Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

Shady... when I reply to your post... there's nuthin there! (I believe that's one of the reasons why MLW posting rules advise against simply quoting, without comment.).

but Shady, I'm most confused as you're presuming to speak to "Scientific Consensus" and yet you just finished stating:

Anyone who uses such terms is either completely ignorant of the whole purpose and methodology of science, or is being purposely dishonest.

always good to have you proclaim your own ignorance, your own dishonesty!

[Shady]

(I believe that's one of the reasons why MLW posting rules advise against simply quoting, without comment.).

When the neo-communist, AGW true-believers start quoting MLW posting rules when confronted by simple definitions, you know they're losing, and you know they have little ground left to stand on.

I'm still waiting for your comments regarding the causes of the MWP. I'm also waiting on your comments regarding the MWP regional impact versus AGW regional impact. Because as you know, AGW scientists insist that different regions will experience different changes. Some colder, some warmer, some no difference.

I'm also still waiting for your comments regarding the ads banned by the British government related to AGW, because they weren't based on actual science, and instead grossly exaggerated the situation.

Stop filibustering.

[waldo]

When the neo-communist, AGW true-believers start quoting MLW posting rules when confronted by simple definitions, you know they're losing, and you know they have little ground left to stand on.

"neo-communist"... keep babbling, we're making excellent progress in truly showing you for what you are.

I'm still waiting for your comments regarding the causes of the MWP. I'm also waiting on your comments regarding the MWP regional impact versus AGW regional impact. Because as you know, AGW scientists insist that different regions will experience different changes. Some colder, some warmer, some no difference.

no, sorry - the timestamps are there... your subsequent questions were an attempt to ferret out the original challenge put to you over your statement about the MLW. Certainly, your back-peddling is ever on display when challenged. It's happened many times in the past - repeatedly. Whenever, you're actually pushed to speak to your blind tabloid links, you put on this false front about needing "earlier" questions answered first. Unfortunately, for you... as I say, timestamps don't lie, oh great 'peddler of the back'! Besides, what's the problem... you've just claimed to have pulled together a "vault of information" Here's gentle reminder #3 for you:

And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer! Can you tell us why? Surely you must know. Surely your AGW heros should know as well. And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today. Right? Even though it's statistically insignificant warming. And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

- care to substantiate your claims that the MWP temperatures were warmer than today?

- care to substantiate your claims (your inference) that the MWP temperatures were not a regional phenomenon - that the MWP was global in nature?

- care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?

- care to state why you continue to hold fast to your intellectually dishonest claims that today`s warming is statistically insignificant... why you continue to act like an icehole concerning a single statement from a single scientist relative to only one of the assortment of surface temperature records available, notwithstanding corroborations from radiosondes, satellite, etc.

- care to substantiate your premise that the MWP period, regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP, presents statistically significant warming?

I definitely will. However, that will take some time to process.

I'm also still waiting for your comments regarding the ads banned by the British government related to AGW, because they weren't based on actual science, and instead grossly exaggerated the situation.

I'm not sure why you're fixated with a couple of cartoons... in any case, I suggested to you that I didn't bother to read your tabloid link once I realized it was a tabloid link and, more importantly, that it originated from the most dishonest of the so-called tabloid "journalists", one Jonathan Leake. I've repeatedly shown you the existing and ever growing catalogue showcasing the dishonest "journalism" of Jonathan Leake, your go-to guy! I also suggested to you I might actually look at it if you simply provided a link to the article and stated what kind of concern was raised over the cartoons. But again, cartoons? That's what raises to the level of denier outrage? Cartoons?

[Shady]

I suggested to you that I didn't bother to read your tabloid link once I realized it was a tabloid link and, more importantly, that it originated from the most dishonest of the so-called tabloid "journalists", one Jonathan Leake.

Is the BBC a tabloid link?

Climate change 'exaggerated' in government adverts

Two government press adverts which used nursery rhymes to raise awareness of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).

It said the advertisements went beyond mainstream scientific consensus in asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought.

BBC

And regarding timestamps, in my universe, March 15 2010 - 9:47 AM is earlier than March 15 2010 - 10:40 AM. So again, I first asked you specific questions about the MWP. Please answer them. The reasons for the MWP. The contributions of those reasons might be having today, and why the MWP, according to Dr. Jones, may have actually been warmer.

Stop filibustering!

Edited March 17, 2010 by Shady

[Keepitsimple]

Usually, in scientific disputes, there is more than one claim at issue. With global warming, there’s the claim that our planet, on average, is getting warmer. There’s also the claim that human emissions are the main cause of it, that it’s going to be catastrophic, and that we have to transform civilization to deal with it. These are all different assertions with different bases of evidence. Evidence for warming, for instance, isn’t evidence for the cause of that warming. All the polar bears could drown, the glaciers melt, the sea levels rise 20 feet, Newfoundland become a popular place to tan, and that wouldn’t tell us a thing about what caused the warming. This is a matter of logic, not scientific evidence. The effect is not the same as the cause.

There’s a lot more agreement about (1) a modest warming trend since about 1850 than there is about (2) the cause of that trend. There’s even less agreement about (3) the dangers of that trend, or of (4) what to do about it. But these four propositions are frequently bundled together, so that if you doubt one, you’re labeled a climate change “skeptic” or “denier.” That’s just plain intellectually dishonest. When well-established claims are fused with separate, more controversial claims, and the entire conglomeration is covered with the label “consensus,” you have reason for doubt.

Link: http://american.com/archive/2010/march/when-to-doubt-a-scientific-consensus

[waldo]

Is the BBC a tabloid link?

yes, clearly... you would sooner focus on cartoons then have to respond to real life observations presented to you, like in several of the most recent posts: why bother attempting to qualify forest devastation, or permafrost melting... when one can simply point to cartoons! Actually, I figured you would have already been wise to the growing rebuke of another of Leake's fabrications... I expect that's the real reason you've sought an alternate source, given all my prodding to you. For what it's worth, we had a non-scientific body (an advertising standards board) offer comment that some of the wording used in a couple of the cartoon ads should have been "phrased more tentatively"... that's it! That's the exact wording used. As I stated, you obviously would prefer to focus on non-issues like 'cartoon wording', rather than speak to observations of the impacts of climate change. Of course you would!

simply for completeness... since you won't read it anyway, this article outlines the dishonest tactics of Leake concerning his article that you quoted/linked. It also links to the Guardian which describes it as a 'mild rebuke' and actually offers the complete ruling from the advertising standards group. 9 out of 10 complaints (from deniers) were not upheld... the single complaint upheld was, as mentioned, summarized to a suggestion that "phrasing should have been more tentative"... based on... get this - based on the actual expressed IPCC uncertainty. In this case, the one you want to flog to no end, the actual ruling from a non-scientific advertising standards board, was a ruling that actually went to the source... to the IPCC itself. As always, Shady... it is certainly heartwarming to see you push the significance of the IPCC as a ruling/judgment source!

And regarding timestamps, in my universe, March 15 2010 - 9:47 AM is earlier than March 15 2010 - 10:40 AM. So again, I first asked you specific questions about the MWP. Please answer them. The reasons for the MWP. The contributions of those reasons might be having today, and why the MWP, according to Dr. Jones, may have actually been warmer.

in your best anal parsing, you fail to acknowledge you're not asking questions. You're making statements and asking for confirmation of those statements.

-

you stated

: And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer!

-

you asked:

can you tell us why?

-

you stated

: And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today

-

you asked:

Right?

-

you stated

: Even though it's statistically insignificant warming.

-

you stated

: And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

so... in your world... you're asking 2 questions: (1) Can you tell us why? & (2) Right?... both of which, as I stated, are simply asking for confirmation of your preceding statements. Shady, back-peddler extraordinaire. C'mon, Shady... you said you've been accumulating, as you said, "a vault of information". Here's gentle reminder #4 for you:

And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer! Can you tell us why? Surely you must know. Surely your AGW heros should know as well. And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today. Right? Even though it's statistically insignificant warming. And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

- care to substantiate your claims that the MWP temperatures were warmer than today?

- care to substantiate your claims (your inference) that the MWP temperatures were not a regional phenomenon - that the MWP was global in nature?

- care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?

- care to state why you continue to hold fast to your intellectually dishonest claims that today`s warming is statistically insignificant... why you continue to act like an icehole concerning a single statement from a single scientist relative to only one of the assortment of surface temperature records available, notwithstanding corroborations from radiosondes, satellite, etc.

- care to substantiate your premise that the MWP period, regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP, presents statistically significant warming?

I definitely will. However, that will take some time to process.

[Shady]

Is the BBC a tabloid link?

yes, clearly

So to you, the BBC is clearly a tabloid news source? Are you serious? And if that's the case, there really isn't any reason for anybody else in this forum to attempt to discuss anything with you. Whether it's global warming, or anything else. However, I'm glad you're at least being honest.

[Oleg Bach]

At my last location which was by a lake with swamp land here and there - at night I could hear the sound of the earth it self - heaven and nature sang - frogs would put up a roar that was a delight as they sang the mating tune in unison - it was glorious - today young people will not witness the singing of nature - they will not even know that it ever existed - when I and those like me are gone - even the memory of the true natural world will be forgotten..sad.

[Bonam]

At my last location which was by a lake with swamp land here and there - at night I could hear the sound of the earth it self - heaven and nature sang - frogs would put up a roar that was a delight as they sang the mating tune in unison - it was glorious - today young people will not witness the singing of nature - they will not even know that it ever existed - when I and those like me are gone - even the memory of the true natural world will be forgotten..sad.

Funny, this here "young person" just got back two hours ago from a trip where I did a lot of enjoying of nature and natural beauty. I, and many friends of mine, spend many weekends every year out in the outdoors, enjoying the beauty of forests, mountains, lakes, and glaciers.

Nature is not lost, a great part of the world, and most especially of Canada (due to its vast area and low population), remains almost entirely pristine.

[Guest TrueMetis]

and my dick is bigger than yours...

Uh good for you? What's your point.

[waldo]

Funny, this here "young person" just got back two hours ago from a trip where I did a lot of enjoying of nature and natural beauty. I, and many friends of mine, spend many weekends every year out in the outdoors, enjoying the beauty of forests, mountains, lakes, and glaciers.

Nature is not lost, a great part of the world, and most especially of Canada (due to its vast area and low population), remains almost entirely pristine.

pristine? Been around the Kooteney's lately? What’s Killing the Great Forests of the American West? ... NRC: British Columbia - Mountain Pine Beetle Outbreak

At the current rate of spread, 50 per cent of the mature pine will be dead by 2008 and 80 per cent by 2013. The consequences of the epidemic will be felt for decades in British Columbia. The beetle is also posing a real threat to Alberta’s lodgepole pine forests and the Jackpine stands of Canada’s northern boreal forest.

on a personal note, I had the misfortune to travel a logging road a couple of years back - that certainly redefined 'pristine' for me. I've also seen the devastation that determined back-country 4x4'rs can do... as well as the wholesale erosion of a large section of a favourite day-hike trail as a result of mountain-bikers. It's been a few years since I've done any serious back-country hikes... probably because on my last one, it may as well have been a day hike, given the number of hikers encountered.... wilderness was certainly not on display? On an anecdotal note I know an acquaintance that does bird migratory counts - he's documented observed changes of birds migrating further north. Pristine... or 'lost nature'... would appear to be in the 'eye of the beholder'.

[Bonam]

on a personal note, I had the misfortune to travel a logging road a couple of years back - that certainly redefined 'pristine' for me. I've also seen the devastation that determined back-country 4x4'rs can do... as well as the wholesale erosion of a large section of a favourite day-hike trail as a result of mountain-bikers. It's been a few years since I've done any serious back-country hikes... probably because on my last one, it may as well have been a day hike, given the number of hikers encountered.... wilderness was certainly not on display? On an anecdotal note I know an acquaintance that does bird migratory counts - he's documented observed changes of birds migrating further north. Pristine... or 'lost nature'... would appear to be in the 'eye of the beholder'.

Sounds like you're just goint to the wrong places. There are plenty of amazing, almost untouched, locations within 3-4 hour drives of Vancouver. If other hikers really bother you and you prefer to not encounter anyone, you have several choices: go to more remote locations, go on more challenging routes which most hikers would not do, go during the weekdays instead of the weekends (if you have that option), go when it is raining (that keeps away the vast majority of hikers), or put on a pair of snowshoes and do the hikes in an off season instead of when the hordes are there in summer.

Oh and yes I agree the Pine Beetle outbreak is a disaster, and one that is caused by warming. But that doesn't mean there's no nature anywhere left to enjoy, as Oleg claimed.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Bonam

[waldo]

Sounds like you're just goint to the wrong places. There are plenty of amazing, almost untouched, locations within 3-4 hour drives of Vancouver. If other hikers really bother you and you prefer to not encounter anyone, you have several choices: go to more remote locations, go on more challenging routes which most hikers would not do, go during the weekdays instead of the weekends (if you have that option), go when it is raining (that keeps away the vast majority of hikers), or put on a pair of snowshoes and do the hikes in an off season instead of when the hordes are there in summer.

Oh and yes I agree the Pine Beetle outbreak is a disaster, and one that is caused by warming. But that doesn't mean there's no nature anywhere left to enjoy, as Oleg claimed.

yes, there most certainly are pristine and isolated opportunities - they're simply harder... and more expensive and more time consuming... to reach. The back-country spot I mentioned was one of those spots, at least a few years back. Encroachment and all that. Of course, disposable income extends that encroachment level and ease for all. Some of my best hikes have been in the rain, so not a problem there, although 3 days soaked in the back-country can get one down, no matter the enthusiasm or gear. I read Oleg's statement as more generalized, perhaps applicable to the more 'casual' outdoor enthusiast.

in any case, our common recognition on the degree of forest devastation... attributed to AGW climate change... for me, is simply a pressing reminder, one that deniers close their eyes to.

[Oleg Bach]

The cause is over consuption of things that we do not need- In other words, consuption or the proverbial over shitting of humanity simply makes the earth sky and water dirty - a dirty sky causes heat..I am not some recreational out door enthusist...more of an old Christian shaman sort of guy _ I understand the earth and love it - it loves me also - this love affair is one that should be more than some commerical greening that furthers the cause of continued over consuption.

[Bonam]

a dirty sky causes heat..

That's actually not correct. Most pollutants (things that make the sky dirty), such as particulate matter, actually tend to reduce the temperature by reflecting the Sun's radiation back into space. This was the reason for some people being concerned over global cooling in the 70s and 80s. However, cutting particulate emissions was relatively easy, by using filters, improved efficiency processes that don't leave as much not fully burned material, etc. Greenhouse gases like CO2 and water vapor, on the other hand, are fundamental byproducts of any typical combustion reaction, and cannot be eliminated by simply using filters or improving efficiency. These gases do not make the sky "dirty". A sky with 600ppm of CO2 can look as perfectly clear as a sky with 200ppm of CO2.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Bonam

[jbg]

and by extension, why the IPCC needs serious reform.

Abolition, not reform.

As a taxpayer I resent funding an unproductive debating society.

[Moonlight Graham]

you have stated this previously... suggestions of the 'inaccuracy of the Mann hockey stick'. Whatever the relevance of the 'hockey stick' (Mann or otherwise) has; rather, the relevance you might presume it has, the many independent reconstructions over the years have most certainly spoken to deny your suggestions of broad-based 'inaccuracy'. Of course, considering Mann has a decade+ worth of studies bringing forward new and self-corroborating reconstructions, it is always helpful to have someone actually define the specific reconstruction they refer to when generalizing about the 'Mann hockey stick'. We've certainly beat this one up pretty good in earlier MLW threads - perhaps you have new, uhhh... insight... to offer in that regard.

I probably don't have anything "new" to offer if you've already discussed the MBH98 graph at length. McIntyre & McKitrick did a good job at questioning the methodology of the graph in the journal Energy & Environment in 2003.

The main thing for me is that the MPH98 graph is based greatly on tree rings, which is a pretty crappy proxy for temperature. Trees do no grow just based on temperature, clearly. The amount of precipitation is also a huge factor in tree growth. So how do you separate the two in looking at tree rings? Not to mentioned even more factors that go into tree growth, such as sunlight exposure and CO2 levels.

[jbg]

Uh good for you? What's your point.

It's masterful debating.

[waldo]

I probably don't have anything "new" to offer if you've already discussed the MBH98 graph at length. McIntyre & McKitrick did a good job at questioning the methodology of the graph in the journal Energy & Environment in 2003.

The main thing for me is that the MPH98 graph is based greatly on tree rings, which is a pretty crappy proxy for temperature. Trees do no grow just based on temperature, clearly. The amount of precipitation is also a huge factor in tree growth. So how do you separate the two in looking at tree rings? Not to mentioned even more factors that go into tree growth, such as sunlight exposure and CO2 levels.

the real importance of the 'hockey stick' has been it's symbolism - the focused attack target it presented... and still presents. Like clockwork, one can be certain that every few years another 'die-hard' will recycle the 'hockey-stick is broken' meme... despite the fact climate science has long ago progressed beyond the early significance that the 'hockey stick' like proxy reconstructions held.

one could go down a thousand rat-holes over this topic - you certainly need to find your own way. However, far be it from me not to provide a few comments/outlets for your consideration:

- MBH98 became prominent as one of the first reconstructions; what's completely (purposely) ignored by skeptics/deniers, is the importance that "uncertainty" played within the paper itself. Numerous caveats within the paper were applied by it's authors - the name of the paper should, in itself, speak volumes...

Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations

- that early MBH98 reconstruction was subsequently corroborated, over the following years, by over a dozen separate independent pursuits... each bringing forward a similar reconstruction result as MBH98.

- McIntyre and McKitrick's focus on the PCA statistical method was insignificant - meaningless to the MBH reconstruction results. In a subsequent follow-up paper, MBH themselves proved that insignificance - as have others. I could care less about the whining

this link

will cause a certain couple of 'howlers' on this board... should you be inclined to read the links content, if nothing else, use it as a reference sounding board to scrutinize an opinion you already appear to have shaped. Certainly, Google is your friend on this topic... I kind of like the preceding link simply because it inherently evokes a response from 'howlers'. Of course, notwithstanding the basic fact that MBH responded to McIntyre and McKitrick in a formal paper, debunking their claims... McIntyre and McKitrick did not counter (other than at the denier blog level). As a side note, in regards your reference to the "journal", Energy & Environment, this

previous MLW post

might provide you a perspective on the "E&E journal".

- I note you've raised previous questions challenging the 'robustness' of tree proxies... the "divergence problem" within dendroclimatology has been addressed many times within previous MLW threads. You may wish to consult

this source

concerning reconstructions, methodology, tree rings, etc. As a side note, MBH brought forward a 2008 reconstruction that did not include any tree-ring proxies... also bringing forward a hockey-stick shape result (of course, several others have done the same - sans tree-ring proxies).

[Moonlight Graham]

That's actually not correct. Most pollutants (things that make the sky dirty), such as particulate matter, actually tend to reduce the temperature by reflecting the Sun's radiation back into space.

Thats true. Particulates and aerosols have a cooling affect, they reflect and block the sun as you said. One of the reasons volcano eruptions usually have a net cooling effect.

[Moonlight Graham]

... should you be inclined to read the links content, if nothing else, use it as a reference sounding board to scrutinize an opinion you already appear to have shaped.

I certainly do try to scrutinize everything i read/hear etc. on the science. Am i 100% convinced the hockey stick graphs are wrong, and that i'm right? No certainly not. Even though i learn towards the side i argued, half the reason i made the argument was just to answer your challenge. But i still believe that tree rings aren`t the most valuable temp proxy.

For either side of any debate on so many issues in climate science one can make a legit case with seemingly compelling arguments for each side of any issue. So what i generally said a while back is still my opinion on the whole climate debate: that humans understand so little about climate that anyone it makes the entire debate a giant piece of garbage. both the "skeptics" who say its cooling or its "blah blah" reason why its warming not CO2 and also AGW "alarmists" who are convinced on the effects of CO2 and that we headed for disaster both don't know a poop what they are talking about.

I am actually very open-minded on the debate, or at least try my best to be. It seems like every week there is some new revelation about the climate science. I just think that we have so far to go in the science that anyone who claims to be sure of any conclusion is full of it. And i am quite tired of people trying to convince me and others of their views when they don't know what the heck they are talking about.

[waldo]

I certainly do try to scrutinize everything i read/hear etc. on the science. Am i 100% convinced the hockey stick graphs are wrong, and that i'm right? No certainly not. Even though i learn towards the side i argued, half the reason i made the argument was just to answer your challenge. But i still believe that tree rings aren`t the most valuable temp proxy.

it’s hard to realize what grounds you might foster to suggest, “the hockey stick graphs” could be wrong – notwithstanding, with the progression of climate science, why you appear to fixate on the ‘hockey stick’. In any case, there have been so many independent corroborating reconstructions presented, with or without tree proxies, what might your reservations be?

For either side of any debate on so many issues in climate science one can make a legit case with seemingly compelling arguments for each side of any issue. So what i generally said a while back is still my opinion on the whole climate debate: that humans understand so little about climate that anyone it makes the entire debate a giant piece of garbage. both the "skeptics" who say its cooling or its "blah blah" reason why its warming not CO2 and also AGW "alarmists" who are convinced on the effects of CO2 and that we headed for disaster both don't know a poop what they are talking about.

your inference is that sceptical cases, those you presume to label as ‘legitimate’… those you suggest have ‘seemingly compelling arguments’… are not being addressed within the arena of scientific peer review/peer response. Does your disdain for the work of scientists derive from your personal experience… from your knowledge level… perhaps from a preconceived position influenced/shaped by ‘something’?

I am actually very open-minded on the debate, or at least try my best to be. It seems like every week there is some new revelation about the climate science. I just think that we have so far to go in the science that anyone who claims to be sure of any conclusion is full of it.

uncertainties exist – scientists, typically, take pains to include provision to define/label uncertainties in their research and adopted positions. The ‘conclusions’ you speak of are predicated upon uncertainty and related confidence levels. Climate science is a broad study that encompasses many disciplines… your “full of it” assessment is equally broad to the point of overt generalization. Perhaps you could narrow your sights with specification – otherwise, yours is nothing more than a broad based assessment, one – it would appear – not necessarily grounded.

And i am quite tired of people trying to convince me and others of their views when they don't know what the heck they are talking about.

your self-described open-mind, coupled with varying degrees of unbiased knowledge and positioning, should allow you to work your way around and through, equally, varying degrees of the science. On some level, one presumably devoid of degrees of bias and degrees of politics, your “tiring” could be resolved along trust lines. Just who are you prepared to trust in helping shape your knowledge - to allow your personal assessments to be made? More pointedly… do you trust the science (rather, the dissemination of that science to the layperson), or not? And if not, why not?

[wyly]

I like this part the best. It's a classic case of religious zealotry, threatening to kill anyone who doesn't believe in their religion.

shot is too extreme but at least lobotomized since they're not using the frontal lobe of their brain we might as well reduce their stress levels and lower mental abilities to a minimum ......

[Keepitsimple]

One important point that often gets overlooked is that a paper that is "peer reviewed" is not proof. Peer review is basically a means for an author to prevent completely embarrassing himself through typos or oversight - at most, it's a review of the process or approach and whether that seems reasonable. Anyone who believes that peer-reviewing results in "proof" is naive. There should never be any discussion of peer review supporting the credibility or truth of a paper. This is the purpose of publishing. Publishing is the true scientific review. Publishing is the means by which scientists present an idea to the world. Publishing is where you put your idea out there for anyone and everyone with an opinion to weigh in with support or objection. That's why it is so critical to provide clear access to data or programs or any other "input" - so that others can verify the idea's conclusions. Often it's not just to be critical - but to make sure that if they use the idea to build their own expanded theory, or idea - that they are building on a solid foundation. Over time, an idea or theory may gain credibility through it's ability to survive constructive critiques - often through further real-world testing or observation. That does not dismiss entirely the credibility of Climate Change ideas and studies....but it does lend food for thought that the foundations of Climate Change Science are still being built upon many background "peer-reviewed" studies that have not had an opportunity to stand the test of time.....and of course it makes it all the more troubling that "sceptics" are treated as "troublemakers".

Edited March 21, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Michael Hardner]

One important point that often gets overlooked is that a paper that is "peer reviewed" is not proof. Peer review is basically a means for an author to prevent completely embarrassing himself through typos or oversight - at most, it's a review of the process or approach and whether that seems reasonable. Anyone who believes that peer-reviewing results in "proof" is naive. There should never be any discussion of peer review supporting the credibility or truth of a paper. This is the purpose of publishing. Publishing is the true scientific review. Publishing is the means by which scientists present an idea to the world. Publishing is where you put your idea out there for anyone and everyone with an opinion to weigh in with support or objection. That's why it is so critical to provide clear access to data or programs or any other "input" - so that others can verify the idea's conclusions. Often it's not just to be critical - but to make sure that if they use the idea to build their own expanded theory, or idea - that they are building on a solid foundation. Over time, an idea or theory may gain credibility through it's ability to survive constructive critiques - often through further real-world testing or observation. That does not dismiss entirely the credibility of Climate Change ideas and studies....but it does lend food for thought that the foundations of Climate Change Science are still being built upon many background "peer-reviewed" studies that have not had an opportunity to stand the test of time.....and of course it makes it all the more troubling that "sceptics" are treated as "troublemakers".

Peer review involves publishing as well as having the paper reviewed. It's more stringent. So how can you say publishing is true scientific review ? Peer review highlights important questions about theories that are presented - for example, the latest publication by Eigil Friis-Christensen has important questions outstanding on it.

Global Warming, evolution and such theories can't really be "proven" as such anyway.