Notices
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 201 to 205 of 205
Like Tree21Likes

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

  1. #201  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    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.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #202  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #203  
    Forum Professor Wild Cobra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,140
    Quote Originally Posted by adelady View Post
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #204  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,222
    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.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #205  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,416
    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Cobra View Post
    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?
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 15th, 2012, 07:20 PM
  2. Coal and greenhouse gases.
    By Bunbury in forum Environmental Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: October 26th, 2007, 06:01 PM
  3. 2004 tsunami caused by global warming ?
    By ghost7584 in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: June 5th, 2007, 07:11 PM
  4. Importance of greenhouse gases???
    By rct1718 in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 18th, 2006, 10:17 PM
  5. Replies: 5
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2006, 09:15 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •