The Climate Change Thread

[matty_k]

With respect Sully, that's a hollow statement. Yes I know "peer reviewing" is a growth industry,

It is an industry standard. Which originated in the 1700s.

designed for mates to say nice things about what their mates write, in the expectation that some day in the future the situation will be reversed!

The point of the peer review process is to catch any flaws that may arise in sometimes research. A recent example I can think of is Wakefield. He published a paper linking the MMR vaccine to autism. It made it through the first process but slowly as other immunologists tried to replicate the results (a part of the peer review process) it became clear that something wasn't right with Wakefield's original findings. It was discovered that he falsified results and had a massive conflict of interest as he was trying to put forward his own vaccine to replace MMR. His paper has now been retracted by the Lancet.

How the hell were great inventions created without being peer reviewed?

They were. Even the Wright Brothers showed off their flying contraption to the world. If it didn't work their peers would have said "Well that doesn't work".

It's just a bloody excuse to try and eliminate alternate thinking. A very unhealthy practice Sully, and one which, I as a creative thinker don't subscribe to. Perhaps it becomes 'justified' when "scientists" are approaching the end of their current funding, and are looking to secure a new "grant".

It is essential throughout the entire scientific process. Also why are you putting quotation marks around scientists? You are either trying to emphasise that they are scientists (which is the wing way to do it" or you don't consider them actual scientists. Which is it?

You may be happy to be "one of the mob" and to live your life without straying "beyond the square" in case you may get rebuked. That shows a weakness of character on your part! Perhaps you are frightened of failure.

I'd like to see you tell this to Stephen Hawking, Buzz Aldrin, Marie Curie, Louie Pasture, Albert Einstein or Thomas Edison.

Were William Shakespeare's plays peer reviewed, was the Mona Lisa peer reviewed, ("oh, shit Vincent you can't paint her, she's a nobody"), were the works of Banjo Paterson and Henry Lawson peer reviewed, ("no one wants to read crap about gum trees, bush rangers and sheep"),

I'm fairly sure you're Gish galloping here, I'll have to check up on my logical fallacies but they are all irrelevant examples as they aren't conducting scientific studies.

was the discovery of penicillin peer reviewed, (ah, yuk, that Petri dish has got mold growing all over it, toss it out before one of the proffessors sees it"),

Sir Alexander Flemming published his discovery of penicillin and it's antibacterial in 1929, in the British Journal of Experimental Pathology. Where it would have been peer reviewed before it was published and then it would have been further reviewed and the experiment repeated by more of his peers.

were the paintings on the ceiling of the cistine chapel peer reviewed, ("not up there Michelangelo, no one will see them, you idiot"),

irrelevant but I'm pretty sure the Pope of the time didn't like what he was doing then Michaelangelo would have been told about it.

were the plans of the Sydney Opera house per reviewed? Well not originally, but they were later, and as a result, we have a lesser building. Was of the invention of the steam engine, electricity, the telephone, or the planned voyages of Capt. James Cook all peer reviewed no, no, no.

Most likely all of these were. Maybe not to the same standards of today but they would have been.

Who peer reviewed Edmund Hillary's ascent of Mt Everest Sully?

Didn't need to be but do you really think he didn't speak to his mountain climbing buddies or to other guys who tried to find out what they did wrong

From what you say, the bloke should never have set out into unknown (non-peer reviewed) territory!

You seem to be saying "don't try anything, or write about anything with out first arranging "back-up", in case you make a mug of yourself!

I'm off to bed to do some "creative thinking", because you're making me angry!!

You have totally misunderstood the peer review process. Go have a thorough read of the Wikipedia page about it or there is a really good article on How Stuff Works http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-peer-review2.htm .

 

[Sully]

Thank you Matt. That's so much better than the reply I would have come up with. Peer review is critical for scientific work. It doesn't stop you thinking outside the box it just makes sure you can back up what you've discovered. I'd go as far as to say anyone not willing to be peer reviewed has something to hide.

 

[formerflanker]

Thank you Matt. That's so much better than the reply I would have come up with. Peer review is critical for scientific work. It doesn't stop you thinking outside the box it just makes sure you can back up what you've discovered. I'd go as far as to say anyone not willing to be peer reviewed has something to hide.

Peer review as a scientific concept is sound. However it can also be used by gatekeepers to gather around an idea and prevent it from being scrutinised. As the Climategate emails showed, peer review into Climate Change was a control system of like-minded peers who were interrelated in their theories and worked together to make sure there was no challenge to their set of beliefs.

 

[matty_k]

Even though eight different committees that investigated the incident found this wasn't the case?

And even if it was as soon as the data was published it was open to further scrutiny. And still the majority of the scientific community agree with the findings.

 

[Sully]

So it seems there are two types of 'scientists' in the world. Those that think climate change is real and are happy for others to look at the work and try to find fault in it. And those who don't think it's real and don't believe in peer review or sharing their data and methodology.

I wonder why that is?

 

[Gnostic]

The big problem with the lay person's view of "peer review" is that any peer review paper can be viewed as a negative appraisal of the results, because it is a critique of the methodology and the results obtained in singular experiments/observational analyses or a series of such analyses or experiments. Such things cannot be cherry picked for supportive comments or data for somebody's POV.

Secondly the idea of consensus is a bit of a myth. It is just the weight of the literature presenting evidence at that point of time overwhelming supports a certain view. Science being a continual progression of trial and error and review will continually change that view point, which doesn't sit well with the lay person who likes to believe that science provides definitive answers. It does not, just the best understanding a the subject at that particular time and crucially from that view point.

I always use the example of the development of the concept of the atom from the "Plum Pudding" model through to quantum mechanics (I leave string theory well alone) and the sometimes violent debate surrounding the competing theories and the evidence for each theory to show the process.

 

[Mr Doug]

Do you really think that the presence or absence of wind turbines and/or solar panels would prevent the erosion of rocks and/or landscapes?

Geology and geography carry on with or without climate change.

Thank you boyo, for your honest statement. It's good to see someone from "your side of the argument" being realistic enough to acknowledge that 'man' hasn't caused all these changes, through his reckless heating of our planet.

 

[Mr Doug]

So it seems there are two types of 'scientists' in the world. Those that think climate change is real and are happy for others to look at the work and try to find fault in it. And those who don't think it's real and don't believe in peer review or sharing their data and methodology.

I wonder why that is?

Hey Sully, you were the wrong bloke in the wrong place last night, and you copped both barrels! It's just that I'm sick of this child-like argument about peer-reviews!
Any research which is worth it's salt should be able to stand up to scrutiny, I agree, but that shouldn't stop research being published without the "threat of being criticized" hanging over the publisher, should a group of "trumped up tossers" wish to tear it apart for their joint self-gratification!

Perhaps we should finalise this impasse over a quiet beer at cbus super stadium on Saturday night?! Cheers.

 

[boyo]

I always use the example of the development of the concept of the atom from the "Plum Pudding" model through to quantum mechanics (I leave string theory well alone) and the sometimes violent debate surrounding the competing theories and the evidence for each theory to show the process.

J.J. Thomson, I presume.

 

[boyo]

Thank you boyo, for your honest statement. It's good to see someone from "your side of the argument" being realistic enough to acknowledge that 'man' hasn't caused all these changes, through his reckless heating of our planet.

That sort of erosion hasn't just occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

 

[Gnostic]

Hey Sully, you were the wrong bloke in the wrong place last night, and you copped both barrels! It's just that I'm sick of this child-like argument about peer-reviews!
Any research which is worth it's salt should be able to stand up to scrutiny, I agree, but that shouldn't stop research being published without the "threat of being criticized" hanging over the publisher, should a group of "trumped up tossers" wish to tear it apart for their joint self-gratification!

Perhaps we should finalise this impasse over a quiet beer at cbus super stadium on Saturday night?! Cheers.

Mr Doug, I would refer to my post about and point out that criticism (Critique) is the core of the peer review process. I have attached the Wiki link for Quantum Mechanics because it shows how the peer review process took each theory and the results of experiments from researchers prior (some extremely exalted scientists) and ripped them apart and reinterpreted those results to come to different theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

As I said above the best examples are Quantum mechanics and the Plum Pudding model of the atom as they show the clear progression over years from firmly held belief with scientific peer review at the time to the new peer reviewed position. The early work was wrong, but not at the knowledge of the time and provided the foundation for the next step.

This is not discounting current Climate Change debate and "consesus" but you will note that the real scientists are not making absolute predictions, but rather give ranges of what will happen on current analyses. The whole issue for the layman has been clouded by formerly eminent people such as Tim Flannery making absolute pronouncements which would never be backed by science.

 

[Mr Doug]

I, like many fellow posters, once respected (totally) the research and findings of our CSIRO scientists. Then (during the Rudd/Gillard reign), I learnt that part of the CSIRO's 'mission statement' was to "publish results from research which best enunciated Government policy"!!

 

[Mr Doug]

Mr Doug, I would refer to my post about and point out that criticism (Critique) is the core of the peer review process. I have attached the Wiki link for Quantum Mechanics because it shows how the peer review process took each theory and the results of experiments from researchers prior (some extremely exalted scientists) and ripped them apart and reinterpreted those results to come to different theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

As I said above the best examples are Quantum mechanics and the Plum Pudding model of the atom as they show the clear progression over years from firmly held belief with scientific peer review at the time to the new peer reviewed position. The early work was wrong, but not at the knowledge of the time and provided the foundation for the next step.

This is not discounting current Climate Change debate and "consesus" but you will note that the real scientists are not making absolute predictions, but rather give ranges of what will happen on current analyses. The whole issue for the layman has been clouded by formerly eminent people such as Tim Flannery making absolute pronouncements which would never be backed by science.

So that's your way of explaining (read 'excusing') the fact that a New Zealand scientist who had studied the sea levels affecting the South Pacific Islands over a 16-year period, predicted a maximum rise of 134 mms by 2100, and Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, claimed on ABC radio, rises of between 5 metres "and maybe even 6 metres" by 2100?. That's some "range"!!

 

[Gnostic]

So that's your way of explaining (read 'excusing') the fact that a New Zealand scientist who had studied the sea levels affecting the South Pacific Islands over a 16-year period, predicted a maximum rise of 134 mms by 2100, and Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, claimed on ABC radio, rises of between 5 metres "and maybe even 6 metres" by 2100?. That's some "range"!!

Dr Karl as he often says is not a "real" Dr (sorry Cyclo you can take it up with Karl) he is an MD and that is is area of speciality. He would eb the first to tell you that he isn't a climate scientist and if he quoted the range you have said (I haven't heard it and I listen to a lot of his Podcasts and there are lots of errors) he has either misread his source or made the same blunder as Flannery. Plus Dr Karl's statement does not amount to peer review.

That said, I make no excuses, what I have posted is the true function of Peer review, it is critical and sometimes heated. Have a read of the wiki link posted and the other suggested it really does give a deeper understanding of the process. The answer today will not be the answer tomorrow, that is the only guarantee, even if the experiment to prove your theory works, it may have been because your conclusion looked at the evidence from an erroneous starting POV.

 

[Pfitzy]

So that's your way of explaining (read 'excusing') the fact that a New Zealand scientist who had studied the sea levels affecting the South Pacific Islands over a 16-year period, predicted a maximum rise of 134 mms by 2100, and Dr Karl Kruszelnicki, claimed on ABC radio, rises of between 5 metres "and maybe even 6 metres" by 2100?. That's some "range"!!

Did you immunise your kids?

 

[Ruggo]

Even though eight different committees that investigated the incident found this wasn't the case?

And even if it was as soon as the data was published it was open to further scrutiny. And still the majority of the scientific community agree with the findings.

Yep the peer review gets peer reviewed. This is how less than pure motives are discovered. This is only to get to the publication stage. Peer reviewing continues after publication through journal research and citation, also leading to new models and the development of new hypothesis. It is fundamental to how scientific discovery evolves.

 

[boyo]

A good read:-

Rising carbon dioxide emissions push greenhouse gases to record high

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...ioxide-emissions-greenhouse-gases?CMP=ema_632

 

[boyo]

Interesting article.

It touches on "homogenisation", a subject that has been mentioned in this thread.

Climate change deniers raise the heat on the Bureau of Meteorology

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-deniers-raise-the-heat-on-the-bureau-of-meteorology-20140909-10eedk.html#ixzz3CtMc7WBw

 

[wilful]

Mr Doug has a remarkable capacity for self-delusion and selective reading. Homogenisation happens to many of the weather stations from time to time. If you took away the homogenisation at ALL of the weather stations where it has happened, there would be a greater increase in heating of Australia observed. But if you selectively took it away from only three that support your argument, then you would obviously be a charlatan and anyone who believed your argument would be a fool. And if you arrogantly declared that it was dodgy and the BoM needed to "explain" (presumably in terms fit for a five year old), without the faintest understanding that the explanation has been public for a long time, and published in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature, then you would be doubly a fool. But that is exactly what has happened.

 

[formerflanker]

Mr Doug has a remarkable capacity for self-delusion and selective reading. Homogenisation happens to many of the weather stations from time to time.

There certainly seems to be a lot of homogenisation happening around the world:
"This is a global problem. Earlier this year, Breitbart reported that similarly dishonest adjustments had been made to temperature records by NASA and NOAA. Similarly implicated are the UK temperature records of the Met Office Hadley Centre and at Phil "Climategate" Jones's disgraced Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia." Ref - Breitbart London, 25th Aug 2014.


Just because it happens from time to time, doesn't mean that homogenisation is carried out with scientific impartiality.