What page I linked to?
This has gotten beyond ridiculous.
If you can't follow this thread back up a few levels to see and perhaps even follow the link YOU posted, in a comment to which I directly replied, then you probably aren't qualified to be making arguments on Slashdot.
And then you talk about other peoples' qualifications?
You are probably the most unqualified person to judge.
And you concluded this based on? What evidence?
The fact is, "one cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals"
That isn't a fact, that was a comment by a reviewer about someone else's paper. The FACTS aren't known unless and until we see the actual paper.
And you call ME unqualified to judge?
Where? No citation was given. How about looking at the actual review?
I was quoting the page YOU linked to. Sheesh. Didn't recognize your own citation?
Not every paper gets published. That is not a sign of a massive conspiracy. It's just life.
I didn't say it was. That wasn't part of MY argument. I'm just saying that the reasons it was rejected appear to have extremely thin justification.
The inflation rate as reported by the federal government is complete shit. It's likely closer to 10%
The equipment they're talking about is vastly different than the equipment in the previous year. How many people switched from SD to HD in that time? That was one of the peak years for HD adoption.
Internet speeds across the industry jumped drastically in 2012 due to DOCSIS 3 rollouts. I, personally, went from 15mb/s to 50mb/s over night with no cost increase to me at all.
In 2012 most cable companies introduced the new pay as you go plans which allowed you to pay a slightly higher rate in exchange for no contract.
Exactly what the reviewers were pointing out.
No, they weren't. I can read English as well as you, conceivably even better, and that isn't what they were saying. I quote here:
"Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson's questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance."
In plain English: he did point out real errors. They don't deny that. They just don't like the way he did it.
They encouraged Dr. Bengtsson to find some error that they could publish. Instead, he just pointed out that three things that ought to be different were in fact different. That is not useful.
No, they said that the errors he pointed out were not "helpful" to them, and that he did not sufficiently explain, to their taste, what the cause of the errors were.
However, that position is not a scientific one. The cause of the errors is neither his concern nor his responsibility. Pointing out the presence of errors is important. Taking an arrogant stance against apparently valid dissent is not. I repeat: this is supposed to be science, not a social club.
You can't have an inconsistency if no consistency was to be expected. His paper was comparing apples to oranges and then implying that there was some inconsistency because the apples were not like the oranges. That is not an inconsistency, although the reviewer pointed out that it would be interesting to investigate why the apples are not like oranges.
I would have to see the entire paper before I could judge. While it's not proof of anything, it does seem rather unlikely that a recognized researcher would do something quite that naive.
Until I know more about it, I still say that it sounds like the reviewer is calling the author an ignorant fool, when his past work would suggest that he's anything but.
Yeah, don't.
This.
OP is fighting the law of diminishing returns. If he can't get family members to remember to turn on the alarm, he can do these things which might actually help:
(1) Better doors with good locks. If you got it at Home Depot and paid less than $100, it probably isn't "good".
(2) Bars on the windows. Note that in some places those are illegal for a residence unless you provide some kind of emergency escape other than windows.
(3) A homeowner's insurance policy with theft protection at full replacement value. Then back that up by supplying them with a comprehensive home inventory list, including pictures.
They get a lot of noise, and his name was misspelled.
Irrelevant. It was misspelled in a way that is entirely common and should have been anticipated. Has nobody at NSA even heard of Soundex or any of those other word-matching algorithms? It would appear not, but in reality of course they have. So why weren't they using one or more of them?
I'm doing work where such algorithms might end up coming in handy eventually. And I know about them and they are readily available. And I'm hardly a highly-paid NSA employee right now.
He's talking probabilities because that's all they base anything on these days.
I'm not too sure about that. What he's talking about is BS, not probabilities.
If he wanted to talk about genuine, important statistics, then he would also be talking about the probability that anything the NSA is doing would actually prevent or deflect such an attack. Given the actual evidence we have so far, I would estimate that probability at close to zero.
So we have huge costs, in economic, social, and personal freedom terms, with little probability of success.
Sure sounds like worse than a waste of time to me.
Basically, pointing out errors is not enough - it only makes us look bad.
Which is "basically" incorrect.
Climate science isn't some social circle. In science, pointing out other peoples' errors is an invaluable service, and advances everyone's knowledge. And that's what science is all about.
Also, it isn't required to point out why or how someone made an error. That's their problem. Simply pointing out that an error has been made, even without knowing a cause, is a valuable contribution to science.
Sorry AMD, you're heading in the completely wrong direction. CPUs are already plenty fast. They have been for years. 3D gaming is starting to look like just another "Gold plated speaker wire" guy hobby as everyone moves to mobile devices.
The real winners in the future are going to be the very cheap, very efficient chips. Do you want one very powerful computer to run everything in your house? Or do you want everything in your house to have its own dedicated, highly efficient CPU that does just what that device needs?
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
Saying "(false)" is in itself overly-simplistic. And that is being polite.
The inconsistencies pointed out were not "false", as the reviewer himself actually stated elsewhere, if in less direct terms. Then the reviewer claims that an explanation of why the inconsistencies exist is necessary. But that is disingenuous.
(Just as an aside: if the claims were actually "false", then the reviewer would not have had to demand an explanation of the cause. Things that do not exist do not have causes.)
If one person tells me the sky is green and another that it is indigo, when observation says it is actually a light blue, it is perfectly proper in science to point out how those statements are inconsistent with each other and with observations. Making that simple point might actually be valuable to any genuine study of the phenomenon. I am not obligated in any way to postulate why those people might say those things, in the name of "good science". That might be nice, but it's not something that "good science" requires.
The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood
