I love how the press is blowing off all this Climategate stuff by saying that all the research has passed peer review. Somewhere they dont seem to get it that your peers are quite often the ones that share your own views or share in your paycheck. Look at Gallieo. He proved that the world revolved around the sun yet his peer review was to be imprisoned because it went against the opinion of "the peers". We have a journal club were we all take recent papers in our field and have to present them. This is a great exercise for the residents. The first thing you do is look at the question the research is hoping to answer. You then check to see how they are getting the data and if analysis of the data will lead to an answer. You then check the statistics on the data. Only then can you say if the research is of merit. I stress that the comments and discussion are just that, or better expressed an editorial. It is amazing how many of the papers dont support the conclusions. I cant help but feel this way with the whole "Climategate" thing. It seems that this a classic example of having an opinion and then trying to backtrack to make the research support you and your peers opinion. This is why they destroyed the original data and only have the "corrected data". There original data did not show warming, in fact it showed the opposite which was against their "peers" in the global warming religious and grant funding movement. An essential part of research is to openly publish your research so that someone else can reproduce it an come to the same conclusions. When you cant do that you have to suspect that there is major bias in the research. Then it appears they contacted their "peers" to make sure that they too purged their data and anything that would bring to light the faults of their study. In Gallileo's time you had to publish what the church agreed to. I wonder is Gore the pope of Global warming. Oops, forgot, its snowing in Houston better call it "climae change".
4 comments:
THANK YOU for this most EXCELLENT post!
I really appreciate hearing a voice of reason with a scientific background in this matter.
If alright with you ..I may link to this.
I'm just an average person without any science background, but do have common sense (says me:), and it seems so obvious that if they won't be forthcoming with all the data then they are hiding something.
This whole movement is costing so much money and will cost us so much more if it continues as it has. And with cap&trade promises to be more costly.
I don't understand WHY "scientists" would *knowingly* use erroneous data to support their views.
Isn't the very nature of a scientist supposed to *question and look for the truth*..regardless of where it takes everyone? Personally..if I knew my "discovery" were erroneous/faulty ..I wouldn't want to perpetuate the finding.
So..one can only conclude is they have a greater gain.
Money? They get so much money in grants. Prestige? Ideologies promoted/solidified?
Pope Al Gore continues to get rich as he flies around the world in his private jet and consumes 10x the electric of the average person in his homes. I don't begrudge him ..but then don't preach to other people.
Whatever the reasoning of these "scientists" ..it is NOT for the good of mankind.
They are busted! Yet ..not enough people seem concerned and it is not getting the coverage it should. Substitute Bush for Gore in the promotion of this. I wonder how much the media would be demanding answers/facts then?
I am so disgusted with the media that will not just look at the facts, present and let the people decide. They should be on this story!
All they need to do is read YOUR post to *understand* why the Climategate processes are flawed. Interestingly ..more reporting of this is being done across the pond than here in the states.
I had to walk away from the news earlier tonight when they were talking about the summit today. I can't take it.. seriously. What are these people thinking about to be willing to impose MORE legislation that will cost us MORE money in this economic climate of ours????
I am not a vindictive person ..but admit ..I would love to see all of these people knocked down and with egg on their faces!
The utility bills are really hurting people and I imagine corporations too... and that is just part of it.
Oh and this is important ..to have clean air. did you see how they are turning this..putting climate in the back seat and talking about clean air. How about they get China to clean up their air?
Sorry ..venting again.
And your post should be put in an editorial.
Seriously Throckmorton.. you should send it in to the NT Times and other papers. get on the talk show E-mails and send it out.
I think it is that good. A large audience should read it. I'm just saying. :)
Peer Review Is Not What You Think
ChicagoBoyz by Shannon Love [edited]
=====
"Peer Review" says nothing about conclusions. It is the fate of most scientific papers to be proven completely wrong.
Peer review protects a journal’s reputation. The journal hires experts to check for basic errors in math or methodology, along with grammar and spelling. It offloads responsibility for publishing bad papers onto anonymous scientists. It is a form of blame-passing that everyone would like to use. It does not confirm or refute experimental or theoretical conclusions.
Some people will say that a scientific result is true because it appears in a peer reviewed journal. That is the weakest defense possible. It means only that some editor and his reviewers found it to meet their minimum quality standards for publishing. It meets no standards if the editors and peer reviewers are corrupt.
=====
Not Just One Rotten Climate Apple
=====
Briffa had concealed for nine years that he only had 12 trees in the sample from 1990 onwards, and that one freakish tree transformed the graph. When McIntyre graphed another 34 trees from the same region of Russia, there was no sudden warming.
=====
I think you meant "Galilean Peer Review" for the post title.
Post a Comment