Quote:
Originally Posted by
franksargent 
Four points
1) The Wegman NAS report wasn't peer reviewed per your link, people who write the report don't get to select those who review the report, you need to understand how independent peer review works!
Nope - as I have said, you can't seem to get it. A last try to penetrate:
Peer review is a process that is followed in the publication of articles for either academic journals OR academic trade books. The customary process is that a prospective article be reviewed by 3 outside 'peer' qualified individuals who are known only to the journal (so as to protect them from criticism). After review, the comments are given to the prospective author, and the Journal editor decides if he/she wishes to publish the article (or requests some modification before publication.).
MBH (Mann, Briffa, Hughes) were peer reviewed and published.
M&M were peer reviewed and published (E&E and GRL).
These two sets of authors sparked a controversy. Other papers were peer reviewed and published on the subject.
NOW, the Congressional Committee asked NAS to put a panel together to address many scientific, procedural, and political questions. They asked, in particular that the papers at the core of the controversy be examined and reviewed, and the respective authors concerns addressed. ALSO, the chair of the Committee asked the NAS Chair of Applied Statistics to examine and review the the papers at the core of the controversy.
The NAS panel read them and (I believe) a sub-team ran some tests to examine robustness of methods.
The NAS Chair of Applied Statistics, and his team read them and ran even more extensive tests to examine them in even greater depth from the perspective of statistics.
Now that you know what and how peer review is used for journals, it should be obvious that
these two groups would not normally be peer reviewed, nor does make much sense to expect it this context...THESE TWO GROUPS ARE, AFTER THE FACT, THE PEER REVIEWERS OF TWO STUDIES IN QUESTION. Their reports are NOT NEW peer-reviewed science for journals or books,
they are ex post facto critical examinations for a political body seeking a professional opinions.
Ironically, while the NAS panel findings were not peer reviewed outside of its staff, the NAS Chair of Applied Statistics, the Wegman Report, was given peer review.
Remember, the committee did not submit either report to a peer review before they were made public. However, unlike the NAS Panel, it so happens that Wegman and his team did consult with various statisticians prior to his final draft, he sent them copies, he did get feedback AND they had NO conflict of Interest with him (not as co-authors or friends). He also said that he would welcome any other independent exam of his results.
I think its abundantly clear to readers that one cannot shamelessly quote the NAS report AND then claim one must ignore anything that does not have
peer-reviewed peer-reviews (
itself a laughable concept). Moreover, that Wegman needlessly took it upon himself to have his work reviewed prior to publication is remarkable (
and obviously, even if it were required, it is ludicrous to expect anyone to locate peer reviewers unknown to themselves...LOL).
The attack "It was not 'formally' peer reviewed" is more than disingenuous, its tawdry disinformation campaign by individuals without innate integrity. It is a partisan smear, aimed to excite the arm swinging, knuckle dragging, hooters that feel threatened by disssent...
The "ME no find a separate peer review of the NAS and Wegman peer reviews...hoot hoot"...is worth a laugh, but not much more. But hey, how about a peer review of a peer review of a peer review of a peer...
Quote:
2) You stated thet M&M were invited to said conferences, said conferences are open to all interested parties, that's a given.
Are you pretending to be obtuse or is this real? OBVIOUSLY they were invited to not only attend, but to make presentations. That's the whole friggen point SPORT.. PRESENTATIONS ARE SOLICITED AND REVIEWED BY ORGANIZERS FOR THE CONFERENCE. ARE YOU AWARE THAT THEY AFTER BEING ACCEPTED FOR PRESENTATION, THEY ARE THEN PUBLISHED IN PROCEEDINGS? What do you think, people just go and do their own thing without permission>....
...
Quote:
BTW, almost all of your links don't work at my end! AFAIK, M&M were not uniquely singled out (i. e. given a unique one-of-a-kind special invitation) to give presentations at said conferences. So yes, of course M&M gave these presentations at said conferences, but M&M were not singled out to give these presentations at said conferences.
Of course they were not the only ones invited..
who ever heard of a conference with a single presenter? Your so-called "points" are based on a lack of elementary knowledge the the rudiments of science culture, hopefully you will attend one or two to get an idea of how science works.
And, BTW, if the links don't work it is likely because of an INTERNET problem. Mine works just fine. Try again...
Quote:
3) You clearly don't understand how the feds conduct their work through outside parties, contracts or grants are essentially the same as all agreements to do work for the feds, IP rights are maintained for all forms of work performed by outside parties.
No it is YOU that clearly makes assumptions about NSF grants (and the like).
Quite aside from the fact that an IP right has nothing to do with revealing what the content of the IP developed is, lets cut to the core (NSF RULES):
Quote:
734 Dissemination and Sharing of Research Results
...Investigators are expected to share with other researchers, at no more than incremental cost and within a reasonable time, the primary data, samples, physical collections and other supporting materials created or gathered in the course of work under NSF grants. Grantees are expected to encourage and facilitate such sharing. ,,, General adjustments and, where essential, exceptions to this sharing expectation may be specified by the funding NSF Program or Division for a particular field or discipline to safeguard the rights of individuals and subjects, the validity of results, or the integrity of collections or to accommodate the legitimate interest of investigators. A grantee or investigator also may request a particular adjustment or exception from the cognizant NSF Program Officer.
It is true that the NSF normally allows grantees to retain primely legal rights to prior intellectual property, or to inventions (intellectual or otherwise if they can be copywrited or patented) BUT such the granting of such incentives are the federal governments choice and " do not, however, reduce the responsibility that investigators and organizations have as members of the scientific and engineering community, to make results, data and collections available to other researchers."
But as I said, I have never heard Mann or others claim that they have anything in their computational methods, or statistical commands to off-the-shelf computer, is their intellectual property, let alone patentable or copyrighted. Given the wording of NSF rules and specific grants, it is certainly arguable if they are REQUIRED to disclose data, methods, or command codes BUT all that is quite beside the point...
THEY have the right and duty to release research methods and codes in sufficient detail so that others may exactly duplicate and test their findings. This is science, This is the recommended practice of the NAS and all science journals. This is the finding and recommendations of the NAS report. HOWEVER, this is not that attitude of Climate researchers who don't care - they are not protecting an invention, they are protecting their bogus claims from inspection.
That is why they cannot be trusted.
\
