If this is global warming...

Page 4 of 16  
On 14 Feb 2007 18:02:03 -0800, upand_at snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote:

Several obvious questions: 1) Where were these recordings taken? Can local environmental factors like urban heat sink explain the apparent rise?
2) Given the small variance (+/- 0.5C) is this a significant difference or simply statistical "noise"?
3) What was the precision of the instruments used to measure those temperatures during the late 19'th century?
4) What does the actual raw data look like? Were "anomalies" ignored because they didn't fit the desired conclusions?
... and of course the most obvious issue, this is a small snapshop of 150 years. That is a relatively small snapshot in time. Small rises in temperature such as this, neglecting the likely urban heat sink local warming issues, are very likely due to solar cycles that have nothing to do with human causes.
I know I certainly wouldn't trust these people to sell me a used car, let alone radically alter my lifestyle, give up various liberties, or pay more to the government in "global warming tax" taxes.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Just a question for those debating the issues here, would anyone care to conjecture on what motivation a scientist might have for affirming or denying global warming?
--
Contentment makes poor men rich. Discontent makes rich men poor.
--Benjamin Franklin
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How about a job? How about continued funding? Anyone who disputes global warming is labeled a crackpot, so there's a huge disincentive to question the conclusions at this point.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<...snipped...>
Funding has been available on both sides though recently even some oil companies have made statements that agree with the proponents of the human-caused theories. I'm sure there are and have been scientists like those in other professions who are in it for the $$ and will change their tune to please the payer. Personally I believe that they are a small minority. There are lots of scientists who advocate increased use of nuclear power, and _that_ is hardly a popular political opinion. are
--
Make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf.lonestar.org
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can show this?
--
FF




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(Larry) wrote:

Considering the political pressure behind advancing the idea that the earth is warming, scientists who affirm that conclusion are far more likely to be recipients of research grants than scientists who deny it.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) writes:

The peer reviewers do not get paid. Some critics take great joy in criticizing papers with unsubstantiated claims.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:58:20 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

Are you saying that they are all independently wealthy or that they are all subsistence farmers? They get paid by _somebody_ or else htey don't eat. And if the grant money is in research that tends to support global warming then that's what they do.

The job of a peer reviewer is not to criticize, it's to determine whether the paper is (a) reporting something of sufficient interest to be worth publishing and (b) not so poorly done as to be worthless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers. Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:14:30 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government. But of those that are, apparently they approve the research and the government either censors the paper or decides to not publish the paper.
http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S%19061
"Francesca Grifo, senior scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists scientific integrity program, told the committee that 1,800 federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns about interference. She said more than 600 scientists from nine agencies reported fear of retaliation for publicizing their findings and nearly 500 scientists from nine agencies said they were barred from publishing certain results related to climate change. In a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, Grifo said 150 climate-change scientists reported at least one incident of political interference with their work over the past five years. "
"Some of the most questionable edits were urged by Phillip Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist who was the chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Waxman said."
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

Who said anything about the government? Somebody is providing the money.

That's the third or fourth time you've reposted that.
Since it is clear that you have maybe three sources and aren't making any effort to find more, and since you just repeat the same thing over and over again, it is clear that I have already seen everything that you have to say, so there is no point in wasting further time on you.
<plonk>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not for the reviews I have been involved with. I do it on my own time. My employeer doesn't know or care about the comments I make in a review. Reviewers are anonymous. The authors are also anonymous. It's a double-blind system. This is done to eliminate biases. That's how science works.
If you have any evidence of conspiracy among scientists - please cite them.
--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 03:10:29 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett

So what do you live on? Whether you are getting paid to write the review or not, you are still getting paid by _somebody_ to do _something_ and if you are regarded as having sufficient expertise in the field to be selected to provide peer-review then one would hope that that "something" is in the field in which the paper you are reviewing was written.
Further, one would hope that you would have a publication history by which the editor could determine your biases.

I've never seen a journal article in which the author was listed as "anonymous". As for your employer not knowing or caring, consider yourself fortunate.

No, that's how peer-review is _supposed_ to work. Peer review isn't "science", it's part of a process. And things don't always work as they are supposed to.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
: I've never seen a journal article in which the author was listed as : "anonymous".
When the article is published, yes, the author(s) name(s) appear.
When the manuscript is sent out by an editor to a set of reviewers, the name and affiliation of the author(s) is removed; any footnote acknowledging assistance from a grant, colleagues, etc. is removed; and all reasonable efforts are made to conceal any identifiers.
As for your employer not knowing or caring, consider : yourself fortunate.
Huh?
:>It's a double-blind system. This is done to eliminate biases. That's :>how science works.
: No, that's how peer-review is _supposed_ to work. Peer review isn't : "science", it's part of a process. And things don't always work as : they are supposed to.
Science is a process. Peer-reviewing is part of it.
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The rules for anonymity vary with the journal. Some offer optional anonymity of the reviewer. I was a minor coauthor on one paper which was reviewed anonymously by one person and non -anonymously by another.
The anonymous reviewer advised against publication the other and the editor disagreed and so we were published. Our assumption is that the anonymous reviewer was doing similar work and wanted to stall us so he could publish first. About six months after we published, a similar article was published in another journal, with a similar title except for "First Ever" (inaccurately) pre-pended to the title...

NO!
Peer-review is part of the publishing process in any number of fields, scientific or not.
Publication is NOT part of the scientific process. A scientist can do perfectly good science all by himself, (e.g. Gregor Mendel) but obviously no one benefits from it without publication.
Regardless, publication is a separate activity.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@spamcop.net wrote: :> :> Science is a process. Peer-reviewing is part of it. :>
: NO!
: Peer-review is part of the publishing process in any : number of fields, scientific or not.
: Publication is NOT part of the scientific process. A : scientist can do perfectly good science all by himself, : (e.g. Gregor Mendel) but obviously no one benefits : from it without publication.
: Regardless, publication is a separate activity.
Weeeelllllll ... you're wrong. Mostly.
Mutual interchange of ideas, guesses, facts, hypotheses, etc. IS a regular part of scientific work. Sure, some lone scientists did good work in complete isolation, with no knowledge of what others (contemporaneous or historically prior) did, but those are few and far between, and for good reason. (To take your example of Mendel, he was basing his work on millennia of selective crop breeding, as well as his university training. He published his work, and presented it at scientific conferences, though it was was ignored for several decades. He's not quite the lone untrained genius some make him out to be).
It's true that this interchange can happen in a variety of ways -- from conversation in a room to formally published, publicly available journals and books.
But the evaluation process that is formalized in peer-review realy isn't some tangential activity (like, say, doing popular TV science shows, or writing press releases, is). It's a central mechanism for two things: getting ideas and results out where other scientists can see and use them; and trying to make sure that standards are maintained (for experimental rigor, for addressing previous work, acknowledgment or prior ideas, etc.).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Non-Sequitor. The same is true of all, or at least most, scholarly work and even some flimflam. Historians, linguists, economists, self-described 'skeptics' (e.g. _The Skeptical Enquirer_) even polygraphers publish in peer-reviewed journals.

Oh, I wasn't aware that he did publish (without peer review, right?)

Thanks.
But the point is that communication isn't part of the scientific process. It's a good thing, to be sure. So are grant proposals.
--
FF




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
:> On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 12:12:58 +0000 (UTC), Bruce Barnett
:>
:>> :>>>>No. I'm saying the peer reviewers do not get paid to REVIEW the papers. :>>>>Some may even disagree with the results. That's why it's a peer review. :>>> :>>> And so it comes out that they're passing papers that contradict their :>>> viewpoint and their funding agency asks them why and what do they say? :>> :>>First of all - not all reviewers are funding by the government. :> :> Who said anything about the government? Somebody is providing the :> money.
: Not for the reviews I have been involved with. I do it on my own : time.
I'm not aware of any reputable journal, in any field, ever, that pays its reviewers.
J. Clarke has a pretty peculiar picture of how science writing, reviewing, and publishing works.
    -- Andy Barss
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Andrew Barss wrote:

Your posting is not the only one where he apparently chooses to 'misunderstand' what is otherwise plainly the intent of a writer. -I- understood that you were referring to a double-blind review (and I don't HAVE an engineering degree to dust off).
--
Make yourself an honest man, and then you may be sure that there is one
rascal less in the world.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.