An open letter to Prime Minister Harper

[jbg]

Who cares what a bunch of crackpots think?

Ask David Suzuki or Al Gore that. Oops, they are the "crackpots". At least Gore knows enough to fly around in corporate jets pushing his message.

[gc1765]

Listen to the other side. What they have to say, their own findings and opinion.

Listen to those who sits independently, those who had chosen to ignore or criticize Kyoto, those who are not among the peers of this so-called peer-review.

The other side is perfectly free to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals as well. What I mean is do you have a better way for scientists to share their findings/data other than peer-reviewed journals. If so, please share.

[betsy]

Listen to the other side. What they have to say, their own findings and opinion.

Listen to those who sits independently, those who had chosen to ignore or criticize Kyoto, those who are not among the peers of this so-called peer-review.

The other side is perfectly free to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals as well. What I mean is do you have a better way for scientists to share their findings/data other than peer-reviewed journals. If so, please share.

by convening open, unbiased consultations, Canadians will be permitted to hear from experts on both sides of the debate in the climate-science community. When the public comes to understand that there is no "consensus" among climate scientists about the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, the government will be in a far better position to develop plans that reflect reality and so benefit both the environment and the economy.

This is only practical. We are going to spend billions to say the least (and trillions if we go with Kyoto). So it's only sensible to want to be certain that we are going in the right direction.

This debate that these scientists are requesting will be shared to the public.

And the outcome will have more credibility since both sides will be able to voice their findings and analyses, and politicking could be set aside.

As Jbg had said from his post above, this debate will be good for everyone.....worldwide!

And growing skepticism in these peer-reviews is not progressive at all. If we are going to rely vastly in science, we should all have the confidence and the trust that comes along with it. Science community should have unquestionable credibility.

Maybe doing open debates like this on every significant or contentious findings and analyses is the way to go, before the results get published at all.

[ScottSA]

Listen to the other side. What they have to say, their own findings and opinion.

Listen to those who sits independently, those who had chosen to ignore or criticize Kyoto, those who are not among the peers of this so-called peer-review.

The other side is perfectly free to publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals as well. What I mean is do you have a better way for scientists to share their findings/data other than peer-reviewed journals. If so, please share.

How about peer reviewed scientific journals that have re-introduced the concept of science instead of politics? But seriously, I don't think the issue is process so much as it is credibility. There is a tendency to think that once peer reviewed, science somehow gains the status of fact, and that simply isn't true. Especially with something like this. Even the hard science is often overlooked, as in the case of Mann's hockey stick. It was a pure fabrication, and yet the peer review process didn't catch it.

[betsy]

So, let's not wave that so-called "peer-review journal" as proof!

We have gone over this list of scientists before. Many of them are former professors and have not done peer reviewed work for a very long time.

Just last month there was a consensus amongst UN scientist,

I'm arguing about the number of peer-reviewed scientific journals which agree with human causes of GW vs. the others.

Even if there are only 2 or 3 or 5 scientists who had written this open letter to Harper - and I highlighted the word "open" for it is actually meant to be read by the public -, and even if ALL of them have not done any peer reviews at all, I actually find them more believable than all the KYOTO scientists lumped together!

This handful of scientists had actually, AND OPENLY, issued a challenge to all the scientists who are standing behind KYOTO! This indicates a great amount of confidence in the credibility of their findings, their justified criticisms of KYOTO....that they are literally asking Harper to make this debate happen!

And they had written to two other Prime Ministers before that!

Yes, this challenge is a year old. And it seems, no debate is going to happen. Because pro-KYOTO scientists don't seem keen to square-off in a public debate!

And how did all those pro-KYOTO scientists respond to this challenge? Just by a very weak, childish response, "no, that's not true. We are right and they are wrong." Then the smear tactics began. Statements made to the media. And I believe, that CBC documentary is one of them!

Well, why don't the pro-KYOTO scientists agree to the debate then???

Why don't they show how this handful of disenting scientists are wrong in their findings? Why don't they display the kind of confidence this handful of scientist are showing?

The answer is quite clear. The pro-KYOTO scientists know they are standing behind no facts at all....but a sham!

If people are really truly concern about the environment, and sincerely think that partisanship should be set aside in such a calamitous situation we could be facing.....then we should all clamor for this debate to happen. The sooner this happens, the sooner we can do a sensible planning AND huge amount of spending.....with the confidence that we are going in the right direction.

[betsy]

The report has around 130 lead authors, including meteorologists and climatologists from across the world.

The three reports will bring together the work of hundreds of scientists. More than 800 scientists have contributed, and more than 450 lead authors from more than 130 countries have been involved. At least 2,500 expert reviewers have looked over, and commented on, the draft versions.

The IPCC is an intergovernmental body, and its reports are reviewed by governments as well as experts. They were given the opportunity to comment on drafts of the report, and the lead authors will have taken into account their contributions when putting together the final version.

Then, they shouldn't have any problems defending their findings from a very small group of scientists who are saying otherwise.

You'd think that in order to squash the growing skepticism on KYOTO, and to get everybody on board...the most logical and sensible thing is to prove the nay-sayers wrong....once and for all! In a debate!

Of course that is, if these hundreds of scientists are confident that they are standing behind something that can reasonably be defended at all!

After all, it's hard to stand by and publicly defend a sham. Reputations are at stake.

[jbg]

I'm not a scientist, but I'm a reasonably intelligent layman. I've personally reviewed fifty-seven years of temperature data in the New York area. Overall, the trend has been trendless, up and down.

[gc1765]

This debate that these scientists are requesting will be shared to the public.

And the outcome will have more credibility since both sides will be able to voice their findings and analyses, and politicking could be set aside.

If you read the literature, you can see the debate for yourself without all the politicking that politicians add. I guess I'm just assuming that everyone has acess to these articles, but I guess that's not true. Anyways, if you are really interested in the subject, and you happen to live near a University, you could always visit the library in the University and look up some articles on the subject.

Maybe doing open debates like this on every significant or contentious findings and analyses is the way to go, before the results get published at all.

That's exactly what peer-review is...except it's not an open debate with the public because they are not experts, it is a "debate" with other scientists before it gets published.

[gc1765]

How about peer reviewed scientific journals that have re-introduced the concept of science instead of politics?

If you read the scientific journals, it's not the journals that are politicking, it's the politicians.

There is a tendency to think that once peer reviewed, science somehow gains the status of fact, and that simply isn't true. Especially with something like this. Even the hard science is often overlooked, as in the case of Mann's hockey stick. It was a pure fabrication, and yet the peer review process didn't catch it.

Again I must ask, is there a better alternative?

[betsy]

This debate that these scientists are requesting will be shared to the public.

And the outcome will have more credibility since both sides will be able to voice their findings and analyses, and politicking could be set aside.

If you read the literature, you can see the debate for yourself without all the politicking that politicians add. I guess I'm just assuming that everyone has acess to these articles, but I guess that's not true. Anyways, if you are really interested in the subject, and you happen to live near a University, you could always visit the library in the University and look up some articles on the subject.

WHY DO THIS HANDFUL OF SCIENTISTS WANT TO OPEN THE DEBATE ON KYOTO? Obviously they are not satisfied with the "debates" that you say had happened. Obviously, they want to be heard!

And with an allegedly dire situation involving our planet....why don't the hundreds of pro-KYOTO scientists come out and agree to the debate? If only just to silence this handlful of scientists....and to squash the skepticisms once and for all? Surely.....hundreds of them banding together wouldn't find it hard to defend their position and prove the others wrong.

That's exactly what peer-review is...except it's not an open debate with the public because they are not experts, it is a "debate" with other scientists before it gets published.

No, I don't mean debating with the public.

Right now, the word "peer-review" means squat! In other words, it had lost its credibility.

If there is a serious contention or argument (like this KYOTO), it should be debated rigorously....in such a way where-in it cannot be said that the "review" was rigged. What's wrong with an open debate where-in those who are interested (whether they be students or any civilians) can freely observe and listen?

Just like the debates in the House of Commons?

[betsy]

How about peer reviewed scientific journals that have re-introduced the concept of science instead of politics?

If you read the scientific journals, it's not the journals that are politicking, it's the politicians.

There is a tendency to think that once peer reviewed, science somehow gains the status of fact, and that simply isn't true. Especially with something like this. Even the hard science is often overlooked, as in the case of Mann's hockey stick. It was a pure fabrication, and yet the peer review process didn't catch it.

Again I must ask, is there a better alternative?

I know this is directed to Scott, but I couldn't help myself from responding.

Is there a better alternative? Yes. By ensuring these peer-reviews are not rigged just so to get the desired results!

As to exactly how, I can only think of one suggestion which I had given to one of your post, (of course I am only speaking for myself). Surely there are experts specializing in things like this who can offer suggestions to remedy the problem.

The fact is, this peer-reviews don't mean anything anymore. Because it had lost its credibility. That is the problem.

[jbg]

"Peer review" inevitably slants towards what draws governmental and university funding. It doesn't pay scientists to find a "non-problem", especially if the price is to labelled a "Bush-bot".

[normanchateau]

Re: An open letter to Prime Minister Harper

Does anyone here seriously believe that Stephen Harper's professed views on global warming are informed by scientists, be they credible or crackpots? Let's get real. His views are just as likely to come from political polls.

And if they don't come from polls, policy strategists and shifts in the political winds, he has yet another well-respected, potential source of information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/national...c5fd7f9&ei=5070

[scribblet]

I know this is directed to Scott, but I couldn't help myself from responding.

Is there a better alternative? Yes. By ensuring these peer-reviews are not rigged just so to get the desired results!

As to exactly how, I can only think of one suggestion which I had given to one of your post, (of course I am only speaking for myself). Surely there are experts specializing in things like this who can offer suggestions to remedy the problem.

The fact is, this peer-reviews don't mean anything anymore. Because it had lost its credibility. That is the problem.

I suppose peer review should weed out poor science but is it foolproof? A flawed paper still can end being published

from Wikki: I refer readers to Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," (ISBN0 00 718160 4)(Crichton is a fiction author, not a scientist) which discusses all sides of the Global Warming debate, including nearly all of those in the Wikipedia article. He leaves no stone unturned, having provided more than 140 references throughout his book, all of which are conveniently listed in his Bibliograpy at the end of the book. A sizeable number of the references include websites where the data can be verified online.

Since the references themselves have already undergone significant peer-review in the scientific community, and since those references relegate Global Warming to little more than media hype and an opportunity to funnel billions of dollars into needless research (the suspected motive for much of the hype from some scientists' corners), the entire Global Warming article in Wiki remains in the same serious state of doubt as has the Global Warming theory among serious climatologists.

[normanchateau]

"Peer review" inevitably slants towards what draws governmental and university funding. It doesn't pay scientists to find a "non-problem", especially if the price is to labelled a "Bush-bot".

What's a Bush-bot?

[jbg]

"Peer review" inevitably slants towards what draws governmental and university funding. It doesn't pay scientists to find a "non-problem", especially if the price is to labelled a "Bush-bot".

What's a Bush-bot?

Ask your leftist colleagues.

[Who's Doing What?]

Ask your leftist colleagues.

Seeing as how you brought it up, why don't you explain?

[jdobbin]

Ask your leftist colleagues.

Aren't you a leftist?

[jbg]

Ask your leftist colleagues.

Aren't you a leftist?

Ones further left than me.