Thread: Two possible sources for global warming: Greenhouse gases and the Earth's core. Both could be caused by man.

The closed review process simply has like minded individuals agreeing with each other.

It doesn't matter if the review process isn't perfect - except to the extent that the lack of any review process would overload us with a lot of rubbish papers.

Publication in a journal, after any kind of peer review, is only the first step in the process. If you compare it to horse racing, you might say the initial peer review is a bit like acceptances, plus vet certification - as a form of 'review' - that a horse is permitted to run in that race on that day. But once the gates are opened, it's up to the quality of the horse and rider whether they put in a creditable performance, get a placing, win some prize money - or run the wrong way from the off and make complete fools of themselves.

Same thing for science publishing. Peer review only gets you into the competition. Thereafter it's up to the scientific community. A rubbish paper is usually ignored entirely. Sometimes a poor quality paper which claims to extend, explain or refute earlier work by others will gather a few citations simply from people citing it only in order to make mincemeat of it.

Good quality papers with robust conclusions will gather citations, the best of the best will do so for a long time. A scientist who regularly produces such papers might garner awards - some of which could have cash attached - a Nobel being the big time here. That's the real peer review. The whole scientific community gets a chance to look at your work, tear it to pieces if they can, give you a pat on the back if they can't.

What most people who focus on peer review overlook is that science is fiercely competitive. Ask anyone who's made the mistake of going to a science conference with a friend. The criticisms of presentations can be vicious and the arguments strident. It's not pretty, it's not comfortable, and if you're at all thin-skinned, you won't survive.

Is this your linked study:

Warming of Global Abyssal and Deep Southern Ocean Waters between the
1990s and 2000s: Contributions to Global Heat and Sea Level Rise Budgets*

Originally Posted by adelady

The closed review process simply has like minded individuals agreeing with each other.

It doesn't matter if the review process isn't perfect - except to the extent that the lack of any review process would overload us with a lot of rubbish papers.

I read that as you saying "keep the true scientific skeptics out so we can make things up."

There are too many holes in AWG sciences. This is because certain things are blatantly ignored.

AGW is real. I will argue that the sensitivity of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses is greatly exaggerated.

I read that as you saying "keep the true scientific skeptics out so we can make things up."

True scientific skeptics? Make things up? What things are made up or constitute "holes"?

"AGW sciences" is a bit mysterious to me. Physics. Fluid mechanics. Oceanography. Cryology. Glaciology. Geology. Marine biology. Satellite imagery. Meteorology. Which of these do you find to be holey?

Do you have a list that we could refer to?

SEPARATE NOTE Tone is important. This forum is not part of the charmless free-for-all that passes for discussion on many climate blogs.

I realise you have issues with the science. It's another thing entirely to accuse me or anyone else of personal dishonesty - or is there a reading of 'I read that as you saying "keep the true scientific skeptics out so we can make things up." ' that I've overlooked.

the other addressed average levels.

It address variability...not a net change and discounted your first links conclusions about the minimum it had problems. "Analyses of the ERBS/ERBE data set do not support the Wilson and Mordvinor analyses approach because it used the Nimbus-7 data set which exhibited a significant ACR response shift of 0.7 Wm-2"

NASA has continued to work on tracking TSI from multiple sources...a more recent composite shows the small decline over the past 30 years.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Real science would include the skeptics. Real scientists are real skeptics. Get the skeptics to agree with the papers, and now we have science. The closed review process simply has like minded individuals agreeing with each other.

There are dozens of suitable publications in the US, and overseas. You really think there's been so much international cooperation between world governments and agencies going back to the 1960s (and some earlier) when scientific started to bring concerns? Who's being rejected? Who can't find someplace to publish? What papers have been hung on the numerous web sights outside of the peer-review publications which you think are worthy of consideration? Can you link some here so we get a view? If not why not?