SpidermanTUba
08-09-2007, 10:59 AM
For an example of an actual scientific debate, here is one that starts with a paper in Environmental Geology, in which the authors provide what they think is enough evidence to prove that anthropogenic global warming is incorrect.
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-climate.html
This should also be evidence there isn't a mass conspiracy to keep the anti-global warming scientists from publishing, as Environmental Geology is a peer reviewed credible journal.
Incidentally, it wasn't hard to find. If any of you schmucks had even bothered to try, you could have beaten the Global Warming Challenge.
Read it. See if you can spot the gaping holes in logic. Then read the rebuttal paper published in the same journal a few months later.
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html
If there is any bias in the global warming debate within scientific journals, I think it is towards giving those who conclude against it preference, in order to appear "unbiased". That's what might allow junkers like the Khilyuk paper to sneak through the process.
What a lot of people don't understand is that science doesn't have an obligation to give two "sides" of a "debate" in the popular culture anything. There has to be scientific evidence for something for it to be considered, if there is none, or if that evidence is lacking in sufficiency, then it doesn't get published. That's why astrophysics students like myself don't have to endure a bunch of papers about astrology and time machines and superluminal travel in our journals - because the popular opinion and understanding of our science is irrelevant to all aspects except the teaching of it.
In fact you'll find that most any trade journal - outside of those which involve the service industry or sociology - doesn't give much of a flip about what the public thinks of the trade. And why should it?
Apparently, all the papers which claim anthropogenic global warming is wrong are full of gaping holes. If the peer review process has failed at all, it has failed by bowing to public pressure and publishing papers which claim anthropogenic warming is wrong but which have blatant obvious flaws in their logic.
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-climate.html
This should also be evidence there isn't a mass conspiracy to keep the anti-global warming scientists from publishing, as Environmental Geology is a peer reviewed credible journal.
Incidentally, it wasn't hard to find. If any of you schmucks had even bothered to try, you could have beaten the Global Warming Challenge.
Read it. See if you can spot the gaping holes in logic. Then read the rebuttal paper published in the same journal a few months later.
http://schwinger.harvard.edu/~motl/usc-rebuttal.html
If there is any bias in the global warming debate within scientific journals, I think it is towards giving those who conclude against it preference, in order to appear "unbiased". That's what might allow junkers like the Khilyuk paper to sneak through the process.
What a lot of people don't understand is that science doesn't have an obligation to give two "sides" of a "debate" in the popular culture anything. There has to be scientific evidence for something for it to be considered, if there is none, or if that evidence is lacking in sufficiency, then it doesn't get published. That's why astrophysics students like myself don't have to endure a bunch of papers about astrology and time machines and superluminal travel in our journals - because the popular opinion and understanding of our science is irrelevant to all aspects except the teaching of it.
In fact you'll find that most any trade journal - outside of those which involve the service industry or sociology - doesn't give much of a flip about what the public thinks of the trade. And why should it?
Apparently, all the papers which claim anthropogenic global warming is wrong are full of gaping holes. If the peer review process has failed at all, it has failed by bowing to public pressure and publishing papers which claim anthropogenic warming is wrong but which have blatant obvious flaws in their logic.