Sunsettommy
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2018
- 14,917
- 12,544
- 2,400
Global Warming Petition Project
Excerpt"
Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research
Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions.
When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him.
A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. To view the entire article in html, 150-dpi PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF, Spanish or figures alone in powerpoint or flash, click on the appropriate item in this sentence.
The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.
LINK
=====
This is an older presentation from 2008, worth reading to show that long ago, there were many skeptical scientists, and researchers who didn't swallow the Consensus bullcrap. Who didn't think the AGW conjecture was robust or replicable, which is why an impressive 31,400 + signatures should make people wonder.
The list of signatures are impressive in their level of education and professional status, it is why this Project has infuriated warmist/alarmists who try hard to discredit it with bogus arguments and hostility. They never did provide a mature response to the presentation and to the validity of the list of signatories.
Excerpt"
Summary of Peer-Reviewed Research
Most scientists have a detailed knowledge of their own narrow field of specialization, a general knowledge of fundamental science, an understanding of the scientific method, and a mental model that encompasses a broad range of scientific disciplines. This model serves as the basis of their thoughts about scientific questions.
When a scientist desires to refine his understanding of a specific scientific subject, he often begins by reading one or more review articles about that topic. As he reads, he compares the facts given in the review with his mental model of the subject, refining his model and updating it with current information. Review articles do not present new discoveries. The essential facts given in the review must be referenced to the peer-reviewed scientific research literature, so that the reader can check the assertions and conclusions of the article and obtain more detailed information about aspects that interest him.
A 12-page review article about the human-caused global warming hypothesis is circulated with the petition. To view the entire article in html, 150-dpi PDF, 300-dpi PDF, 600-dpi PDF, Spanish or figures alone in powerpoint or flash, click on the appropriate item in this sentence.
The factual information cited in this article is referenced to the underlying research literature, in this case by 132 references listed at the end of the article. Although written primarily for scientists, most of this article can be understood without formal scientific training. This article was submitted to many scientists for comments and suggestions before it was finalized and submitted for publication. It then underwent ordinary peer review by the publishing journal.
LINK
=====
This is an older presentation from 2008, worth reading to show that long ago, there were many skeptical scientists, and researchers who didn't swallow the Consensus bullcrap. Who didn't think the AGW conjecture was robust or replicable, which is why an impressive 31,400 + signatures should make people wonder.
The list of signatures are impressive in their level of education and professional status, it is why this Project has infuriated warmist/alarmists who try hard to discredit it with bogus arguments and hostility. They never did provide a mature response to the presentation and to the validity of the list of signatories.