/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8111033
>State specifically the inaccurate prediction.
that would be the prediction by Royer, referenced in >>8102866, that the '90s and early 2000s would see not just cooling but cooling to BELOW the historical average
>http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JC094iC12p18175/full
AND, pic related, there was actually sustained warming over that period. given that the paper you cited was so damn wrong (he didn't just overestimate the trend; he predicted the exact OPPOSITE of what happened), why should we accept the paper's prediction of low climate sensitivity? if he was so damn wrong about the one thing, what makes you think he was right about the other?

>This publisher isn't servile to all the "reveiwers and editors" who are dogmatic warmists. Therefore its bad.
No, as in they will actually publish anything submitted to them, regardless of quality, if you pay their fees. It's the journal equivalent of a diploma mill.
I mean, would you take seriously a paper published in the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology?
>http://www.ijact.org/
It sounds nice and official, but it was recently caught accepting the infamous "Get Me Off Your Fucking Mailing List" manuscript.
>http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/25/journal-accepts-paper-requesting-removal-from-mailing-list
It's got nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with quality. And right now, you're going to great lengths to defend a journal that is really just a moneymaking scam, all because your arguments hinge on a manuscript someone published there because he couldn't get it accepted anywhere else.
Think I've got it all wrong about DES? Prove it. Leaf through their latest issues and see for yourself the quality of the articles therein. or take a look at Olkhovsky (2014); it's not even fucking PROOFREAD.
>http://www.seipub.org/des/paperInfo.aspx?ID=14117#Abstract