You said: “According to Roman, it seems like the feeling here is that it costs too much money to write a paper – plus being outsiders anything you write will be rejected by the peer-review process (as you will be viewed as haters).”

You are simply wrong in your reading. The primary thing is that it takes an act of G-d for a non-author correction to get published. See other links and posts on How To Get A Comment Published in 1 2 3 Easy Steps, etc.

A Google search of Corrigendum revealed an interesting editorial: Maintaining the integrity of the scientific record. This was published in the Journal of Experimental Biology (JEB) upon their first retraction of a published article. Pertinent to this topic: it is the original author who files a corrigendum, and the original author who pays the cost of that correction.

RomanM was discussing Corrigenda, not original articles.

Kenneth, I got my answer. No need for you to lend me your shoulder to lean on (when I’m not strong). …and it sounds like you are the one who is more “bent out of shape” than the one with that name.

Roman thanks for the honesty. According to Roman, it seems like the feeling here is that it costs too much money to write a paper – plus being outsiders anything you write will be rejected by the peer-review process (as you will be viewed as haters). So you are resigned to blog posts… with the hope that you are listed in the acknowledgments of a paper for your scientific contribution. A scientific “shout-out”, if you will. Now I see the aim of this (and similar) blog(s) and will read them in a new light.

Steve: the monetary cost of writing a paper is not an issue for me. You’re inventing things. If you wish to discuss Yamal, please do so. Editorially, I don’t wish this distraction to hijack the thread and have snipped/deleted irrelevant discussion.

Do you think, for example, D’Arrigo and Wilson might have wanted to know how highly rpelicated the chronology was when they wrote the 2006 paper?

Apparently not, given Wilson’s most recent post here (on the revisiting the Yamel substitution thread).

What inconsistency?

Why is it that the scientists … have to print a correction in the peer reviewed literature – which is also deemed to be worthless by many?

Because that is where they made their original claims of scientific correctness and if if they are honest with themselves (assuming that they accept that a substantial error has been made), they should post such a correction in the same place. There is no such responsibility or moral imperative on others to do that for them. Given the “closed shop” mentality of many journals (never mind the actual monetary costs), it would be a rare day for most people to even try to publish scientific corrigenda particularly after past experience.

The authors are perfectly welcome to dispute and/or correct what is said at this blog if they so wish, but no one says that they are required to do so either. I am hoping that at least a few will re-evaluate their work in light of what they read and maybe give some credit for the few bon mots they may take away from here.

Their choice.

you are trying to put my back against the wall b/c I point out an inconsistency here. Not falling for it. I asked bender if it would be ok if the authors posted a comment in a blog about the error. He said it would be a start, see #78.

Why just a start???

Why is it that the scientists who are constantly ridiculed and put down, for example: “But hey, it’s climate science.”, have to print a correction in the peer reviewed literature – which is also deemed to be worthless by many? When at the same time, it’s ok for those here to post comments on a blog that MUST be addressed by the scientists? And if the scientists don’t immediately run here to “defend themselves”, it is a big conspiracy/they are hiding something, and their science is a joke?
I understand that blogs are a new forum for smart, trained professionals to affect a field they were not originally trained in. I agree that it is a good opportunity to bring in fresh ideas.

But something has to change from the current state. It is a strange inconsistency. That is what I was talking about originally.

I think bent confuses “instant gratification” with how a bunch of people can discuss topics of mutual interest without actually sitting in the same room. If what is being discussed on the blog has no credibility, it should be easy for anyone with more than half a brain to point the errors. Since I didn’t see him post any tangible comments in that direction, I would conclude that bender has it right.