Forums | MacLife

Chickenhawk wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

jerwin wrote:

Impact Factor: 2.332

Not exactly Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics

So whats the minimum impact factor required to completely disregard anything they publish?

Well, its not quite disregarding. Its more that the professional opinion of people published in more respectable journals is more important. I could pull up a House quote right now, but I hope I'm making my point without it.

How about a metric that isnt heavily influence on people giving away their product?

How would you account for the increased citation rate of ACP?

The high and increasing citation rates of ACP are certainly due to multiple reasons, most of which are related to the advantages of its interactive open access journal concept (freely accessible two-stage publications with public peer review and interactive discussion as detailed on the journal website*). We think that the following aspects are most important:

free internet accessibility of all articles (open access publishing);
rapid dissemination of novel scientific results as discussion papers on the ACPD website (minimum time from submission to publication on the order of one week);

Steyr AUG wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Steyr AUG wrote:

So whats the minimum impact factor required to completely disregard anything they publish?

Well, its not quite disregarding. Its more that the professional opinion of people published in more respectable journals is more important. I could pull up a House quote right now, but I hope I'm making my point without it.

How about a metric that isnt heavily influence on people giving away their product?

How would you account for the increased citation rate of ACP?

The high and increasing citation rates of ACP are certainly due to multiple reasons, most of which are related to the advantages of its interactive open access journal concept (freely accessible two-stage publications with public peer review and interactive discussion as detailed on the journal website*). We think that the following aspects are most important:

free internet accessibility of all articles (open access publishing);
rapid dissemination of novel scientific results as discussion papers on the ACPD website (minimum time from submission to publication on the order of one week);

Nature has an Impact factor of 30.98; Science is 29.78. Both will accept checks.

So, at last we have come to this. Instead of talking about the math and the observations, we talk about the people. Sure sounds like politicization of science to me.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Citation rate still means that people are reading it and find it useful enough to cite.

Pretty easy to cite something you can get for free versus one you have to pay for.

Not when you consider that most people who are publishing papers are affiliated with institutions with subscriptions to many *more* reputable journals.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Citation rate still means that people are reading it and find it useful enough to cite.

Pretty easy to cite something you can get for free versus one you have to pay for.

The Lancet costs $179 per year. The Iraq War costs $100 billion a year.  The trust gap is so very wide.

Steyr AUG wrote:

Tends to happen when someone guesses that dissenters are not really published or not in respected journals.

No, it tends to happen when people judge climate science not on the basis of individual papers, but on lists of quotes.

dude, just post the urls. let us read the papers, and we'll judge for ourselves.

Farmerkev wrote:

Metacell wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

If you live in LA or Denver you just might all have to drive electric cars to control your air quality issues. Yes, your problem. I didn't tell you to cram millions in a bowl.
Like always, smurf brings in other tangental issues and it shouldn't.
That is unless you real agenda is "man is bad and must be stopped".

What I'm implying is that if we all stopped packing together in cities and spread out, the impact on the environment would be astronomically worse.  Thank your lucky stars for cities.  In fact, getting more people into cities and less into suburban sprawl is a big environmental objective.

It's a basic overpopulation problem.  Believe me, if I could afford to leave, I would.

Let me try this another way.
Someone you love gets cancer.
Do you take chemo with them?
Notice there are no judgments about the unfairness of the situation, smurf happens for one reason or another.

Is cancer contagious?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

How about, "I don't live in Jew York City, no terr'ist is gonna attack my li'l burg, so why should I care about any of it?"

Your assuming that there really is a global warming crisis, or will be one, and there is action we can take to stop it.
And before you say your favorite phrase, better safe than sorry really doesn't always apply. In fact, it seldom applies to anything.

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

How about, "I don't live in Jew York City, no terr'ist is gonna attack my li'l burg, so why should I care about any of it?"

Your assuming that there really is a global warming crisis, or will be one, and there is action we can take to stop it.
And before you say your favorite phrase, better safe than sorry really doesn't always apply. In fact, it seldom applies to anything.

That's my favourite phrase? I wasn't aware.

Anyway as I've stated here more times than I can count, this whole argument, like most religious debates, bores me beyond description.

However I still lean toward the "do something about it" camp because of what those people think of as side benefits, but which I feel to be primary: reduction of dependence on oil, reduced energy consumption, reduced consumerism and consumption, and dare I say it, the transforming of humanity from walking stomachs to beings with purposes more meaningful than shopping.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

How about, "I don't live in Jew York City, no terr'ist is gonna attack my li'l burg, so why should I care about any of it?"

Your assuming that there really is a global warming crisis, or will be one, and there is action we can take to stop it.
And before you say your favorite phrase, better safe than sorry really doesn't always apply. In fact, it seldom applies to anything.

That's my favourite phrase? I wasn't aware.

Anyway as I've stated here more times than I can count, this whole argument, like most religious debates, bores me beyond description.

However I still lean toward the "do something about it" camp because of what those people think of as side benefits, but which I feel to be primary: reduction of dependence on oil, reduced energy consumption, reduced consumerism and consumption, and dare I say it, the transforming of humanity from walking stomachs to beings with purposes more meaningful than shopping.

Yeah, you're not alone with those feelings either.
It always reminds me of Carrie Nation when I hear it.

freecat wrote:

However I still lean toward the "do something about it" camp because of what those people think of as side benefits, but which I feel to be primary: reduction of dependence on oil, reduced energy consumption, reduced consumerism and consumption, and dare I say it, the transforming of humanity from walking stomachs to beings with purposes more meaningful than shopping.

Just curious, how many people do you know like that, i.e. who have very little purpose in their lives beyond consumption?  And lest you read too much into the question, I really am just curious.

Personally, I've known many people who fit that description, but only temporarily. It's ultimately unsatisfying, and they've all moved onto what might be called a higher purpose, like seeking out challenges to overcome. For all the talk about "consumerism" what I observe is some people buying stuff for no reason, simply because they can, but plenty of others buying stuff (vacations, meals, booze, video games, kayaks, snowmobiles, laptops, HDTVs, etc. ad infinitum) that they genuinely enjoy. How do you sort out who has a problem and who doesn't?

You and the point are in different time zones here.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

You and the point are in different time zones here.

Yes, I know. It was an aside, more about one of your premises than your conclusion.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

That's my favourite phrase? I wasn't aware.

Anyway as I've stated here more times than I can count, this whole argument, like most religious debates, bores me beyond description.

However I still lean toward the "do something about it" camp because of what those people think of as side benefits, but which I feel to be primary: reduction of dependence on oil, reduced energy consumption, reduced consumerism and consumption, and dare I say it, the transforming of humanity from walking stomachs to beings with purposes more meaningful than shopping.

Yeah, you're not alone with those feelings either.
It always reminds me of Carrie Nation when I hear it.

Aaaaand Kev leaps to the false either/or fallacy. Lovely!

Oddly enough there was no either or stated but thanks for playing. See the girl for a lovely parting gift on your way out.