
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is
                        still
                        > > only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
                        > > <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
                        > > >
                        > > > It's not fiction. If we go by impact factors - which show the
                        > > frequency >with which papers in a >journal are cited over a given
                        period
                        > > of time - >Nature is top, when it comes to Earth Science. >See this
                        > > link:
                        > > >
                        > > >
                        > >
                        http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onlin\
                        \
                        > > e/toprankjournalsinearthscience
                        > >
                        <http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onli\
                        \
                        > > ne/toprankjournalsinearthscience>
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > You and your excellent link make a good case for the popularity of
                        the
                        > > well written articles in top science magazines such as Nature and
                        > > Science. However, I don't see any magazine, no matter how excellent
                        > > it's articles may be, as a "top science journal". For that honor I
                        would
                        > > prefer an offering such as from AGU <http://www.agu.org/pubs/>
                        > > (American Geophysical Union) rather than from NPG
                        > > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Publishing_Group> (Nature
                        > > Publications Group).
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > > Nature's pretty near the top in most fields, in general. That's
                        why I
                        > > pay it so much attention, >as it comes up both in my day job and the
                        > > blog.
                        > >
                        > > With all due respect, that does not make Nature, or any other
                        > > publication of NPG, a scientific joirnal. Journals require peer
                        review
                        > > by competent specialists rather than (simple) editing
                        > >
                        > > > We can debate whether impact factors are a good way to judge
                        anything,
                        > > but virtually every >scientist wants to get published in Science or
                        > > Nature.
                        > >
                        > > Well , yes, but they do so for many different reasons. Publication
                        is
                        > > usually faster, republication easier and cheaper and allows them to
                        > > reach a much bigger and broader audience than the scientists who
                        > > communicate using the more specialized journals. This is very
                        > > important to many climate scientists who believe their results are
                        > > important, not just to specialists, but to humanity as a whole and
                        > > believe the larger audience helps them better spread the word.
                        > >
                        > > >I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise - and even trying further
                        > > erodes any trust I might >have in what you say.
                        > >
                        > > Let me say only that publishing science magazines is business,
                        matter
                        > > of fact, - big business. As is true all over the publication
                        industry
                        > > computers used as communication mechanisms are placing great
                        (financial)
                        > > strain on publication resources. So I will argue that if they are
                        doing
                        > > so well as top scientific journals why the search for a new
                        direction
                        > >
                        <http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_jlibrary&view=article&\
                        \
                        > > id=3216> ?
                        > >
                        > > "...Science and Nature have ended their historic battle for the
                        > > world's best basic science articles, agreeing to cease their
                        > > respective publications and co-launch an open-access, online-only
                        > > journal with an innovative democratic peer-review system, sources at
                        > > both journals revealed this morning...."
                        > >
                        > > cheers
                        > >
                        > > j
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        > >
                        >



                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • lloydb
                        But its still utter crap. There have been many, similar temperature fluctuations even within this interglacial and none of those fit with this guys
                        Message 11 of 19 , Mar 15, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          But its still utter crap. There have been many, similar temperature fluctuations even within this interglacial and none of those fit with this guys explanation. Its just plain stupid to say it "should" be cooling when we don't know what caused any of the other (unexplained) warming/cooling trends in the past...and none of them should have worked within his model. Bad science is bad science...and it doesn't matter who does it or publishes it.






                          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lwaynes_world" <kb0syf@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in any single field, it is respected world wide.
                        • HappyChopperRecords
                          No, in fact it is a journal. Impact factors only refer to journals. It is fully peer-reviewed and arguably the hardest journal to get into, alongside Science.
                          Message 12 of 19 , Mar 19, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            No, in fact it is a journal. Impact factors only refer to journals. It is fully peer-reviewed and arguably the hardest journal to get into, alongside Science. Check out:

                            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29

                            and

                            http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/1a_Editorial_process.pdf

                            --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:
                            >
                            >
                            > My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is still
                            > only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
                            >
                            >
                            > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
                            > <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
                            > >
                            > > It's not fiction. If we go by impact factors - which show the
                            > frequency >with which papers in a >journal are cited over a given period
                            > of time - >Nature is top, when it comes to Earth Science. >See this
                            > link:
                            > >
                            > >
                            > http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onlin\
                            > e/toprankjournalsinearthscience
                            > <http://sites.google.com/site/geometocea/home/online-links/journals-onli\
                            > ne/toprankjournalsinearthscience>
                            >
                            >
                            > You and your excellent link make a good case for the popularity of the
                            > well written articles in top science magazines such as Nature and
                            > Science. However, I don't see any magazine, no matter how excellent
                            > it's articles may be, as a "top science journal". For that honor I would
                            > prefer an offering such as from AGU <http://www.agu.org/pubs/>
                            > (American Geophysical Union) rather than from NPG
                            > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_Publishing_Group> (Nature
                            > Publications Group).
                            >
                            >
                            > > Nature's pretty near the top in most fields, in general. That's why I
                            > pay it so much attention, >as it comes up both in my day job and the
                            > blog.
                            >
                            > With all due respect, that does not make Nature, or any other
                            > publication of NPG, a scientific joirnal. Journals require peer review
                            > by competent specialists rather than (simple) editing
                            >
                            > > We can debate whether impact factors are a good way to judge anything,
                            > but virtually every >scientist wants to get published in Science or
                            > Nature.
                            >
                            > Well , yes, but they do so for many different reasons. Publication is
                            > usually faster, republication easier and cheaper and allows them to
                            > reach a much bigger and broader audience than the scientists who
                            > communicate using the more specialized journals. This is very
                            > important to many climate scientists who believe their results are
                            > important, not just to specialists, but to humanity as a whole and
                            > believe the larger audience helps them better spread the word.
                            >
                            > >I'm not sure how you can argue otherwise - and even trying further
                            > erodes any trust I might >have in what you say.
                            >
                            > Let me say only that publishing science magazines is business, matter
                            > of fact, - big business. As is true all over the publication industry
                            > computers used as communication mechanisms are placing great (financial)
                            > strain on publication resources. So I will argue that if they are doing
                            > so well as top scientific journals why the search for a new direction
                            > <http://www.microbeworld.org/index.php?option=com_jlibrary&view=article&\
                            > id=3216> ?
                            >
                            > "...Science and Nature have ended their historic battle for the
                            > world's best basic science articles, agreeing to cease their
                            > respective publications and co-launch an open-access, online-only
                            > journal with an innovative democratic peer-review system, sources at
                            > both journals revealed this morning...."
                            >
                            > cheers
                            >
                            > j
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            >
                            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            >
                          • HappyChopperRecords
                            While the general premise bad science is bad science is true, the reason I frequently mention the reputation of journals like Science and Nature provides a
                            Message 13 of 19 , Mar 19, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              While the general premise "bad science is bad science" is true, the reason I frequently mention the reputation of journals like Science and Nature provides a reason for people to trust what's published in them. It's more likely that what gets published in these journals is going to be good science than what gets published on the internet without any prior vetting whatsoever.

                              --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > But its still utter crap. There have been many, similar temperature fluctuations even within this interglacial and none of those fit with this guys explanation. Its just plain stupid to say it "should" be cooling when we don't know what caused any of the other (unexplained) warming/cooling trends in the past...and none of them should have worked within his model. Bad science is bad science...and it doesn't matter who does it or publishes it.
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lwaynes_world" <kb0syf@> wrote:
                              > >
                              > > Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in any single field, it is respected world wide.
                              >
                            • lloydb
                              More likely to be good doesn t make it right...and again in this case it was most certainly a piece of crap. It will ALWAYS be crap! Prestige has
                              Message 14 of 19 , Mar 20, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                "More likely" to be good doesn't make it right...and again in this case it was most certainly a piece of crap. It will ALWAYS be crap! Prestige has absolutely nothing to do with being right or wrong...and it never will.


                                --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords" <happychopperrecords@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > While the general premise "bad science is bad science" is true, the reason I frequently mention the reputation of journals like Science and Nature provides a reason for people to trust what's published in them. It's more likely that what gets published in these journals is going to be good science than what gets published on the internet without any prior vetting whatsoever.
                                >
                                > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lloydb" <poitsplace@> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > But its still utter crap. There have been many, similar temperature fluctuations even within this interglacial and none of those fit with this guys explanation. Its just plain stupid to say it "should" be cooling when we don't know what caused any of the other (unexplained) warming/cooling trends in the past...and none of them should have worked within his model. Bad science is bad science...and it doesn't matter who does it or publishes it.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "lwaynes_world" <kb0syf@> wrote:
                                > > >
                                > > > Nature is a very prestigious publication. Although not specialized in any single field, it is respected world wide.
                                > >
                                >
                              • ourphyl
                                Sorry, impact factors do not define journals. Impact factors are one of many metrics helpful to librarians managing publication resources such as shelf space
                                Message 15 of 19 , Mar 20, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Sorry, impact factors do not define journals. Impact factors are one of
                                  many metrics helpful to librarians managing publication resources such
                                  as shelf space and budgets.
                                  By no means are Nature articles "fully peer reviewed", they are accepted
                                  on the basis of general interest and brevity. Comments from a single
                                  peer and a generalized "expert" may be used by an editor but the
                                  editor's judgement wrt popularity is overriding. Just as with any other
                                  high quality magazine (or newspaper).
                                  Nature and Science magazines run neck and neck in popularity measures
                                  such as impact factors and circulation. Both are weekly publications
                                  with annual page counts way in excess of any of the more specialized
                                  monthly or quarterly scientific journals. As I mentioned earlier, the
                                  responsiveness of the simplified reviews and frequency of publication
                                  help make these magazines popular with scientific authors.
                                  An additional complication of your assertions arrises from the fact that
                                  "Earth Science" is a combination of four more established sciences -
                                  geology, meteorology, oceanography and astronomy - each including more
                                  specialized scientific subfields, Many of these subfield scientists
                                  communicate using their own specialized journals. This makes
                                  comparisons using simplistic measures such as Reuters's more like, as we
                                  say, comparing apples with oranges. It is most certainly non-scientific.
                                  I subscribe to Science and check it out every week. The articles are
                                  timely and interesting as are the ones I get to read from Nature. I
                                  respect both magazines but don't confuse them with scientific journals.
                                  I know the difference.
                                  If trust is your objective, I certainly "trust" articles from magazines
                                  such as Science and Nature. But I always try to "verify" that trust from
                                  the original source, if possible, paying strict attention to changes.
                                  Language modifications made to nouns, adjectives and verbs to try to
                                  make their scientific meanings more understandable to a broader audience
                                  can distort the meaning and the science..
                                  j
                                  --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
                                  <happychopperrecords@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > No, in fact it is a journal. Impact factors only refer to journals. It
                                  is fully peer-reviewed and arguably the hardest journal to get into,
                                  alongside Science. Check out:
                                  >
                                  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29
                                  >
                                  > and
                                  >
                                  >
                                  http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/1a_Editorial_process.\
                                  pdf
                                  >
                                  > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" 701wizz@ wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is
                                  still
                                  > > only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.




                                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                • HappyChopperRecords
                                  I agree that these criticisms are generally accurate and valid. Given your familiarity with these publications I m a bit confused why you think that the fact
                                  Message 16 of 19 , Mar 26, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    I agree that these criticisms are generally accurate and valid. Given your familiarity with these publications I'm a bit confused why you think that the fact they're "top" publications is a "science fiction". Surely there are many ways to define this - and your their impact and circulation - which you acknowledge - surely mean that they qualify?

                                    --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > Sorry, impact factors do not define journals. Impact factors are one of
                                    > many metrics helpful to librarians managing publication resources such
                                    > as shelf space and budgets.
                                    > By no means are Nature articles "fully peer reviewed", they are accepted
                                    > on the basis of general interest and brevity. Comments from a single
                                    > peer and a generalized "expert" may be used by an editor but the
                                    > editor's judgement wrt popularity is overriding. Just as with any other
                                    > high quality magazine (or newspaper).
                                    > Nature and Science magazines run neck and neck in popularity measures
                                    > such as impact factors and circulation. Both are weekly publications
                                    > with annual page counts way in excess of any of the more specialized
                                    > monthly or quarterly scientific journals. As I mentioned earlier, the
                                    > responsiveness of the simplified reviews and frequency of publication
                                    > help make these magazines popular with scientific authors.
                                    > An additional complication of your assertions arrises from the fact that
                                    > "Earth Science" is a combination of four more established sciences -
                                    > geology, meteorology, oceanography and astronomy - each including more
                                    > specialized scientific subfields, Many of these subfield scientists
                                    > communicate using their own specialized journals. This makes
                                    > comparisons using simplistic measures such as Reuters's more like, as we
                                    > say, comparing apples with oranges. It is most certainly non-scientific.
                                    > I subscribe to Science and check it out every week. The articles are
                                    > timely and interesting as are the ones I get to read from Nature. I
                                    > respect both magazines but don't confuse them with scientific journals.
                                    > I know the difference.
                                    > If trust is your objective, I certainly "trust" articles from magazines
                                    > such as Science and Nature. But I always try to "verify" that trust from
                                    > the original source, if possible, paying strict attention to changes.
                                    > Language modifications made to nouns, adjectives and verbs to try to
                                    > make their scientific meanings more understandable to a broader audience
                                    > can distort the meaning and the science..
                                    > j
                                    > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
                                    > <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
                                    > >
                                    > > No, in fact it is a journal. Impact factors only refer to journals. It
                                    > is fully peer-reviewed and arguably the hardest journal to get into,
                                    > alongside Science. Check out:
                                    > >
                                    > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_%28journal%29
                                    > >
                                    > > and
                                    > >
                                    > >
                                    > http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/1a_Editorial_process.\
                                    > pdf
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" 701wizz@ wrote:
                                    > > >
                                    > > >
                                    > > > My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is
                                    > still
                                    > > > only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                  • ourphyl
                                    Thanks for the faint praise but please don t twist my words. ... your familiarity with these publications I m a bit confused why you think that the fact
                                    Message 17 of 19 , Mar 27, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Thanks for the faint praise but please don't twist my words.

                                      --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
                                      <happychopperrecords@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      >I agree that these criticisms are generally accurate and valid. Given
                                      your familiarity with these publications I'm a bit >confused why you
                                      think that the fact they're "top" publications is a "science fiction"...

                                      A "science fiction" is that Nature is a journal, i.e. a tool to be used
                                      by climate scientists to advance the state of their art. As I said at
                                      the beginning

                                      > > > > My point is that, excellent magazine though Nature may be, it is
                                      still
                                      > > > > only a popular magazine, not a scientific journal.

                                      FWIW, I also believe that there is plenty of our science fiction that is
                                      much more valuable than some of our science... [:)]

                                      j



                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • ourphyl
                                      It would seem that Nature editors shoot first and ask questions later. How else do you explain
                                      Message 18 of 19 , Apr 28, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        It would seem that Nature editors shoot first and ask questions later.
                                        How else do you explain
                                        http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/04/27/another-global-warming-cr\
                                        isis-canceled-for-lack-of-evidence/
                                        <http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/04/27/another-global-warming-c\
                                        risis-canceled-for-lack-of-evidence/>

                                        --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
                                        <happychopperrecords@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > No, in fact it (Nature) is a journal. .... It is fully peer-reviewed
                                        and > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                        > >
                                        >




                                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                      • lloydb
                                        Well they have that conveniently short memory. Just like they NOW say it was ALWAYS claimed that winters would get more harsh and produce more snow as a
                                        Message 19 of 19 , Apr 28, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Well they have that conveniently short memory. Just like they NOW say it was ALWAYS claimed that winters would get more harsh and produce more snow as a result of global warming.

                                          --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "ourphyl" <701wizz@...> wrote:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > It would seem that Nature editors shoot first and ask questions later.
                                          > How else do you explain
                                          > http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/04/27/another-global-warming-cr\
                                          > isis-canceled-for-lack-of-evidence/
                                          > <http://blogs.forbes.com/jamestaylor/2011/04/27/another-global-warming-c\
                                          > risis-canceled-for-lack-of-evidence/>
                                          >
                                          > --- In globalwarming@yahoogroups.com, "HappyChopperRecords"
                                          > <happychopperrecords@> wrote:
                                          > >
                                          > > No, in fact it (Nature) is a journal. .... It is fully peer-reviewed
                                          > and > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          > > >
                                          > >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.