The credibility spectrum (Feedback needed)

[Tempest Stormwind]

Regarding the expanded version of the spectrum that appeared in No Holds Barred, the only example you had of an expected "warmist" going against his bias was Patrick Moore. However, Greenpeace finally cleared up that he is unconnected and unconcerned with their goals.

If a new name is needed, I suggest David Bellamy. (Do read the Monbiot link there, as it goes into the lunacy of Bellamy's thought processes.)

[BaerbelW]

Hi Folks,

Joe Romm today has a post titled "Game changing Obama gaffe?" and I somehow think it could be a pretty good example for the need to check ones sources and assess them via a credibility spectrum.

Cheers
Baerbel

[MTGAP]

I know that you're pretty much done with the book, but I'm offering my two cents anyway.

The credibility spectrum looks good to me. I tend to distrust think tanks, but I suppose they are in a good place, since you can find an individual who believes pretty much anything.

climatesight.org has a good credibility spectrum: http://climatesight.org/2009/04/11/t...lity-spectrum/

It includes more categories, such as scientists and climatologists. It goes like this:

individual -> professional -> non-publishing scientist -> publishing scientist -> earth scientist -> climatologist -> university -> peer-reviewed paper -> scientific organization.

[gaiasdaughter]

Originally Posted by MTGAP

I know that you're pretty much done with the book, but I'm offering my two cents anyway.

MTGAP the book is totally finished, printed, and on the bookstore shelves -- but the spirit of the book is to think for yourself. In that light, other credibility spectrums are welcome -- this isn't a 'one size fits all' world!

Thanks for the input!

[776281]

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...cience.1186078

There is peer review and then there is peer review. The credibility of publishing does vary. Even the best get caught out, but the best takes steps to get the mistakes noted and corrected.

This in my opinion is why Science is the most reliable source of scientific information.

[scientia]

Originally Posted by Tempest Stormwind

Regarding the expanded version of the spectrum that appeared in No Holds Barred, the only example you had of an expected "warmist" going against his bias was Patrick Moore. However, Greenpeace finally cleared up that he is unconnected and unconcerned with their goals.

If a new name is needed, I suggest David Bellamy. (Do read the Monbiot link there, as it goes into the lunacy of Bellamy's thought processes.)

Bellamy's thought processes are indeed bizarre. More low down on him
including a video of him with Monbiot is available here.

David Bellamy and bad science bellamy and bunkum.html

[wibble]

Originally Posted by Tempest Stormwind

[...]
If a new name is needed, I suggest David Bellamy. (Do read the Monbiot link there, as it goes into the lunacy of Bellamy's thought processes.)

I wasn't sure which 'Monbiot link' you were referring to. I did find this interesting and illuminating link on the 'external links' section: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004...david-bellamy/.

I once respected David Bellamy's opinion highly. Sadly, having read this 'conversation with Monbiot,' his opinion, if it features anywhere at all on my own credibility spectrum, is high on the 'deluded or bought-out' list. Which is a real pity, because David is a charismatic character, with a real gift for making sometimes obscure science both entertaining and comprehensible.

If he could be turned, he could become a powerful ally... but perhaps someone on the 'other side of the argument' has already thought of that.

[Tempest Stormwind]

I was talking about this link. Bellamy's poor typing started its own denialist meme through sheer audacity.

[wibble]

Originally Posted by Tempest Stormwind

I was talking about this link. Bellamy's poor typing started its own denialist meme through sheer audacity.

Not adding anything to the conversation here, sorry, but I felt obliged to say... I'm speechless.

[776281]

There are Journals and there are Journals. Near the top of the heap is Nature.
Being extremely prestigious, does not stop them being money hungry.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/06...alifornia.html

The various campuses of the University of California subscribe to science journals by purchasing a license that allows electronic access for members of the university community, including students. The average cost of this subscription for life science journals is $4,142 per journal. Total cost for the University of California system is 24.3 million dollars per year.

Nature Publishing Group publishes 67 journals including Nature and all of the various spinoffs. The average cost for a NPG journal was $4,465 but NPG is proposing to charge $17,479 per journal next year. This is a 400% increase.

http://chronicle.com/article/U-of-Ca...es-Just/65823/

The University of California system has said "enough" to the Nature Publishing Group, one of the leading commercial scientific publishers, over a big proposed jump in the cost of the group's journals.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegrea..._boycot_1.html

The University of California is mulling a boycott of Nature Publishing Group in response to what it claims is a proposed 400% increase in subscription fees to the group’s journals, a letter from the university’s libraries reveals.

Dated 4 June, the letter says that unless NPG keeps to the current subscription agreement, faculty will be asked to cease submitting papers and undertaking peer review for NPG journals, to resign from all NPG editorial and advisory boards, and to not advertise jobs in NPG journals. Staff would also be urged to encourage “sympathy actions” from researchers outside the UC system.

My new favorite
http://www.sciencemag.org/