Recent Comments
Steven Mosher on The Imperial College code dikranmarsupial on The Imperial College code ...and Then There's… on The Imperial College code Willard on The Imperial College code dikranmarsupial on The Imperial College code ...and Then There's… on The Imperial College code dikranmarsupial on The Imperial College code dikranmarsupial on The Imperial College code Ben McMillan on The Imperial College code ...and Then There's… on The Imperial College code 
Rachel Squirrel- British test and trace and scientific experts June 6, 2020
- Rabett Run
- Germany requiring gas stations to have EV chargers June 6, 2020
- HotWhopper
- Variable Variability
- RealClimate
- ‘2040’ June 3, 2020
- Stoat
- Coronavirus days: more endless summer June 2, 2020
- Open Mind
- Step 1: Trump has got to go June 4, 2020
- Climate denial crock of the week
- Music Break: Jackson Browne – Before the Deluge June 6, 2020
- robertscribbler
- A Possible Vaccine, But When? May 18, 2020
- Moyhu
- uknowispeaksense
- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- Real Sceptic
- Choosing Alternative Medicine To Treat Cancer Is Deadly October 25, 2017
- Musings on Quantitative Palaeoecology
- Simplistic and Dangerous Models April 20, 2020
- James’s Empty Blog
- Isaac Held’s Blog
- 73. Tuning to the global mean temperature record November 28, 2016
- More than just data
- Digital conferences – how might they work? May 10, 2020
- Mallemaroking
- A comment piece on the SROCC September 26, 2019
- Symptons of the Universe
- Consolidated June 6, 2020
Tag Archives: Peer-review
Propagation of nonsense
A couple of years ago, I had a guest post about Pat Frank’s suggestion that the propagation of errors invalidate climate model projections.. The guest post was mainy highlighting a very nice video that Patrick Brown had produced so as … Continue reading
No, peer-review isn’t tainted!
It seems that some climate “skeptics” are revelling in the publication of another hoax paper. In this case a paper called The conceptual penis as a social construct, which has now been withdrawn (an archived version is here). The authors … Continue reading
Science is broken!
There’s been quite a lot in the media, and elsewhere, about problems with science. A common theme at the moment is the replication crisis, but you regularly see claims in the blogosphere that papers should be retracted because they supposedly … Continue reading
Posted in ClimateBall, ethics, Research, Science
Tagged Peer-review, Replication crisis, science
109 Comments
Reblog: On Hansen et al.
I haven’t really had a chance to properly read the new Hansen et al. paper (apart from the reviewers, who does?). However, it is clearly a paper that has already had impact and somewhat divided opinions, so I asked Peter … Continue reading
Posted in Climate change, ClimateBall, Global warming, Science
Tagged ICARUS, James Hansen, Peer-review, Peter Thorne, sea level rise
179 Comments
Politicised science?
There are a number of people who seem to object to one of the reviewers of Lennart Bengtsson’s paper saying Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are … Continue reading
Posted in Climate change, Global warming, Science
Tagged climate sceptics, climate skeptics, IoP, Lennart Bengtsson, Peer-review, Politicising science, reviewer
70 Comments
Lennart Bengtsson’s paper
I wasn’t really going to say much about Lennart Bengtsson and the GWPF. Stoat and HotWhopper have covered it if you want to read more. I have some sympathy with someone who may have felt pressurized by their colleagues. On … Continue reading
Elements of truth
Stoat’s recent post about peer review, reminded me that there was something related that I had been considering writing about. There appears to be many climate “skeptics” (deniers some would call them) who regularly make claims about peer review being … Continue reading
Posted in Climate change, Science
Tagged Academics, Peer-review, Research, research funding, universities
48 Comments
