tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post4543855378422174897..comments2023-10-17T08:02:47.368-04:00Comments on DENIS RANCOURT ON CLIMATE: Regression on the LeftDenis Rancourthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16743375141824505606noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-31452523599374528822016-03-05T09:21:57.466-05:002016-03-05T09:21:57.466-05:00@Levantine: In my reading of the interesting paper...@Levantine: In my reading of the interesting paper that you link (Physics Today, 2005), the paper actually provides more arguments against editor-imposed anonymous peer-review rather than support for the practice. Had the paper originally been published as-is, then the original manuscript would not have disappeared and many more physicists (and more quickly) could have benefited from Einstein's "error". Physics would have been enriched by a transparent exchange, rather than covered up behind unrecorded personal exchanges. As I see it.<br />Denis Rancourthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17895449135200826970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-10509013166744397452016-03-05T08:11:24.593-05:002016-03-05T08:11:24.593-05:00Such perils of peer review were early detected and...<i>Such perils of peer review were early detected and condemned by the physicist Albert Einstein, after his arrival in America. Having submitted a co-authored paper to the journal Physical Review, he was dismayed to learn that it had bean sent by the editor to an anonymous reviewer. "We had sent our manuscript for publication and had not authorized you to show it to specialists before it is printed," an irate Einstein wrote the editor. “On the basis of this incident I prefer to publish the paper elsewhere.” Einstein never again contributed to that journal. In Germany he had published in a journal edited by Max Planck, whose editorial philosophy was “to shun much more the reproach of having suppressed strange opinions than of having been too gentle in evaluating them.”</i><br /><br />In the episode of Einstein with the Physical Review, the criticisms in the peer reviews of Einstein's paper have turned out to be correct: <br />http://www.geology.cwu.edu/facstaff/lee/courses/g503/Einstein_review.pdf<br />Would its publication serve Einstein well in the long run? <br />This pdf article makes a case for the virtues of peer review. Of course, silver bullets should be out of question. Everyone should be watchful of the actual social practices, trends and possibilities. <br />Levantinenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-62219576428170247342010-02-26T20:18:17.436-05:002010-02-26T20:18:17.436-05:00The reason the left traditionally relied on scienc...The reason the left traditionally relied on science to underpin it's metaphysics is its testable unlike a metaphysics based on faith that some mysterious "energy," or god or goddess governs the universe which is the sort of apologetics those in unsupportable positions of hierarchy used to justify their claims. The loss of rationality and use of the scientific method on the left is part of our unweaving IMO. The old rationalist left won victory after victory between the turn of the 20th century and the 1950s fro worker's rights, women's rights, environmentalism, against racism, etc. And the new cognitive relativist New Age left that has no filters to distinguish between objective truth and b.s.? Not so much... :(Mr. Ravenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06221452770766705410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-9402582543422785932007-10-31T15:06:00.000-04:002007-10-31T15:06:00.000-04:00Please write anything else!Please write anything else!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-1444883136544233482007-10-31T14:38:00.000-04:002007-10-31T14:38:00.000-04:002vE35d actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm ...2vE35d actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-74975688211559340642007-06-18T13:15:00.000-04:002007-06-18T13:15:00.000-04:00THE 4 PILLARS OF HYPERFASCISM:THE FDERAL RESERVE, ...THE 4 PILLARS OF HYPERFASCISM:<BR/>THE FDERAL RESERVE, THE PETRODOLLAR<BR/>UNRESTRAINED MIGRATION & THE ORTHODOX LEFT<BR/><BR/>The orthodox left is rotten to the core. It actually functions as an ideological prop of the hyperfascist imperium. Consider the following:<BR/><BR/>The Fed Reserve is a PRIVATE bank that lends fiat currency to the USA govt which then raises taxes to pay back said loans to the fed. The Fed is the daddy of the Petrodollar. <BR/><BR/>You know that secret agreement brokered by Kissinger (after the $ fell off the gold standard in 1971) with the Saudis (as swing producer able to flood the market & destroy anyone defying their policy) that ALL oil be sold in $ in exchange for `protection'. THIS gave the USA an unlimited credit card enabling it to pass off the costs of its institutioanlised hyperinflation ($9Trillion nat debt, $60Trillion accumalated other liabilies as per Brookings Institute estimates & the $370Trillion derivatives pyramid) onto the rest of humanity just by PRINTING $$$ & fund the army that protects the Petrodollar (costing more than rest of world's combined) via the same printing press.<BR/><BR/>Now the more cynical will be thinking `awesome'! BUT.<BR/><BR/>The purpose of this is to enable the USA to export its inflation to the rest of the world (in exchange for IoU's called treasury bonds, really IFUs); eg THIS is why USA doesn't produce anything anymore, because you don't want those $$$ to return fuelling VISIBLE as opposed to INSTITUTIONALISED inflation. This is also why you are surrendering California for AZTLAN, because your elite's need to keep the oil sold in $$$ to preserve the $ global reserve status, the source of their (not Your) geo strategic political economic power & wealth. The surrender of California keeps YOUR psycho political focus divided. You find it MUCH harder to wage war on 2 fronts, against your elites AND unrestrained migration, so you appeal pathetically to said elites `WHY don't you halt immigration?'<BR/><BR/>Answer, because for these useless & crazy plutocrats it is not only a Q of cheap labor but MORE importantly preventing you tearing their throats out. It is literally a matter of life & death for them to preserve control of the geo political economic & strategic agenda by selling the USA to the devil. it is like a plate spinner that has to keep this unnatural state of affairs going to prevent the crash.<BR/><BR/>Well, the imperium WILL crash. & when it does, your all gonna have to work damned hard to convince the rest of the world its in their interests to keep you alive. because you aren't going to have any money to actually pay for the oil. So here's the deal.<BR/><BR/>Establish the Common Ownership of Information (every 3rd world peasant to have access to every book/ piece of technical info ever produced on a wind up wifi laptop from MIT) in exchange for the oil remaining on long enough to effect the transition to solar powered microgeneration (without the oil the info is lost & without the info the oil is worthless). The corresponding substantive sovereignty of the individual can thence be pooled to effect control over our energy based (I agree, gold IS inhrently deflationary, but for Christjesus sakes' no one is going to accept fiat $$$ anymore) currencies...<BR/><BR/>Meyer Rothschidl: `Give me control over a nations' currency & I care not who writes its' laws'.<BR/><BR/>...establishing a tough basic constittuional fabric able to martial locally & globally in realtime to repel the machinations of any cabal of banksters, energy barons & secureaucrats out to plunder private & public wealth.<BR/><BR/>In the interim support Ron Paul in exposing this Fed Reserve scam, <BR/>http://www.teambio.org/2007/06/ron-paul-introduces-legislation-to-abolish-the-federal-reserve/<BR/>because it will help to expose what the Petrodollar wars are all about. & the rest of the world will not forgive you if you engage in nuke war to prop up the petrodollar. There will be no deals thence, only the destruction of everyone's children through the logic of MAD...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-26389744417402721592007-05-30T22:49:00.000-04:002007-05-30T22:49:00.000-04:00n the midst of the corporate globalization movemen...<I>n the midst of the corporate globalization movement, the giants of the oil and gas industry, fearing a threat to their soaring profits, launched their campaign of denial against the spectre of global warming. At the height of the anti-globalization movement, other corporate players, seeing new profit-making opportunities in the same spectre, launched their opposing campaign of advocacy and alarm</I><BR/><BR/>As was mentioned in a <A HREF="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4828122657384873884&postID=2534586929275318318" REL="nofollow">previous comment</A> this is a remarkably bad argument, even from bad scientists. Advocating bad science because 'everybody else is doing it' is reprehensible and betrays the public trust.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4828122657384873884.post-52295503837790609232007-05-30T22:32:00.000-04:002007-05-30T22:32:00.000-04:00Peer-review is not the be-all and end all, rather ...Peer-review is not the be-all and end all, rather only a tool. Other tools are the use of experiments, data and quantitative measures.<BR/><BR/>When at least some of those are brought to the table, people may listen. Until then you're just a guy blasting a ghetto blaster in a room that's already too loud. Anectodal evidence is just that, and a guy standing on a soapbox isn't walking on the walk.<BR/><BR/>DGR is a physicist and a lake sediment modeler. He's also declared himself an environmental science researcher with an interest in climate models. If he's serious, let's see a physically-based model built with the best available data that supports his climate change contentions and <B>then</B> we can start a discourse within the boundaries of science. The IPCC has, and met the burden behind their assertions far more competently than he has.<BR/><BR/>You're a historian. Let's see a methodology based on the 'natural experiments' approach Jared Diamond has used so effectively to meet the burden behind his assertions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com