Comments on: Peer-censorship and scientific fraud http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/ The Power of Numeracy Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:57:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Kim Safi http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/#comment-13114 Kim Safi Sun, 14 Nov 2010 05:50:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=11#comment-13114 Hi, I’d like to inform you a simple example how the CC identity was destroyed. Recently I got a fraud mail form editor of Cancer Science from OMICSONLINE.ORG web site stating that your research papers were approved by editorial team. To publish my papers in their OPEN ACCESS website these people demanded huge amount. Being a scholar I cannot afford such a huge amount to publish my papers. This website is describing as Open Access publisher along with CC support. Being an Open access Publisher he should not demand money for paper submissions. More over this team is operating all from India but site is showing US address. I inquired the US based address of this company, there is no such kind of operations running in USA. This is a big scientific fraud in publishing era. I have never seen such kind of illegal scientific websites from USA. Hope with the help of local authorities they are running such kind of frauds. USA government should take necessary action against these kind of fraud people. CC should take proper action on these fraud websites. Kim Safi Hi,

I’d like to inform you a simple example how the CC identity was destroyed. Recently I got a fraud mail form editor of Cancer Science from OMICSONLINE.ORG web site stating that your research papers were approved by editorial team. To publish my papers in their OPEN ACCESS website these people demanded huge amount. Being a scholar I cannot afford such a huge amount to publish my papers. This website is describing as Open Access publisher along with CC support. Being an Open access Publisher he should not demand money for paper submissions.
More over this team is operating all from India but site is showing US address. I inquired the US based address of this company, there is no such kind of operations running in USA. This is a big scientific fraud in publishing era.
I have never seen such kind of illegal scientific websites from USA. Hope with the help of local authorities they are running such kind of frauds. USA government should take necessary action against these kind of fraud people.

CC should take proper action on these fraud websites.

Kim Safi

]]> By: Niche Modeling » Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres by Miskolczi - a review http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/#comment-5626 Niche Modeling » Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres by Miskolczi - a review Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:26:54 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=11#comment-5626 [...] While there is a lot of mathematics, they are mostly fairly simple balance equations of radiative flux’s that would present no challenge to people familiar with the field, although some of the concepts are new to me, such as the ‘virial theorem’. It also drops some real zingers. This paper redefines global warming. Of additional equations related to Kirchhoff’s law, constraining the atmosphere to be in thermal equilibrium with the surface, Miskolczi writes: The physical interpretation of these two equations may fundamentally change the general concept of greenhouse theories. The model suggests negligible sensitivity of 0.24C surface temperature increase to doubling CO2 increase. For example, a hypothetical CO2 doubling will increase the optical depth (of the global average profile) by 0.0241, and the related increase in the surface temperature will be 0.24 K. In understanding a theoretical model I like to look for the invariants, those quantities that remain stable despite perturbations of the system. In this model, optical depth emerges as the invariant. The optical depth, or opacity of the atmosphere to IR sits loosely in a kind of ’sweet spot’, making this another example of a niche model. The system is locked to the optical depth because of the energy minimum principle prefers the radiative equilibrium configuration, but the energy conservation principle constrains the available thermal energy. The problem for example with the highly publicized simple ‘bucket analogy’ of greenhouse effect is the ignorance of the energy minimum principle (Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, et al., 2005). The climate system makes regulatory adjustment to compensate for changes in CO2 with changes in humidity and clouds, in order to most efficiently convert short wave incoming solar energy, into long wave outgoing energy. The problem with radiative models used until now is a discontinuity between the atmospheric and surface temperatures. This violates Kirchhoff’s law, that two bodies in thermal equilibrium must have equal temperatures, and is one of the reasons for mysterious unphysical behavior of climate models. Incorporating this simple constraint introduces an energy minimization principle that makes runaway greenhouse warming impossible. This corrects a major deficiency in the current theory, which doesn’t explain why “runaway” greenhouse warming hasn’t happened in the Earth’s past. I find the argument compelling that problems of instability of global climate models stem from inadequate constraints. Miskolczi also presents considerable empirical data for both the Earth and Mars in support of the superiority of his new model of planetary atmospheres. The view of the atmospheric system as an equilibrated system occupying a kind of niche also appeals, although the challenge of this theory will be to explain temperature variability at longer scales adequately. Moreover, the Miskolczi’s approach to explaining the climate system illustrates the difference between an approach taken by a real physicist , and a layman. The layman tends to need an analogy to understand systems, such as the ‘bucket analogy’ for explaining the greenhouse effect, due to limited numeracy. The physicist explains a system simply as the solution set of necessary conservation laws. The popular explanation of the greenhouse effect as the result of the LW atmospheric absorption of the surface radiation and the surface heating by the atmospheric downward radiation is incorrect, since the involved flux terms are always equal. The mechanism of the greenhouse effect may better be explained as the ability of a gravitationally bounded atmosphere to convert incoming to outgoing radiation in such a way that the equilibrium source function profile will assure the radiative balance, the validity of the Kirchhoff law, and the hydrostatic equilibrium. If the model is correct, the real cause of recent warming is not related to the enhanced greenhouse effect, as the surface temperature can only change through changes in the energy input to the system. Perturbations of the system by gases, or volcanoes, should result in small, rapid temperature spikes, followed by a reversion to equilibrium conditions. This describes exactly the current lack of global warming despite increasing CO2. Another reason I think this paper is worth the effort to understand, is the conclusions are supported by other research. Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, here gave statistical evidence that the Earth’s response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated and explained why current global climate models predict more warming than observed. As well there is a very interesting back story in the DailyTech about how publication of the paper was blocked by NASA and the author resigned in protest. His story is similar to others’ treatment of controversial results. NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. “Money”, he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year. Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, “Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results.” RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI | | [...] [...] While there is a lot of mathematics, they are mostly fairly simple balance equations of radiative flux’s that would present no challenge to people familiar with the field, although some of the concepts are new to me, such as the ‘virial theorem’. It also drops some real zingers. This paper redefines global warming. Of additional equations related to Kirchhoff’s law, constraining the atmosphere to be in thermal equilibrium with the surface, Miskolczi writes: The physical interpretation of these two equations may fundamentally change the general concept of greenhouse theories. The model suggests negligible sensitivity of 0.24C surface temperature increase to doubling CO2 increase. For example, a hypothetical CO2 doubling will increase the optical depth (of the global average profile) by 0.0241, and the related increase in the surface temperature will be 0.24 K. In understanding a theoretical model I like to look for the invariants, those quantities that remain stable despite perturbations of the system. In this model, optical depth emerges as the invariant. The optical depth, or opacity of the atmosphere to IR sits loosely in a kind of ’sweet spot’, making this another example of a niche model. The system is locked to the optical depth because of the energy minimum principle prefers the radiative equilibrium configuration, but the energy conservation principle constrains the available thermal energy. The problem for example with the highly publicized simple ‘bucket analogy’ of greenhouse effect is the ignorance of the energy minimum principle (Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, et al., 2005). The climate system makes regulatory adjustment to compensate for changes in CO2 with changes in humidity and clouds, in order to most efficiently convert short wave incoming solar energy, into long wave outgoing energy. The problem with radiative models used until now is a discontinuity between the atmospheric and surface temperatures. This violates Kirchhoff’s law, that two bodies in thermal equilibrium must have equal temperatures, and is one of the reasons for mysterious unphysical behavior of climate models. Incorporating this simple constraint introduces an energy minimization principle that makes runaway greenhouse warming impossible. This corrects a major deficiency in the current theory, which doesn’t explain why “runaway” greenhouse warming hasn’t happened in the Earth’s past. I find the argument compelling that problems of instability of global climate models stem from inadequate constraints. Miskolczi also presents considerable empirical data for both the Earth and Mars in support of the superiority of his new model of planetary atmospheres. The view of the atmospheric system as an equilibrated system occupying a kind of niche also appeals, although the challenge of this theory will be to explain temperature variability at longer scales adequately. Moreover, the Miskolczi’s approach to explaining the climate system illustrates the difference between an approach taken by a real physicist , and a layman. The layman tends to need an analogy to understand systems, such as the ‘bucket analogy’ for explaining the greenhouse effect, due to limited numeracy. The physicist explains a system simply as the solution set of necessary conservation laws. The popular explanation of the greenhouse effect as the result of the LW atmospheric absorption of the surface radiation and the surface heating by the atmospheric downward radiation is incorrect, since the involved flux terms are always equal. The mechanism of the greenhouse effect may better be explained as the ability of a gravitationally bounded atmosphere to convert incoming to outgoing radiation in such a way that the equilibrium source function profile will assure the radiative balance, the validity of the Kirchhoff law, and the hydrostatic equilibrium. If the model is correct, the real cause of recent warming is not related to the enhanced greenhouse effect, as the surface temperature can only change through changes in the energy input to the system. Perturbations of the system by gases, or volcanoes, should result in small, rapid temperature spikes, followed by a reversion to equilibrium conditions. This describes exactly the current lack of global warming despite increasing CO2. Another reason I think this paper is worth the effort to understand, is the conclusions are supported by other research. Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, here gave statistical evidence that the Earth’s response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated and explained why current global climate models predict more warming than observed. As well there is a very interesting back story in the DailyTech about how publication of the paper was blocked by NASA and the author resigned in protest. His story is similar to others’ treatment of controversial results. NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. “Money”, he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year. Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, “Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results.” RSS feed for comments on this post. | TrackBack URI | | [...]

]]> By: ENM - Niche Modeling » For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility GapAdventures in Environmental Science and Statistics http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/#comment-5625 ENM - Niche Modeling » For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility GapAdventures in Environmental Science and Statistics Thu, 04 May 2006 17:31:38 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=11#comment-5625 [...] Readers of this blog were alerted early to the gathering storm with the post Peer-censorship and scientific fraud. Now the influential New York Times has a Health editorial entitled For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap. Virtually every major scientific and medical journal has been humbled recently by publishing findings that are later discredited. The flurry of episodes has led many people to ask why authors, editors and independent expert reviewers all failed to detect the problems before publication. [...] [...] Readers of this blog were alerted early to the gathering storm with the post Peer-censorship and scientific fraud. Now the influential New York Times has a Health editorial entitled For Science’s Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap. Virtually every major scientific and medical journal has been humbled recently by publishing findings that are later discredited. The flurry of episodes has led many people to ask why authors, editors and independent expert reviewers all failed to detect the problems before publication. [...]

]]> By: davids http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/#comment-5624 davids Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:34:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=11#comment-5624 And here is a quote from The inertia of scientific thought by Thomas Gold http://www.suppressedscience.net/inertiaofscientificthought.html <blockquote>Shortly after the discovery of pulsars I wished to present an interpretation of what pulsars were, at this first pulsar conference: namely that they were rotating neutron stars. The chief organiser of this conference said to me, "Tommy, if I allow for that crazy an interpretation, there is no limit to what I would have to allow". I was not allowed five minutes floor time, although I in fact spoke from the floor. A few months later, this same organiser started a paper with the sentence, "It is now generally considered that pulsars are rotating neutron stars".</blockquote> And here is a quote from The inertia of scientific thought by Thomas Gold http://www.suppressedscience.net/inertiaofscientificthought.html

Shortly after the discovery of pulsars I wished to present an interpretation of what pulsars were, at this first pulsar conference: namely that they were rotating neutron stars. The chief organiser of this conference said to me, “Tommy, if I allow for that crazy an interpretation, there is no limit to what I would have to allow”. I was not allowed five minutes floor time, although I in fact spoke from the floor. A few months later, this same organiser started a paper with the sentence, “It is now generally considered that pulsars are rotating neutron stars”.

]]> By: davids http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/#comment-6034 davids Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:34:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=11#comment-6034 And here is a quote from The inertia of scientific thought by Thomas Gold http://www.suppressedscience.net/inertiaofscientificthought.html <blockquote>Shortly after the discovery of pulsars I wished to present an interpretation of what pulsars were, at this first pulsar conference: namely that they were rotating neutron stars. The chief organiser of this conference said to me, "Tommy, if I allow for that crazy an interpretation, there is no limit to what I would have to allow". I was not allowed five minutes floor time, although I in fact spoke from the floor. A few months later, this same organiser started a paper with the sentence, "It is now generally considered that pulsars are rotating neutron stars".</blockquote> And here is a quote from The inertia of scientific thought by Thomas Gold http://www.suppressedscience.net/inertiaofscientificthought.html

Shortly after the discovery of pulsars I wished to present an interpretation of what pulsars were, at this first pulsar conference: namely that they were rotating neutron stars. The chief organiser of this conference said to me, “Tommy, if I allow for that crazy an interpretation, there is no limit to what I would have to allow”. I was not allowed five minutes floor time, although I in fact spoke from the floor. A few months later, this same organiser started a paper with the sentence, “It is now generally considered that pulsars are rotating neutron stars”.

]]> By: davids http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/#comment-5623 davids Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:33:25 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=11#comment-5623 Hi Callie, I think you are right. The innovation of blogs is that it easily allows interactive discussion of ‘talking point’ posts. As such I think blogs fulfill a very present need in science, as many people want to understand the issues, that the one way feed of traditional publication outlets largely precludes. I think scientists also need to be challenged more about the logic of their arguments, as it has been my impression that if the general public really understood how shaky the foundations of many beliefs are they would be amazed. My personal mission is to bring back falsification. I think many scientists do not attempt to test their theories severely and objectively enough, and merely cast around for supporting evidence – be it models or cherry-picked data. Blogs are an outreach tool par excellence – they can turn your daily work into a reality show. And I think we are finding that it doesn’t hurt to get technical – it is greatly appreciated. That is not to say that there is not a continuing role for the scientific literature. Largely I see blogs as filling a need that has not been previously met. I have actually been sensing some negative reaction to blogs from scientists. It is a challenge to find a tone that works, material that doesn’t take a lot of your time, and adds value. Hi Callie, I think you are right. The innovation of blogs is that it easily allows interactive discussion of ‘talking point’ posts. As such I think blogs fulfill a very present need in science, as many people want to understand the issues, that the one way feed of traditional publication outlets largely precludes.

I think scientists also need to be challenged more about the logic of their arguments, as it has been my impression that if the general public really understood how shaky the foundations of many beliefs are they would be amazed. My personal mission is to bring back falsification. I think many scientists do not attempt to test their theories severely and objectively enough, and merely cast around for supporting evidence – be it models or cherry-picked data.

Blogs are an outreach tool par excellence – they can turn your daily work into a reality show. And I think we are finding that it doesn’t hurt to get technical – it is greatly appreciated. That is not to say that there is not a continuing role for the scientific literature. Largely I see blogs as filling a need that has not been previously met. I have actually been sensing some negative reaction to blogs from scientists. It is a challenge to find a tone that works, material that doesn’t take a lot of your time, and adds value.

]]> By: davids http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/#comment-6033 davids Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:33:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=11#comment-6033 Hi Callie, I think you are right. The innovation of blogs is that it easily allows interactive discussion of ‘talking point’ posts. As such I think blogs fulfill a very present need in science, as many people want to understand the issues, that the one way feed of traditional publication outlets largely precludes. I think scientists also need to be challenged more about the logic of their arguments, as it has been my impression that if the general public really understood how shaky the foundations of many beliefs are they would be amazed. My personal mission is to bring back falsification. I think many scientists do not attempt to test their theories severely and objectively enough, and merely cast around for supporting evidence – be it models or cherry-picked data. Blogs are an outreach tool par excellence – they can turn your daily work into a reality show. And I think we are finding that it doesn’t hurt to get technical – it is greatly appreciated. That is not to say that there is not a continuing role for the scientific literature. Largely I see blogs as filling a need that has not been previously met. I have actually been sensing some negative reaction to blogs from scientists. It is a challenge to find a tone that works, material that doesn’t take a lot of your time, and adds value. Hi Callie, I think you are right. The innovation of blogs is that it easily allows interactive discussion of ‘talking point’ posts. As such I think blogs fulfill a very present need in science, as many people want to understand the issues, that the one way feed of traditional publication outlets largely precludes.

I think scientists also need to be challenged more about the logic of their arguments, as it has been my impression that if the general public really understood how shaky the foundations of many beliefs are they would be amazed. My personal mission is to bring back falsification. I think many scientists do not attempt to test their theories severely and objectively enough, and merely cast around for supporting evidence – be it models or cherry-picked data.

Blogs are an outreach tool par excellence – they can turn your daily work into a reality show. And I think we are finding that it doesn’t hurt to get technical – it is greatly appreciated. That is not to say that there is not a continuing role for the scientific literature. Largely I see blogs as filling a need that has not been previously met. I have actually been sensing some negative reaction to blogs from scientists. It is a challenge to find a tone that works, material that doesn’t take a lot of your time, and adds value.

]]> By: Callie http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/#comment-5622 Callie Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:32:58 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=11#comment-5622 Hi David, I enjoyed reading through some of this. It makes me think of the earlier book publishing days and the controversies that Galileo was involved in. Censorship of science is nothing new (http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/modbooks.html). The ability to self publish in Blogs is an interesting topic with regards to scientific discussions. One wonders how much the improvements of the printing press advanced science. It is an interesting comparison to me of what is happening with the internet and science. Is there an important connection between mans ability to use new communications tools and the advancement of science? Callie Hi David,

I enjoyed reading through some of this. It makes me think of the earlier book publishing days and the controversies that Galileo was involved in. Censorship of science is nothing new (http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/modbooks.html). The ability to self publish in Blogs is an interesting topic with regards to scientific discussions. One wonders how much the improvements of the printing press advanced science. It is an interesting comparison to me of what is happening with the internet and science. Is there an important connection between mans ability to use new communications tools and the advancement of science?

Callie

]]> By: Callie http://landshape.org/enm/peer-censorship-and-scientific-fraud/#comment-6032 Callie Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:32:00 +0000 http://landshape.org/enm/?p=11#comment-6032 Hi David, I enjoyed reading through some of this. It makes me think of the earlier book publishing days and the controversies that Galileo was involved in. Censorship of science is nothing new (http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/modbooks.html). The ability to self publish in Blogs is an interesting topic with regards to scientific discussions. One wonders how much the improvements of the printing press advanced science. It is an interesting comparison to me of what is happening with the internet and science. Is there an important connection between mans ability to use new communications tools and the advancement of science? Callie Hi David,

I enjoyed reading through some of this. It makes me think of the earlier book publishing days and the controversies that Galileo was involved in. Censorship of science is nothing new (http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/starry/modbooks.html). The ability to self publish in Blogs is an interesting topic with regards to scientific discussions. One wonders how much the improvements of the printing press advanced science. It is an interesting comparison to me of what is happening with the internet and science. Is there an important connection between mans ability to use new communications tools and the advancement of science?

Callie

]]>