| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 11/22 |
| 2005/5/21-23 [Science/Electric, Science/GlobalWarming] UID:37796 Activity:low |
5/20 Science and Nature censoring papers that reject global warning
as a man made phenomenon:
http://tinyurl.com/85x6t (telegraph.co.uk)
\_ I've never published in Nature, but Science rejected my paper
on my mono-pole magnet until I agreed to pledge alegiance to the
Unitied Nations, give up all my guns and renounce God. Now they
publish all my mono-pole magnet papers without question. It's
not a bad system, really. All hail the scientific priesthood
and their athiestic consensus science.
\_ Did you read the article? S&N have started dropping
research groups from its pool of reviewers when they
publish (or try to publish) research that contradicts
the "accepted truth" re global warning. I don't care
that they are biased as long as they come out and
admit it.
\_ I care if they are biased. If the research is good
research then it should be published. It is up to the
scientific community to accept/reject the conclusions. A
journal should just publish papers, as long as the
science is good.
\_ You could publish it as a paid advertisement and publish
the URL as a "hey, look, look at this, isn't it unique?"
story on http://slashdot.org... -John
\_ gee... scientist can't get his paper published in Science or
Nature, then whines? Publish it somewhere else, then. You've
already started whining... show us what you're whining about.
Thousands of papers get rejected from both S. & N. They are
the top two journals, and two most prestigious. If every
scientist who wanted to publish there, got his/her wish, then
the two journals would be shite. Also, getting rejected by
no means indicates your article is poor, flawed, or not
newsworthy. It just means that Science/Nature ed. boards
didn't think your article is on-topic enough. Plenty of
scientists get rejected by them, and then go and publish in
other journals.
\_ I've never published in Nature, but Science rejected my paper
on my mono-pole magnet until I agreed to pledge alegiance to the
Unitied Nations, give up all my guns and renounce God. Now they
publish all my mono-pole magnet papers without question. It's
not a bad system, really. All hail the scientific priesthood
and their athiestic consensus science.
\_ Did you read the article? S&N have started dropping
research groups from its pool of reviewers when the
research groups from its pool of reviewers when they
publish (or try to publish) research that contradicts
the "common knowledge" re global warning. I don't
care that they are biased. Just let them come out
and admit it.
the "accepted truth" re global warning. I don't care
that they are biased as long as they come out and
admit it.
\_ I care if they are biased. If the research is good
research then it should be published. It is up to the
scientific community to accept/reject the conclusions. A
journal should just publish papers, as long as the
science is good.
\_ You could publish it as a paid advertisement and publish
the URL as a "hey, look, look at this, isn't it unique?"
story on http://slashdot.org... -John |
| 11/22 |
|
| tinyurl.com/85x6t -> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml Contact us Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming' By Robert Matthews (Filed: 01/05/2005) Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable w isdom over global warming. A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatol ogists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human ac tivity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds. Radcliffe on Sour power station with Dr Benny Peiser (inset) Radcliffe on Sour power station with Dr Benny Peiser (inset). He disagree s with the pro-global warming line A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Scienc e and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warm ing, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research wh ich raised doubts over the issue. The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate exp erts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also tha t mankind is to blame. The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of Califo rnia, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the ea rly 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or i mplicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it. Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on cl imate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the G overnment's chief scientific adviser. However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-glo bal warming line. They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty a t Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analy sis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one thi rd backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly. Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "wide ly dispersed on the internet". Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "I t is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said . A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not pe rceived to be novel." Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the ori ginal claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them." Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which cri ticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKS S National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results fro m an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scien tists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activi ty. As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were in tending to publish." Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on sa tellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It's p retty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in pr omoting papers that are pro-global warming. He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-ma de global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field. As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into t he leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Ot her scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals hav e a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming." Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernm ental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming. In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United Sta tes National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound". A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made glob al warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality. "The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive abo ut what makes journals thrive," he said. Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday sc enarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear th at any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science." |
| slashdot.org -> slashdot.org/ Will this signal new life for the console, or is it too little, too late? We linked to leaked pictures of the N-Gage follow-up late last week on Slashdot Games , and theres further information at GameSpot , which mentions: When bundled with a service contract, the QD is expected to sell for $99. Without subsidy from a service provider, the phone will go for $199 with the platforms Tony Hawk title bundled in at that price. Posted by timothy on Wednesday April 14, 12:21AM from the it-would-have-been-someone dept. Shippy writes Ten years ago today, a pair of Arizona attorneys launched a homemade marketing software program that forever changed the Internet. They did this by whipping up a Perl script that flooded message boards advertising their legal services. Update: 04/14 05:26 GMT by S : Thatd be ten years ago, not twenty. JigSaw writes Well known Lycoris person Jason Spisak left the company to join Element Computer , a new hardware company which now strives to offer the Apple experience on PCs: they sell Linux-certified modern hardware with their own flavor of Debian, ION Linux. ION is a desktop distro and it is developed specifically to work perfectly with the accompanied hardware. Other highlights include usage support as opposed to installation-only support other distros provide and system upgrades specific to the exact hardware the user runs. The KDE-based distro will only sell with their hardware as Mike Hjorleifsson says in his interview . Free Software Foundation writes Stanford Professor Lawrence Lessig was elected to the Free Software Foundations Board of Directors on March 28, 2004. With Eben Moglen, the two most prominent academic legal minds on the subject of copyleft licensing now both serve as Directors of the Foundation. Professor Lessigs involvement will undoubtedly give a major boost to the FSFs ongoing efforts to neutralize legal threats to software freedom. The flaws could allow attackers to break into PCs running Windows in several ways and then use the system to run malicious programs and steal or delete key data. These latest security flaws affect the latest versions of Windows, including Windows NT 40, Windows 98, Windows 2000 , Windows XP, as well as software for networked computers such as Windows NT Server and Windows Server 2003. Despite the growing success of the Open Source movement, most of the general public continues to feel that Open Source software is inaccessible to them. This paper discusses five fundamental problems with the current Open Source software development trend, explores why these issues are holding the movement back, and offers solutions that might help overcome these problems. What do you think of the issues given in this paper, and how do you think the Open Source community should address these issues? Analog, wind-up Analog, battery-powered Analog, solar-powered Digital Digital w/calculator Digital w/mp3 player Digital w/cell phone Implant Results Polls Comments: 953 Votes: 23320 Book Reviews Need something to read? Slashdots book review section is full of reader-submitted reviews of books you should know about. Preston Tollingers review of Bruce Schneiers security overview Beyond Fear : should be required reading for members of Congress. Honestpucks review of Managing Linux Systems With Webmin : a good guide to using Webmin, flawed by lack of structure. Fancellus review of Extreme Programming Refactored : a critical look at the popular XP development method. Alex Moskalyuks review of the Secure Programming Cookbook for C and C : a security cookbook that teaches you how to make a basic ham-and-cheese sandwich as well as fine cuisine. Neads review of Automating Unix and Linux Administration : How to leverage the power of a few common tools to significantly reduce the time and effort system administrators spend doing their jobs. Just read Slashdots book review guidelines , and then use the web submission form . Updated: 20031013 17:00 by timothy Quick Links Cool Sites: AnimeFu Addicted to Anime? |