A Look at Peer Review from the Skeptical Side

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Apr 21, 2011.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    9,200
    Thanks Received:
    1,071
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,448
    http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf

    a must read for anyone who wonders why there was a fuss made over the climategate emails. it also describes how the slanted playing field is obtained and preserved in climate science peer review.

    anyone who thinks it must be better since climategate has only to go back and read the tortureous road that R O'Donnell had while trying to debunk the Steig study on Antarctica.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 3
  2. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    I've peer reviewed these posts and find them 100% accurate.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. uscitizen
    Offline

    uscitizen Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    45,941
    Thanks Received:
    4,791
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    My Shack
    Ratings:
    +4,807
    Pier review? Not posts those are pilings.
    Sheesh, amateurs.
     
  5. asterism
    Offline

    asterism Congress != Progress

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,592
    Thanks Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Ratings:
    +1,073
    It's just a short 4 years ago that peer review was held sacrosanct and unapproachable. Now suddenly it's a "human process" with some "minor flaws." It was only 5 years ago that the IPCC reports were considered "Peer Reviewed" scientific reports.

    Then the 2007 IPCC report was found to have non-peer reviewed opinions written by environmental activists, bad data from non-conforming surface stations, and a transposition of paleoclimate reconstructions on top of empirical measured data. Climategate was merely the beginning, but it was a watershed. The process is corrupt, the data is corrupt, the initial models were fiction, and the raw data is gone.

    The hubris is that the Climate hucksters still don't realize how obvious their "Science" is tainted by biases about who is doing the research and publishing the papers.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    As peer review involves humans, there is always a possibility that it can have bias. Scientists recognize this and are diligent to keep the peer-review process clean so that we can keep it as an untainted exchange of knowledge.

    Then came the warmergate emails. They are an insult to all science.
     
  7. konradv
    Online

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,583
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,677
    Regardless of of individual bias, and you're not immume as your "huckster" comment shows, the basic logic of AGW is unassailable IMO.

    We know that CO2 and other gases trap Infra-red radiation.

    We know their concentrations in the atmosphere have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution.

    Therefore, if the trend continues, how can we expect anything but warming?


    See that, no data, no "hucksterism", just LOGIC. The skeptics would do well to study the subject.
     
  8. Si modo
    Offline

    Si modo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2009
    Messages:
    41,538
    Thanks Received:
    6,382
    Trophy Points:
    1,810
    Location:
    St. Eligius
    Ratings:
    +8,703
    Well, there is NO logic to equating correlation to causation, as you just did.

    But, you usually do that.
     
  9. asterism
    Offline

    asterism Congress != Progress

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2010
    Messages:
    8,592
    Thanks Received:
    906
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Central Florida
    Ratings:
    +1,073
    Please educate us on the part of the Scientific Method you used in that summary. Also, pull some past climate models that directly correlated CO2 concentrations with temperature increases. Then show me one that got 2010 correct. According to your logic, 2010 should have been by far the warmest year on record. Was it?

    See that's the point, you haven't studied the subject. The "subject" being the actual science involved. You have apparently studied the politics and appeals to authority. A study of the science shows flaws in the models, flaws in the process, and a group of gatekeeper Scientists not following the Scientific Method. All because of the very reason you stated, "the basic logic of AGW is unassailable."
     
  10. konradv
    Online

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,583
    Thanks Received:
    2,558
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,677
    And once again you've made a false charge. That some gases absorb IR isn't correlation, it's established scientific fact. Saying we're responsible for the rise in GHGs may be correlation, but since we put out more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year, it's correlation bordering on the obvious. Therefore, it's up to the skeptics to tell us where that extra gas is coming from, if not from us. Got any ideas? If you don't, then line 3 follows logically from 1 & 2.
     

Share This Page