Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Interesting paper presented in March. Let's see how well his work stands up to peer review.
But peer review is not always unbiased and honest.
When Dr. Akasofu first proposed his theory about auroral substorms, his peers did not receive it well. Later, his theory was proven to be correct, or at least, the most plausible explanation.
Also remember the history of the Continental Drift Theory. When it was first proposed by Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist/climatologist, the geophysical scientists scorned: How could a non-geologist know anything about their field of specialty? It took time for that generation of geologists to die off before Wegener's theory was widely accepted.
The myth of the honest, inquisitive scientist is just that: a myth. Scientists are just as biased, dishonest, arrogant, sincere, insincere, horny, faithful, whatever, as the general population. In fact, I think that the scientists of the past were probably more honest than they are today. Who actually studies any philosophy today when they study for their PhD? (Doctor of Philosophy) No, it is all focused upon building a world-renowned laboratory, attracting grant money and graduate students, and making a name for one's self.
Oh yeah, I too am a scientist, and a published author within peer-reviewed and editted scientific journals. There are plenty of scientists that question the rush to conclusions regarding global warming. Now that some data is showing a gradual cooling trend, the focus is upon climate change, and not global warming. But the climate is always going to change, with or without human actions.
Having said the above, I will agree, however, that human activity surely has caused changes, it is just that it is difficult to measure the amount of change due to human actions against a background of naturally-occuring cycles of change. For me, the climate change/global warming debate needs to tone down and get away from the religious.
Having said the above, I will agree, however, that human activity surely has caused changes, it is just that it is difficult to measure the amount of change due to human actions against a background of naturally-occuring cycles of change. For me, the climate change/global warming debate needs to tone down and get away from the religious.
Wegener's early work was in 1915, when the "peer review" process in geology was substantially different. Likewise J. Harlen Bretz faced a huge uphill battle in the early 20s with his catastrophism-seeming Missoula Floods theory. Having been involved in the review process over peer articles about the coastal subsidence on the Oregon and Washington coasts due to catastrophic earthquakes, I can say that I have seen great opposition from reviewers, some of it - ahem - cutting but my impression of the process is that it as as thorough as it is brutal. It's true that if you question someone's precious established research and theories you can expect to be dragged out over the coals, and the scientific world often "takes sides" but the sides are in the form or comments, letters and other research, all of which is generally helpful.
I have less trouble with the observations about what has happened in the 20th and 21st centuries regarding climate than I do with the forward looking models and the discussions of how to fix the problem.
Having been involved in the review process over peer articles about the coastal subsidence on the Oregon and Washington coasts due to catastrophic earthquakes, I can say that I have seen great opposition from reviewers, some of it - ahem - cutting but my impression of the process is that it as as thorough as it is brutal.
As it should be. Review should be thorough, but polite; it doesn't have to be brutal. When I was doing my graduate studies, I was a bit shocked by the egotism and antagonism of some PhD professor/researchers to their colleagues. A lot of back-stabbing and political infighting soured me on continuing in the PhD->assistant professor->associate professor->full professor->tenure track route.
Discussion on topics such as global warming should be thorough and rigorous, but too often it devolves into name-calling and snarky comments. I watched some debate in the British House of Commons yesterday and was struck how the British could carry on vigorous discussion (they are questioning Gordon Brown's ability to continue as Prime Minister) and yet remain fairly polite and courteous. That is missing in American dialogue, online forums and otherwise.
As it should be. Review should be thorough, but polite; it doesn't have to be brutal. When I was doing my graduate studies, I was a bit shocked by the egotism and antagonism of some PhD professor/researchers to their colleagues. A lot of back-stabbing and political infighting soured me on continuing in the PhD->assistant professor->associate professor->full professor->tenure track route.
What kept me from going the professor route, even though I enjoyed teaching, were two things: first, the process of getting and keeping grant money didn't appeal to me and second, the number of potential tenure-track jobs was so small as to be statistical anomaly
Prior to geology, though, I'd worked in R&D for a large electronics company - the private sector was actually probably worse for ego and much worse for direct back-stabbing via the review process.
Wegener's early work was in 1915, when the "peer review" process in geology was substantially different. Likewise J. Harlen Bretz faced a huge uphill battle in the early 20s with his catastrophism-seeming Missoula Floods theory.
And it is strange in light of this how quickly Eugenics was embraced by some.
But peer review is not always unbiased and honest.
When Dr. Akasofu first proposed his theory about auroral substorms, his peers did not receive it well. Later, his theory was proven to be correct, or at least, the most plausible explanation.
Also remember the history of the Continental Drift Theory. When it was first proposed by Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist/climatologist, the geophysical scientists scorned: How could a non-geologist know anything about their field of specialty? It took time for that generation of geologists to die off before Wegener's theory was widely accepted.
The myth of the honest, inquisitive scientist is just that: a myth. Scientists are just as biased, dishonest, arrogant, sincere, insincere, horny, faithful, whatever, as the general population. In fact, I think that the scientists of the past were probably more honest than they are today. Who actually studies any philosophy today when they study for their PhD? (Doctor of Philosophy) No, it is all focused upon building a world-renowned laboratory, attracting grant money and graduate students, and making a name for one's self.
Oh yeah, I too am a scientist, and a published author within peer-reviewed and editted scientific journals. There are plenty of scientists that question the rush to conclusions regarding global warming. Now that some data is showing a gradual cooling trend, the focus is upon climate change, and not global warming. But the climate is always going to change, with or without human actions.
Having said the above, I will agree, however, that human activity surely has caused changes, it is just that it is difficult to measure the amount of change due to human actions against a background of naturally-occuring cycles of change. For me, the climate change/global warming debate needs to tone down and get away from the religious.
I'm reminded of what Churchill said about the criticisms leveled at democracy.
Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
But peer review is not always unbiased and honest.
When Dr. Akasofu first proposed his theory about auroral substorms, his peers did not receive it well. Later, his theory was proven to be correct, or at least, the most plausible explanation.
Also remember the history of the Continental Drift Theory. When it was first proposed by Alfred Wegener, a meteorologist/climatologist, the geophysical scientists scorned: How could a non-geologist know anything about their field of specialty? It took time for that generation of geologists to die off before Wegener's theory was widely accepted.
The myth of the honest, inquisitive scientist is just that: a myth. Scientists are just as biased, dishonest, arrogant, sincere, insincere, horny, faithful, whatever, as the general population. In fact, I think that the scientists of the past were probably more honest than they are today. Who actually studies any philosophy today when they study for their PhD? (Doctor of Philosophy) No, it is all focused upon building a world-renowned laboratory, attracting grant money and graduate students, and making a name for one's self.
Oh yeah, I too am a scientist, and a published author within peer-reviewed and editted scientific journals. There are plenty of scientists that question the rush to conclusions regarding global warming. Now that some data is showing a gradual cooling trend, the focus is upon climate change, and not global warming. But the climate is always going to change, with or without human actions.
Having said the above, I will agree, however, that human activity surely has caused changes, it is just that it is difficult to measure the amount of change due to human actions against a background of naturally-occuring cycles of change. For me, the climate change/global warming debate needs to tone down and get away from the religious.
The only problem with debate is that it can last forever. To hope to convince 100% of the academics on anything is sheer folly. I agree that religion can only cloud the issue and turn the inquiry into a giant guessing game. Another problem is input from interested parties such as oil companies, solar manufactures, politicians etc etc. To hope for a purely scientific answer free of external influence is to hope for pie in the sky. Soon a general consensus must be reached and action either does or does not need to be taken. Some actions make sense from multiple vantage points. I am in favor of actions which simultaneously reduce carbon emissions, imported oil importation and are cost effective. In my view, the failure to implement nuclear power is criminal, but that is a story for a different day.
Soon a general consensus must be reached and action either does or does not need to be taken. Some actions make sense from multiple vantage points. I am in favor of actions which simultaneously reduce carbon emissions, imported oil importation and are cost effective. In my view, the failure to implement nuclear power is criminal, but that is a story for a different day.
I like what the new president is doing in this area. By encouraging the movement in the direction of using ALL available sources of energy, we can begin to wean the USA from the foreign oil suppliers that do not have our interests in mind. I too like the idea of nuclear energy but that is always opposed by the NIMBY crowd. Hopefully the price of oil will go up again so that new sources can become profitable: solar, wind, Alberta tar sands oil, etc. Cheap oil has been our downfall for too long.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
