Print

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

[Richie London]

540

[jereboam]

Wikipedia has a long and not particularly good article on peer review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

I didn't believe that this was how it actually worked until I read a few more web references, which all said more or less the same.  It seems that academic politics and in-fighting can suppress research. 

But the old-fashioned peer review concept is only relevant for articles published in the learned journals.  Many of the reports we hear about don't actually come from that path; they are papers presented at conferences called by bodies of lesser reputation.  They are generally refereed, but the referees may not be completely unbiassed, as they are always chosen by the organisers of the conference, who quite often have a political axe to grind. 

Worse still, many of these papers are "leaked" or simply given to the non-specialist press at the same time as they are presented to the academic community, and the exposure they receive far exceeds that of the voices of caution responding to them.  In other words, it's a bandwagon.

[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

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. 

Before I get a six-foot long reply with a million references

  rest easy Chris 

It is not well served by being aired in circles where the understanding is poor

....following that logic Chris the majority of people in this country should be denied a vote, as they have no real understanding of the complex issues that need to be addressed to keep our Nation running in some form of balance.

For the record, I am of the view that climate change is real but caused by the natural cycle rather than wholly human activity.

It is essential however that when assertions are made, such as those by the IPCC, which will fundamentally alter our pattern of day to day  behaviour and provide government with hitherto unachievable legislative power, we have the right to question the validity of the reasons given for this change.

Not to do so is an abrogation of our personal responsibility - surely it's not too much to ask for the results of this science to be based on properly constructed models, realistically reviewed, and free from interference from partisan groups and interested disciples of greater state control and wealth accumulation?

[Nickbat]

US Senator calls for Criminal investigation into 'Global Warming'

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate Files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/12673/53/

One can but hope. 

[Vamps]

Are we aiming to have the longest running thread over a load of unproven tosh, history should have shown this by now..........

[Nickbat]

UKIP would ban Al Gore film in schools
Al Gore's global warming film would be banned in schools under plans by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) to court the climate sceptic vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html

Can't disagree with that. 

Shouldn't have been shown in the first place.

[Chris_H]

UKIP would ban Al Gore film in schools
Al Gore's global warming film would be banned in schools under plans by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) to court the climate sceptic vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html

Can't disagree with that. 

Shouldn't have been shown in the first place.

Ah!  That desire to suppress one side of the argument in order to get one's own view across. 

[Nickbat]

UKIP would ban Al Gore film in schools
Al Gore's global warming film would be banned in schools under plans by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) to court the climate sceptic vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html

Can't disagree with that. 

Shouldn't have been shown in the first place.

Ah!  That desire to suppress one side of the argument in order to get one's own view across. 

Hardly. The film was a deliberate attempt at propaganda with no allowance for opposing views (many of which, if not all, have since been vindicated).

Forcing youngsters to watch one-sided apocalyptic drivel in the classroom is child abuse. No other way to describe it.

     

[Chris_H]

UKIP would ban Al Gore film in schools
Al Gore's global warming film would be banned in schools under plans by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) to court the climate sceptic vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html

Can't disagree with that. 

Shouldn't have been shown in the first place.

Ah!  That desire to suppress one side of the argument in order to get one's own view across. 

Hardly. The film was a deliberate attempt at propaganda with no allowance for opposing views (many of which, if not all, have since been vindicated).

Forcing youngsters to watch one-sided apocalyptic drivel in the classroom is child abuse. No other way to describe it.

     

I knew you'd bite!!  Off down to the bookies to collect my winnings.

[Nickbat]

UKIP would ban Al Gore film in schools
Al Gore's global warming film would be banned in schools under plans by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) to court the climate sceptic vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html

Can't disagree with that. 

Shouldn't have been shown in the first place.

Ah!  That desire to suppress one side of the argument in order to get one's own view across. 

Hardly. The film was a deliberate attempt at propaganda with no allowance for opposing views (many of which, if not all, have since been vindicated).

Forcing youngsters to watch one-sided apocalyptic drivel in the classroom is child abuse. No other way to describe it.

     

I knew you'd bite!!  Off down to the bookies to collect my winnings.

You toe-rag! 

[Dishevelled Den]

UKIP would ban Al Gore film in schools
Al Gore's global warming film would be banned in schools under plans by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) to court the climate sceptic vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html

Can't disagree with that. 

Shouldn't have been shown in the first place.

Ah!  That desire to suppress one side of the argument in order to get one's own view across. 

Hardly. The film was a deliberate attempt at propaganda with no allowance for opposing views (many of which, if not all, have since been vindicated).

Forcing youngsters to watch one-sided apocalyptic drivel in the classroom is child abuse. No other way to describe it.

     

I knew you'd bite!!  Off down to the bookies to collect my winnings.

There's only one justifiable response to that Chris..........



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKNAONxFU4U&feature=related[/media]

[Chris_H]

UKIP would ban Al Gore film in schools
Al Gore's global warming film would be banned in schools under plans by the UK Independence Party (UKIP) to court the climate sceptic vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html

Can't disagree with that. 

Shouldn't have been shown in the first place.

Ah!  That desire to suppress one side of the argument in order to get one's own view across. 

Hardly. The film was a deliberate attempt at propaganda with no allowance for opposing views (many of which, if not all, have since been vindicated).

Forcing youngsters to watch one-sided apocalyptic drivel in the classroom is child abuse. No other way to describe it.

     

I knew you'd bite!!  Off down to the bookies to collect my winnings.

There's only one justifiable response to that Chris..........



[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKNAONxFU4U&feature=related[/media]

So how did the kid lose his front teeth I wonder?

[Bixy1]

Can we all get Range Rovers please, because this 'Global warming' is taking far too long..................!
Its cold, misty and snowy here. :-?

[Nickbat]

"Building expensive wind turbines and other green energy investments is expected to cost Britain €161bn by 2020. That is more than Germany (€72bn), France (€56bn) and Italy (€23bn) will be spending combined, according to research by Matthew Sinclair of the TaxPayers’ Alliance. The good news is that not all of this is being picked up by the taxpayer; the bad news is that the private firms that are shelling out need to make a return on their investments, which means higher prices for consumers, especially given that the whole issue suffers from significant political risk. Citigroup calculates they will need to meet a hurdle rate of 9.2 per cent before tax, which means that prices will eventually have to double for firms to make a decent return on their capital. As ever, those who will suffer the most are the poor who already spend a large proportion of their incomes on utility bills. This is something the middle classes, who don’t mind paying more to assuage their green conscience, should bear in mind."

http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/green-rules-pushing-energy-prices

When will the madness end?

Wind has provided less than 1% of our needs over the last three months, yet these fools want to spend this much money on more?

[alfie]

So its official then,the met office has stated that this winter has been the coldest for over 31 years.
So much for their claims of a man made climate change.
Alfie.