In one of the more damning revelations of late on the matter of 'climate change', nee, 'global warming', was a discussion among researchers on how to circumvent peer review, an unheard of undertaking in the sciences. Peer review has in the past blown holes in shaky research or even that which is clearly bogus/fabricated. When you gather what is known from the concerted efforts of some in the field to conceal/change/fudge data, you appreciate their trepidations about peer review. I could no more stand before a group of peers and present a made up piece of work and have them accept it then could some of the now discredited climate researchers. You can fool politicians and perhaps some of the public but you can not fool those in your field.
Let me get this straight. Scientists are well known to present their case in such a manner as will bring them the greatest funding, ie, keep them in a job. The tilt, the slant, whatever, hopefully does not compromise the integrity of their work. If it does, peer review makes sure that those unscrupulous individuals are exposed and the findings they have presented can be eliminated from the field of their research so as to best insure that the whole field is not thereby contaminated, right? Damn good approach.
Now, if some slime balls of - let's say - genetic engineer researchers wanted to puff their own pockets by falsifying and fudging, even slightly, their research, they would eventually be found out and disgraced. That disgrace would be the self-imposed rectifier of the good name of that discipline to keep its standing from being besmirched and consequently thrown into disregard by the entire scientific community. Got it. As a result, other members of the greater scientific community will be able to shake their heads in remorse at such shenanigans going on within that particular discipline, but will also extend a hand of mutual support to those who, in that discipline, maintained the rigors of research ethics. Good system.
And yet you, a self-claimed scientist, disregard the very protocols established by your community, and instead insist that because of the fraud and fault of a few, out of the thousands and thousands of researchers who have performed exemplary science, untainted by the faulty input into the data stream of these empirically criminal idiots - as they are in separate, and often segregated disciplines - the findings of an entire complex of scientific data and research, verified and having gone through appropriate peer review, you choose to denigrate and disregard as being ignoble.
I think, sir, you may want to apply that same rigor to your own supposed standards. A scientist has no room of allowance for personal beliefs to interfere with the findings of research. Your bias, whether correct or faulty, does not meet the criteria of objective discourse.
Haven't you noticed the lying pandemic? No matter what sector of human endeavor?
In one of the more damning revelations of late on the matter of 'climate change', nee, 'global warming', was a discussion among researchers on how to circumvent peer review, an unheard of undertaking in the sciences. Peer review has in the past blown holes in shaky research or even that which is clearly bogus/fabricated. When you gather what is known from the concerted efforts of some in the field to conceal/change/fudge data, you appreciate their trepidations about peer review. I could no more stand before a group of peers and present a made up piece of work and have them accept it then could some of the now discredited climate researchers. You can fool politicians and perhaps some of the public but you can not fool those in your field.
Let me get this straight. Scientists are well known to present their case in such a manner as will bring them the greatest funding, ie, keep them in a job. The tilt, the slant, whatever, hopefully does not compromise the integrity of their work. If it does, peer review makes sure that those unscrupulous individuals are exposed and the findings they have presented can be eliminated from the field of their research so as to best insure that the whole field is not thereby contaminated, right? Damn good approach.
Now, if some slime balls of - let's say - genetic engineer researchers wanted to puff their own pockets by falsifying and fudging, even slightly, their research, they would eventually be found out and disgraced. That disgrace would be the self-imposed rectifier of the good name of that discipline to keep its standing from being besmirched and consequently thrown into disregard by the entire scientific community. Got it. As a result, other members of the greater scientific community will be able to shake their heads in remorse at such shenanigans going on within that particular discipline, but will also extend a hand of mutual support to those who, in that discipline, maintained the rigors of research ethics. Good system.
And yet you, a self-claimed scientist, disregard the very protocols established by your community, and instead insist that because of the fraud and fault of a few, out of the thousands and thousands of researchers who have performed exemplary science, untainted by the faulty input into the data stream of these empirically criminal idiots - as they are in separate, and often segregated disciplines - the findings of an entire complex of scientific data and research, verified and having gone through appropriate peer review, you choose to denigrate and disregard as being ignoble.
I think, sir, you may want to apply that same rigor to your own supposed standards. A scientist has no room of allowance for personal beliefs to interfere with the findings of research. Your bias, whether correct or faulty, does not meet the criteria of objective discourse.
Joseph D'Aleo interview sheds a lot of light on the inaccuracies and fraud. (PDF)
Isn't it high time that all of the data (and the means and methods used by all) laid out for peer review?
In one of the more damning revelations of late on the matter of 'climate change', nee, 'global warming', was a discussion among researchers on how to circumvent peer review, an unheard of undertaking in the sciences. Peer review has in the past blown holes in shaky research or even that which is clearly bogus/fabricated. When you gather what is known from the concerted efforts of some in the field to conceal/change/fudge data, you appreciate their trepidations about peer review. I could no more stand before a group of peers and present a made up piece of work and have them accept it then could some of the now discredited climate researchers. You can fool politicians and perhaps some of the public but you can not fool those in your field.
Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, studies why and how Earth's climate varies over time. He offered some context on the annual surface temperature record, a data set that’s generated considerable interest — and some controversy — in the past. GISS updated its surface temperature record with 2009 data this week, and reported that the last decade was the warmest on record.
"Ozone is blowing across the Pacific Ocean from Asia, hanging over the United States and potentially worsening the West Coast's air pollution, a new study has shown.
By examining 100,000 ozone observations in the free troposphere, a region two to five miles above the ground, a University of Colorado scientist discovered that baseline ozone - the amount not emitted by local vehicles and industries - has grown 29 percent during springtime months since 1984.
Tougher pollution laws in recent decades have reduced most big U.S. cities' ground-level ozone, a gas that helps create smog, but it has mysteriously risen in rural areas where there are few cars and factories to produce it. The reason, according to the study published in Thursday's edition of Nature, may be that Americans are unwittingly importing their air pollution from China and other Asian nations."
This will do nothing for the balance of trade but I'm sure we have the right people already hard at work figuring out a way to export our ozone to other countries. (American ozone being some of the best in the world).
"Ozone is blowing across the Pacific Ocean from Asia, hanging over the United States and potentially worsening the West Coast's air pollution, a new study has shown.
By examining 100,000 ozone observations in the free troposphere, a region two to five miles above the ground, a University of Colorado scientist discovered that baseline ozone - the amount not emitted by local vehicles and industries - has grown 29 percent during springtime months since 1984.
Tougher pollution laws in recent decades have reduced most big U.S. cities' ground-level ozone, a gas that helps create smog, but it has mysteriously risen in rural areas where there are few cars and factories to produce it. The reason, according to the study published in Thursday's edition of Nature, may be that Americans are unwittingly importing their air pollution from China and other Asian nations."
by James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, and Ken Lo
The past year, 2009, tied as the second warmest year in the 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, in the surface temperature analysis of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). The Southern Hemisphere set a record as the warmest year for that half of the world. Global mean temperature, as shown in Figure 1a, was 0.57°C (1.0°F) warmer than climatology (the 1951-1980 base period). Southern Hemisphere mean temperature, as shown in Figure 1b, was 0.49°C (0.88°F) warmer than in the period of climatology.
Times Online UK - January 17, 2010 A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
Professor Murari Lal, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the IPCC report, said he would recommend that the claim about glaciers be dropped: "If Hasnain says officially that he never asserted this, or that it is a wrong presumption, than I will recommend that the assertion about Himalayan glaciers be removed from future IPCC assessments."
Average temperatures across North America dropped in 2008-which may seem to contradict global warming theory.
Not so, scientists say. The cooling, caused by natural changes in global air circulation, temporarily masked the effects of global warming, which is getting worse, a new study says.
