Oh right, and how does he verify this? You're just going to take his word for it? No, sorry, hasn't shaken my understanding of the situation at all.
Human nature and pride over professional reputations can occasionally get in the way of the scientific enterprise, yes. That is, there are some genuine questions about how human nature interacts with the peer review process, but it tends to be in fields that are SO vast (like medicine) that the tiny little "specialist" fields almost anything can be published.
However, climate science is a global study and enterprise being evaluated by so many different institutions that if there were genuine questions about the basics, it really WOULD make it into the peer reviewed literature.
As to the silly accusations above about the peer review process, just look at the measures required just to publish articles in Science and Nature magazines. I'm sure they've published stuff on global warming!
Peer review - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
|
Very general journals such as Science and Nature have extremely stringent standards for publication, and will reject papers that report good quality scientific work if editors feel the work is not a breakthrough in the field. Such journals generally have a two-tier reviewing system. In the first stage, members of the editorial board verify that the paper's findings — if correct — would be ground-breaking enough to warrant publication in Science or Nature. Most papers are rejected at this stage. Papers that do pass this 'pre-reviewing' are sent out for in-depth review to outside referees. Even after all reviewers recommend publication and all reviewer criticisms/suggestions for changes have been met, papers may still be returned to the authors for shortening to meet the journal's length limits. With the advent of electronic journal editions, overflow material may be stored in the journal's online Electronic Supporting Information archive.
|
See FB, have you really dealt with 2 basic concepts yet?
1. how do we know what Co2, or even methane for that matter, does with various spectra of energy?
2. How do we know what percentage of these gases in the atmosphere will do exactly what?
What's it all based on? If, as Al Gore
appeared to present this, we believe all this stuff based on the history of ice ages and Co2, then global warming is categorically wrong and the sceptics win. (Because as the sceptics always point out, the temperature changes BEFORE the Co2 changes.) But the climatologists also know this basic fact, and yet are not swayed. So what's going on here FB? Can you do your 1's and 2's without making a mess?
