Global Warming

[EpiscipalMe]

journals are just for cataloging and not to prove it a peer review. If I did track down what journal it was in, you still would not believe and find another way to disprove it.

Peer review in research occurs through the journal submission process.

The paper is submitted. The editor reviews it and sends it to reviewers for comment. The editor evaluates the comments and accepts, rejected, or asks for revisions. If revisions, the authors are provided with the reviewers' comments and asked to respond.

 

[rjs330]

besides, it does not say that those peer review authors even wrote peer reviews in official climate change journals and works. It just says, basically that a 9,000 scientists (which could be of various backgrounds), accept climate change. And I would agree with them. Climate does change, just not as a result of man.

I love what you are doing here. It's so easy to make a claim that is being made about human caused warming and how all the evidence is peer reviewed etc. Your argument is one I have never thought of using. I will from now on then.

 

[createdtoworship]

Yes, it matters what journal it was in. The editorial boards of those journals are there for more than "cataloging" research. They evaluate the research for quality and ethical standards. They do not allow badly done research, and provide feedback.

You provided the paper they wrote - no evidence whatsoever that it was peer reviewed at all. What "peers" reviewed it? That is what 'peer-reviewed' when it comes to research means - it was reviewed by a group of scholarly peers from the same field for quality and ethics.

they did mention what peers, peer reviewed it. But you didn't read it. journals are just a way of cataloging, grouping if you would topics. You for example would not have a peer review on star births, in a biology journal. Journals are for people to read and research. They are driven by funds from subscribers. it's all just for money. Peer reviews don't have to go that route.

 

[createdtoworship]

Peer review in research occurs through the journal submission process.

The paper is submitted. The editor reviews it and sends it to reviewers for comment. The editor evaluates the comments and accepts, rejected, or asks for revisions. If revisions, the authors are provided with the reviewers' comments and asked to respond.

not solely however, journals are just a way of cataloging, grouping if you would topics. You for example would not have a peer review on star births, in a biology journal. Journals are for people to read and research. They are driven by funds from subscribers. it's all just for money. Peer reviews don't have to go that route.

 

[createdtoworship]

I love what you are doing here. It's so easy to make a claim that is being made about human caused warming and how all the evidence is peer reviewed etc. Your argument is one I have never thought of using. I will from now on then.

thanks. You can use this tactic with anything relating to science. It becomes harder to use with doctrinal things. Obviously.

 

[createdtoworship]

duplicate

 

[createdtoworship]

So let me get this straight. If you are shown a peer reviewed article that asserts climate change is happening driven by activities of our species . . . . you will then accept that climate change is happening driven by human activity?

Yessir! As the water levels rise parts of the mainland will become islands.

Yes, it matters what journal it was in. The editorial boards of those journals are there for more than "cataloging" research. They evaluate the research for quality and ethical standards. They do not allow badly done research, and provide feedback.

You provided the paper they wrote - no evidence whatsoever that it was peer reviewed at all. What "peers" reviewed it? That is what 'peer-reviewed' when it comes to research means - it was reviewed by a group of scholarly peers from the same field for quality and ethics.

peer reviews can also be in the form of books.

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book.

Peer review - Wikipedia

now if peer reviews can be in book form or journal form, then the journal is not the primary way of peer reviewing the work. Is it?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

peer reviews can also be in the form of books.

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book.

Peer review - Wikipedia

now if peer reviews can be in book form or journal form, then the journal is not the primary way of peer reviewing the work. Is it?

You didn't actually answer the question. If peer reviewed studies assert global warming is real and global warming is caused by humanity, will you accept that to be true?

 

[FreeinChrist]

peer reviews can also be in the form of books.

Scholarly peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field, before a paper describing this work is published in a journal or as a book.

Peer review - Wikipedia

now if peer reviews can be in book form or journal form, then the journal is not the primary way of peer reviewing the work. Is it?

Not sure what what your point is here exactly. In each form, if it is too be considered peer reviewed, the publisher has a team of experts in the field to review for quality and ethical standards.
More research is published in journals than in books.

 

[createdtoworship]

You didn't actually answer the question. If peer reviewed studies assert global warming is real and global warming is caused by humanity, will you accept that to be true?

I said before that the peer review would have to be newer than the peer review I posted negating much of the dates, and hopefully they corrected their errors. But no guarantee, but for debate purposes I would accept it. (if it was newer than mine)

 

[createdtoworship]

Not sure what what your point is here exactly. In each form, if it is too be considered peer reviewed, the publisher has a team of experts in the field to review for quality and ethical standards.
More research is published in journals than in books.

so my point exactly, peer review does not need to be published in a journal, it just needs to meet the qualifications of peer review. So my peer review is valid. I rest my case.

 

[FreeinChrist]

No, actually not. What peer review? What publisher? What professionals reviewed it?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I said before that the peer review would have to be newer than the peer review I posted negating much of the dates, and hopefully they corrected their errors. But no guarantee, but for debate purposes I would accept it. (if it was newer than mine)

So your view is that the most recent peer review studies win. Nothing to do with the quality of the studies, or the accuracy of the studies, merely that it is "peer reviewed" and "most recent".

 

[createdtoworship]

No, actually not. What peer review? What publisher? What professionals reviewed it?

Keep up, you act like you just joined us. All information is on the news article I posted relating to peer review.

 

[createdtoworship]

So your view is that the most recent peer review studies win. Nothing to do with the quality of the studies, or the accuracy of the studies, merely that it is "peer reviewed" and "most recent".

Ever heard of outdated research?

 

[FreeinChrist]

Keep up, you act like you just joined us. All information is on the news article I posted relating to peer review.

Where?
I saw links to news sites.

 

[createdtoworship]

Where?
I saw links to news sites.

yeah, a news site linked to peer review, and mentions who peer reviewed it.

Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: "Not Reality... Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data" | Zero Hedge

 

[FreeinChrist]

So what I see is a claim in a blog, ZeroHedge, that is right wing, that the study was peer reviewed - but it is not published in any peer reviewed journal or peer-reviewed book (publisher). It is published on a WordPress site owned by one of the co-authors (which are easy to have as I have one too). Much of the support listed in the preface and elsewhere are WordPress articles.

I also see "Dr. Joseph D'Aleo" but am aware he did not earn the PhD but it is an honorary title.

So note:
FACT CHECK: Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?

The claim of peer review, widely reported by numerous outlets, evidently stems from the second page of the report, in which the names of seven scientists (spanning a wide range of fields including aerospace engineering and economics, despite a complete lack of discussion of these topics in the report) appear under the banner “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report”.

We reached out to these scientists to ask if this page was meant to imply that those listed individuals were the peer-reviewers news reports were speaking of. Only one person, George Wolff — a former Environmental Protection Agency atmospheric scientist who is now chief scientist for a company called Air Improvement Resource, Inc. — responded to our request. In a brief response, he simultaneously suggested that their inclusion on the document meant to imply they were the peer-reviewers, and that this process involved merely reading the study carefully:

My approach to reviewing the report was the same as I have used for the hundreds of journal articles that I have reviewed. I read the report carefully and critically. I gave it a formal peer-review.
​

Reading a study and saying that you agree with its conclusions is not how peer review works. A formal peer-review is a structured process that by nature requires a third party, usually a journal editor, who oversees an iterative process of critiques and revisions.​

I realize this article is widely copied across the right wing blogosphere. But it doesn't pass from what I see.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I also found these comments by others valid here:

Could this study "totally dismantle" Global Warming claims?

Second, references are poor. Data sources are cited, from government or agencies FTP sites, which is probably legit (I did not verify the linked data in great detail). GAST dataset are publicly available, as the freedom to publish possible misinterpretation in a proper peer reviewed journal, which remain to be done for the authors actual work.

Third, there is no real methodology. The abridged paper is presenting results and interpretations, but there is no real method.

Fourth, p17

Clearly the historical GAST data adjustments that have been made have been dramatic and invariably have been favorable to Climate Alarmists’ views regarding Global Warming

This type of statement is having no place in a scientific paper, as this is poorly opinionated based on nothing of substance (Clearly, dramatic, Climate Alarmist) and does not prove much, except that the contribution is not scientific.

​

and about the report:

The underlying data still supports global warming
As I mentioned, the thrust of the article is that corrections made to the calculation of global temperature averages from historical data are systematically biasing the data in favor of a linear warming trend.

The graph on page 11 of the paper provides a key piece of evidence. The blue line shows the original 1980 global historical temperature estimates, while the other lines show progressive refinements of that data through 2015. However, the original line still shows increasing temperatures. Even only though 1980, the original line shows a temperature increase (albeit cyclical) of about 0.4 C over the hundred odd years of the chart. Even if the newer data's 'correction factor' of about +0.15 C (per chart IV-2) is taken out, the temperatures then rise another 0.4-0.15 = 0.25 C in the 30 years from 1980 to 2010.

In short, the author's argument is that the global warming effect is being created by systematic biasing of an underlying data set; however, the underlying data set itself still shows a positive (if cyclical) warming trend of about 0.65 C over the past 130 years.

Therefore, even assuming the author's claims are correct that researchers are inappropriately manipulating data, the evidence still shows global warming over the past century plus. This suggests that if the authors are correct, perhaps the sensitivity of the climate models should be lowered; I don't see how it upends modern global warming theory or 'totally dismantles' anything.

​

I have to give that report a thumbs down in regards to quality. What is the methodology?

 

[createdtoworship]

So what I see is a claim in a blog, ZeroHedge, that is right wing, that the study was peer reviewed - but it is not published in any peer reviewed journal or peer-reviewed book (publisher). It is published on a WordPress site owned by one of the co-authors (which are easy to have as I have one too). Much of the support listed in the preface and elsewhere are WordPress articles.

I also see "Dr. Joseph D'Aleo" but am aware he did not earn the PhD but it is an honorary title.

So note:
FACT CHECK: Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?

The claim of peer review, widely reported by numerous outlets, evidently stems from the second page of the report, in which the names of seven scientists (spanning a wide range of fields including aerospace engineering and economics, despite a complete lack of discussion of these topics in the report) appear under the banner “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report”.

We reached out to these scientists to ask if this page was meant to imply that those listed individuals were the peer-reviewers news reports were speaking of. Only one person, George Wolff — a former Environmental Protection Agency atmospheric scientist who is now chief scientist for a company called Air Improvement Resource, Inc. — responded to our request. In a brief response, he simultaneously suggested that their inclusion on the document meant to imply they were the peer-reviewers, and that this process involved merely reading the study carefully:

My approach to reviewing the report was the same as I have used for the hundreds of journal articles that I have reviewed. I read the report carefully and critically. I gave it a formal peer-review.
​

Reading a study and saying that you agree with its conclusions is not how peer review works. A formal peer-review is a structured process that by nature requires a third party, usually a journal editor, who oversees an iterative process of critiques and revisions.​

I realize this article is widely copied across the right wing blogosphere. But it doesn't pass from what I see.

snopes founders are going through a nasty divorce right now, And the owner married a former prostitute, or porn star or something. So I would not use that source if I was you. Try something a little less scandalous.

http://www.wnd.com/2017/07/hookers-lies-and-fraud-snopes-in-danger-of-closing-doors/

not sure how much of your info you got off that blog, so you may want to start over.