Re: OT: The end of global warming?

In article <_b-dnVJa9pbD-5TWnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Steven L. wrote:
Baron Bodissey wrote:
"The Day Global Warming Stood Still" from Investor's Business Daily is
claiming there has been no global warming during the past 10 years and
is accusing the scientific community of "massive scientific fraud."

Read it at: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ibd/20091120/bs_ibd_ibd/20091120issues01

Can anybody who is more knowledgeable about the subject explain what
is going on?

Some hacker stole the personal emails of a bunch of scientists.

There isn't really much there. All it shows is that scientists are
human beings. They can be stubborn, they can have their own personal
agendas. But that doesn't mean the science is wrong.

What WAS disgraceful, however, was the suggestion by some of the
scientists that they blackmail the editors of certain journals by
refusing to submit any more papers to them, if those editors allowed
papers of contrary views to be published. Boycotts are for politics,
not for science.

Could you provide the letter that said they should blackmail editors
on those grounds? (or any others, of course).

Question: What obliges scientists to publish in any particular journal,
versus any of the dozens of others they might publish in?

And that's a sufficiently embarrassing revelation that it deserves a
response. These scientists should pledge NEVER to try to stop any paper
from being published that is good enough to pass peer review--no matter
how vehemently they disagree with its conclusions.

If it's good enough to pass peer review, it's worthy of being included
in a scientific debate. Don't suppress it.

I wouldn't suppress, but papers that have passed peer review can be
nonsense. See my discussion of McLean, DeFrietas, Carter, 2009:
http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2009/07/how-not-to-analyze-climate-data.html

As we've pointed out here routinely, being published in the peer-reviewed
literature is the start of the process, not a blessing of perfection.
In the case of that paper, it raises serious question about the review
process itself -- being incredibly accepting of errors that I think a
jr. high student could understand as being errors. Almost certainly,
imho, a matter of the editor deciding that for 'balance' he would publish
anything that 'challenged' consensus.

--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

.

Relevant Pages

  • Issues
    ... The following article is from current ed. of Science. ... Editors, and our own editors and writers to suggest questions that point to ... Scientists should have a good ... a note on what this special issue is not: It is not a survey of the ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Scientnfic Repression in the 21th Century-The Next Galileo Galilei ??????
    ... The history of science teaches that the greatest advances in the ... Repression of Physicists ... was formed as a way for scientists to rapidly disseminate ... consistently had papers approved for publication in peer refereed ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Pervez Hoodbhoy -- Assessing Pakistani Science
    ... Assessing Pakistani Science ... Sciences, Pakistan Science Foundation, Islamic Academy of Sciences, ... Pakistani scientists to buy research equipment and publish research ... their papers published in peer-reviewed journals." ...
    (soc.culture.indian)
  • Re: computer "scientists" re: Suzanne and labels.
    ... KPD would like some reassurance that Computer Science is indeed science. ... on better days I agree with Wilkins that science is what scientists do, ... There are elements of this is programming. ... brilliant white papers. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Scientnfic Repression in the 21th Century-The Next Galileo Galilei ??????
    ... > The history of science teaches that the greatest advances in the ... > incomprehension of eminent scientists. ... > papers authored by credentialed physicists, i.e., those who ... > consistently had papers approved for publication in peer refereed ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)