Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

Impressed .. you went 5 days without posting in it ....

patches working then ..  ??       

If you insist E, - bear with me however, I'm a bit the worse for wear on prescription meds.


[size=12]Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels[/size]


[size=10]Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.[/size]


Read more:   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

[albitz]

One wheel on my wagon..................

[alfie]

Just when I was starting to beleive them!

[Dishevelled Den]

Just when I was starting to beleive them!

I'm glad that you've been rescued from certain doom through mind control Alfie

[Chris_H]

Impressed .. you went 5 days without posting in it ....

patches working then ..  ??       

If you insist E, - bear with me however, I'm a bit the worse for wear on prescription meds.


[size=12]Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels[/size]


[size=10]Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.[/size]


Read more:   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

The only thing it really proves is that peer review has an effect.

I was at uni with a guy who dis-proved a number of mathematical publications that one of our lecturers had authored.  He even taught his colleagues how to do their finals "wrong" so that they got high marks!!  "Do it like this for the exam then like this in the big wide world."

[Dishevelled Den]

Impressed .. you went 5 days without posting in it ....

patches working then ..  ??       

If you insist E, - bear with me however, I'm a bit the worse for wear on prescription meds.


[size=12]Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels[/size]


[size=10]Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.[/size]


Read more:   http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall

The only thing it really proves is that peer review has an effect.

I was at uni with a guy who dis-proved a number of mathematical publications that one of our lecturers had authored.  He even taught his colleagues how to do their finals "wrong" so that they got high marks!!  "Do it like this for the exam then like this in the big wide world."

The only thing it really proves is that peer review has an effect

I agree that peer review is of the utmost importance Chris - especially as the science is constantly evolving - however the rush to publish such studies without having a thorough review beforehand is somewhat disturbing.

This is more concerning when one considers the raw fact that the decisions presently being made by our Government - in terms of taxation to discourage energy use and the fundamental change to our personal habits and liberty in the effort to lessen our individual 'carbon footprint’ - seem to be based on the utterances of the IPCC through such findings.


Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.

In my view, this indecent haste simply de-values the study.

[Nickbat]

I'm not sure that peer review is of the utmost importance.

I came across this comment, which succinctly points out the flaws in the system.

Peer review certainly is flawed. Accepted wisdom once was that peptic ulcers were caused by lifestyle choices. Then a couple of Aussies wrote a paper claiming that peptic ulcers were caused by a bacteria called Helicobacter Pylori. Well...weren't they just pilloried and ridiculed. Until 20 years or so later when Drs. Marshall and Warren received the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Once the scholastics take hold of an idea, right or wrong, it is very, very difficult to loosen their grip. Unfortunately those self-same scholastics are going to be the ones reviewing all the papers that come their way. They are generally the people in the environment with the most to lose should their ideas be overthrown. So should someone actually think a new and peerless thought that thought is almost sure to be rejected precisely because it is new and peerless. Not because it may be incorrect but simply because no one has ever thought it before and there are no peers. The list of paradigm changing concepts that have suffered this fate throughout history is very long.

From commenter Dana Still on this page:

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/903-reviewing-peer-review

 

[Dishevelled Den]

I'm not sure that peer review is of the utmost importance.

I came across this comment, which succinctly points out the flaws in the system.

Peer review certainly is flawed. Accepted wisdom once was that peptic ulcers were caused by lifestyle choices. Then a couple of Aussies wrote a paper claiming that peptic ulcers were caused by a bacteria called Helicobacter Pylori. Well...weren't they just pilloried and ridiculed. Until 20 years or so later when Drs. Marshall and Warren received the Nobel Prize for Medicine. Once the scholastics take hold of an idea, right or wrong, it is very, very difficult to loosen their grip. Unfortunately those self-same scholastics are going to be the ones reviewing all the papers that come their way. They are generally the people in the environment with the most to lose should their ideas be overthrown. So should someone actually think a new and peerless thought that thought is almost sure to be rejected precisely because it is new and peerless. Not because it may be incorrect but simply because no one has ever thought it before and there are no peers. The list of paradigm changing concepts that have suffered this fate throughout history is very long.

From commenter Dana Still on this page:

http://www.themarknews.com/articles/903-reviewing-peer-review

 

I am of course assuming that such reviews are carried out out by people expert in the same discipline who are also doing so with an open mind and with the best interests of the science at heart.

The worrying fact that so much reliance has been placed on these studies by governments eager to 'do something - anything', is disturbing to say the least. 

Irrespective of this mess of confused findings  - created largely by the scientists working these climate studies - there must be some review process of the results of this research, and who better to do it than other people expert in the field. 

Such work must be checked before publication - especially when the stakes are so high.

[Dishevelled Den]

No wonder people are not only confused but also concerned;



Thomas Karl, the head of Obama's new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

The following inclination may also be part of the problem;

He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office "would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others" whose views might diverge from theirs

Read more at: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/#/scitech/planet-earth/ci.New+Climate+Agency+Head+Tried+to+Suppress+Data%2C+Critics+Charge.opinion

[Nickbat]

No wonder people are not only confused but also concerned;



Thomas Karl, the head of Obama's new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

The following inclination may also be part of the problem;

He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office "would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others" whose views might diverge from theirs

Read more at: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/#/scitech/planet-earth/ci.New+Climate+Agency+Head+Tried+to+Suppress+Data%2C+Critics+Charge.opinion

Why am I not surprised? There's so much money swilling around in all this, it's squeezed out the honesty. 

[Chris_H]

No wonder people are not only confused but also concerned;



Thomas Karl, the head of Obama's new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

The following inclination may also be part of the problem;

He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office "would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others" whose views might diverge from theirs

Read more at: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/#/scitech/planet-earth/ci.New+Climate+Agency+Head+Tried+to+Suppress+Data%2C+Critics+Charge.opinion

I'm afraid I have to say that's sensible talk Zulu.

The debate is a technical one with very subtle pointers.  It is not well served by being aired in circles where the understanding is poor (and I include this forum in that since no-one here has publicly announced their professional involvement in climate analysis).  What is needed is an efficient network of talented climate scientists that are trusted by the majority to reach the right conclusions.

The anti-AGW camp appear to be purely interested in discrediting - I say "appear" because I haven't heard a real anti-AGW scientist AFAIK.

Before I get a six-foot long reply with a million references I must declare that I am not interested enough to go looking too hard since my specialities are in a different field. 

[Nickbat]

No wonder people are not only confused but also concerned;



Thomas Karl, the head of Obama's new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

The following inclination may also be part of the problem;

He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office "would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others" whose views might diverge from theirs

Read more at: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/#/scitech/planet-earth/ci.New+Climate+Agency+Head+Tried+to+Suppress+Data%2C+Critics+Charge.opinion

I'm afraid I have to say that's sensible talk Zulu.

The debate is a technical one with very subtle pointers.  It is not well served by being aired in circles where the understanding is poor (and I include this forum in that since no-one here has publicly announced their professional involvement in climate analysis).  What is needed is an efficient network of talented climate scientists that are trusted by the majority to reach the right conclusions.

The anti-AGW camp appear to be purely interested in discrediting - I say "appear" because I haven't heard a real anti-AGW scientist AFAIK.

Before I get a six-foot long reply with a million references I must declare that I am not interested enough to go looking too hard since my specialities are in a different field. 

Which is what we have not had to date. Hence the problem.

Incidentally, the term "climate scientist" is a bit grey since it has only become a specific university discipline during the past few years. Furthermore, climate is intensely complex and covers a multitude of disciplines from meteorology, atmospheric physics, solar physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, geology, paleontology and spectrometry, to name but a few, so it is doubtful whether any "climate scientist" could have sufficient knowledge of all these subjects  Many (especially on the alarmist side) tend to slag off remarks by qualified people if they do not have a specific "climate scientist" nomenclature. It is, of course, as daft as slagging off a neurosurgeon because he's not a general practitioner.

     

[Chris_H]

No wonder people are not only confused but also concerned;



Thomas Karl, the head of Obama's new Climate Change office has been criticized for trying to suppress contradictory scientific data on climate change.

The following inclination may also be part of the problem;

He said the people who run the agencies in charge of climate monitoring are too narrowly focused, and he worries that the creation of the new office "would give the same small group of people the chance to speak on the issue and exclude others" whose views might diverge from theirs

Read more at: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/22/tom-karl-tried-to-suppress-data-critics-charge/#/scitech/planet-earth/ci.New+Climate+Agency+Head+Tried+to+Suppress+Data%2C+Critics+Charge.opinion

I'm afraid I have to say that's sensible talk Zulu.

The debate is a technical one with very subtle pointers.  It is not well served by being aired in circles where the understanding is poor (and I include this forum in that since no-one here has publicly announced their professional involvement in climate analysis).  What is needed is an efficient network of talented climate scientists that are trusted by the majority to reach the right conclusions.

The anti-AGW camp appear to be purely interested in discrediting - I say "appear" because I haven't heard a real anti-AGW scientist AFAIK.

Before I get a six-foot long reply with a million references I must declare that I am not interested enough to go looking too hard since my specialities are in a different field. 

Which is what we have not had to date. Hence the problem.

Incidentally, the term "climate scientist" is a bit grey since it has only become a specific university discipline during the past few years. Furthermore, climate is intensely complex and covers a multitude of disciplines from meteorology, atmospheric physics, solar physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer science, geology, paleontology and spectrometry, to name but a few, so it is doubtful whether any "climate scientist" could have sufficient knowledge of all these subjects  Many (especially on the alarmist side) tend to slag off remarks by qualified people if they do not have a specific "climate scientist" nomenclature. It is, of course, as daft as slagging off a neurosurgeon because he's not a general practitioner.

     

Yes.  I agree.  I was using the term "climate scientist" in that vague way to imply someone who had some legitimate(?) schooling/experience on the subject rather than just intelligent observers.

Incidentally, I'm not sure that computer science would be a necessary skill as it should be possible for that function to be delegated to a separate individual with that skill.

[Nickbat]

Since the scam whole AGW theory is based on computer climate modelling, I would suggest that it really is important to have proper computer scientists on board.

[Nickbat]

Wind farms. What do people expect – electricity?

http://www.climategate.com/wind-turbines-the-truth?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+climategate%2FROux+%28CLIMATEGATE%29