another disturbing impact

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by gt, Feb 15, 2008.

  1. Derek Day

    Derek Day Rockyday

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    577
    Likes Received:
    149
    Location:
    Olympia
    WPEB,

    I still don't think you understand what kind of peer review we are talking about. That last link was a self published report. First, they chose who reviewed it. Peer review is most often anonymous, and not solicited by the authors, but the publishers. We also don't know if those who reviewed the piece were relavant to the subject. Second, anyone can publish anything they want, given enough resources. The trick is getting it published by a reputable journal--not something anyone can do.
     
  2. WPEB

    WPEB member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Merely? There was obviously an implication there. Hey, if Al Gore didn't fly around in his personal jet and live in a giant mansion I might actually think he cared about the environment... Leave what you think about vice presidents for a relevant debate.

    Obviously humans are hurting the environment, I never argued they weren't. I just don't think that the rise in temperature can be attributed to human CO2 production.
     
  3. WPEB

    WPEB member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Thanks, but if you'll do a quick lookup of the reviewers you'll notice that they are highly relevant to the subject. Paleoclimatologists, climatologists, meteorologists, solar physicists, etc. People, experts in the discipline, who have far more insight into the goings on climate change than most. They are in the thick of things. Did you even read any of the assessment? How about the references? If you don't believe them, how about the 19,000 other scientists who have signed the global warming petition? All of them can't be corrupt can they?
    Here is a link to find out more about this petition: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

    You can also find a link to this from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Scroll to the bottom to find a peer reviewed research paper. Try to look at the information.

    BTW, the fraser institute assessment I posted had far more reviewers than a typical peer reviewed study, which is normally two or three actual reviewers.
     
  4. Richard Olmstead

    Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    1,733
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    There is nothing in the petition you cite that restricts signatories to scientists. I suspect that few of the 19,000 are.

    The 'review' of the 'assessment' of the Fraser Institute doesn't qualify as peer review in any sense by which the term is used in its role in scientific publication.

    D
     
  5. WPEB

    WPEB member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Right here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/GWPetition.pdf

    That is where it would have taken you had you clicked on the button "Click here to sign a mail-in copy of this petition. It cannot be signed by Internet." Not only are they all scientists, but you have to be approved before you are considered part of the petition.

    No, your right. But do you know how the peer review process works? Is it really anything more than a title? Of course the standards change from journal to journal, but when a journal receives applications roughly 60% are rejected outright, no review. This has little to do with content and more to do with with time constraints, and in this case the editors have the power. Next, a few reviewers are chosen to look over the paper. Usually the number is 2-3 reviewers, called referees. In some journals, an open review may occur with up to 20 participants, but the majority have never read the proposed material. In many of the more popular subjects, such as global warming, finding an available expert in the particular field is difficult. Often times, enthusiasm for these reviews is low, though the referee may be interested in the topic.

    Here is what a few articles on Nature.com, ironically a peer reviewed journal, has to say about the review process:

    "Whether there is any such thing as a paper so bad that it cannot be published in any peer reviewed journal is debatable. Nevertheless, scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth."

    "How long is the interval from submission to publication, and how much of this is attributable to peer review? (This is difficult to quantify for papers that are rejected from one journal and eventually published elsewhere.) Publication delays are of course frustrating to individual authors competing for recognition, but in the race for priority one author’s loss is another’s gain. More important is the aggregate delay in the dissemination of new knowledge, which represents a cost to the scientific community and general public. It might be interesting to estimate the monetary value of this delay: if new knowledge represents the return on public investment in research, what is the cost of delaying the realization of this return?"

    "How much time do referees expend on peer review? Although referees may derive benefits from reviewing, it still represents time taken away from other activities (research, teaching and so forth) that they would have otherwise prioritized. Referees are normally unpaid but presumably their time has some monetary value, as reflected in their salaries."

    I could go on, but I think you get the point. Several of these come from former editors of peer reviewed journals, so they know the process well. So are all peer reviewed journals created equal? No, they are not, but can you make the judgment call?
    Being published in a peer reviewed journal may sound prestigious, but it is far from making anything of the highest quality. Doesn't sound like its all its cracked up to be, does it?

    Which brings us back down to the actual science.
     
  6. Richard Olmstead

    Richard Olmstead BigDog

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    3,028
    Likes Received:
    1,733
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    I read that. Here is what they say of their signatories: "This includes many of those with BS, MS, or PhD degrees in science, engineering, and related disciplines." I stand by my former statement that there is nothing here that restricts this to scientists, in the sense that the word generally is adopted in the scientific community.


    As the former editor of a fairly prominent scientific journal and presently serving on the Editorial Board of a few more, I know how the peer review process works quite well, thank you.

    D
     
  7. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    7,183
    Likes Received:
    1,295
    Location:
    Not sure
    Don't bother trying to convince ~Phil with facts - plainly his mind is already made up.

    Fortunately, opinions don't matter as the question of human involvement in global warming isn't being put to a popular vote.

    "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]"

    K
     
  8. Kevin J. Burnham

    Kevin J. Burnham Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    2,194
    Likes Received:
    282
    Location:
    Auburn,Wa.
    Bitchin !! Only 2 more days and this friggin post will be a week long !! Boys lets keep it going !!!
     
  9. WPEB

    WPEB member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    Was what I said out of line? Do peer reviewed journals assure a high standard of work? Was the brief process I explained wrong? I believe that peer reviewed journals can be very dangerous as more people are apt to blindly follow them.

    Not all scientists are as quick to jump on the bandwagon.

    DAILYTECH SURVEY:
    LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS
    ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY;
    COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED
    CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING
    VIEWPOINTS

    Michael Asher
    August 29, 2007 11:07 AM

    In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a
    survey of research papers on climate change.
    Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI
    Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she
    found a majority supported the "consensus view,"
    defined as humans were having at least
    some_effect_ on_global_climate_change.
    NOTE: "Climate change" but not "Global warming"

    Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as
    some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its
    conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

    Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte
    recently updated this research. Using the same
    database and search terms as Oreskes, he
    examined all papers published from 2004 to
    February 2007. The results have been submitted
    to the journal Energy and Environment, of which
    DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy.
    The figures are surprising.

    Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%)
    gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If
    one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the
    consensus without explicit statement), the figure
    rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%)
    reject the consensus outright, the largest category
    (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept
    or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

    The figures are even more shocking when one
    remembers the watered-down definition of
    consensus here. Not only does it not require
    supporting that man is the "primary" cause of
    warming, but it doesn't require any belief or
    support for "catastrophic" global warming. In
    fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to
    February 2007), only a single one makes any
    reference to climate change leading to
    catastrophic results.

    These changing viewpoints represent the advances
    in climate science over the past decade. While
    today we are even more certain the earth
    is warming, we are less certain about the root
    causes. More importantly, research has shown us
    that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of
    warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for
    mankind or the planet itself.

    Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation
    IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which
    gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an
    impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC
    represent a consensus view of world scientists?
    Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists"
    involved in the report, the actual text is written by a
    much smaller number of "lead authors."

    The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" --
    the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is
    written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and
    approved, word-by-word, by political representatives
    from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual
    report chapters -- the only text actually written by
    scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with
    the summary, which is typically published months
    before the actual report itself.

    By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database
    covers 8,700 journals and publications, including
    every leading scientific journal in the world.

    I am fairly certain that this entire post you have made can better apply to the global warming side.
    Why are we so quick to jump to this conclusion? Where is the actual evidence beyond a slight correlation?

    The greenhouse effect has been denounced as a bad thing for so long now. The greenhouse effect has been occurring since this planet began, and without it, life as we know it would cease to exist.

    Renowned climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr. has used IPCC’s estimates of climate forcing to calculate the contribution of CO2 to recent climate change. Pielke makes very conservative (worst-case) assumptions in considering the impacts of greenhouse gases, black carbon, tropospheric ozone, and solar radiation. This analysis ignores land use changes, which have been demonstrated to affect climate in a significant way, and cosmic rays, which affect cloud cover and thus can lead to significant climate changes.
    Pielke’s estimate is that CO2 is responsible for 28% (at most) of the human-caused changes. If natural variations do occur (and it’s very hard to argue that they do not) then this value decreases. But even if one assumes that the entire 0.6 deg C increase since 1900 is due to human effects, Pielke’s estimate would suggest a CO2 contribution of only 0.17 deg C.

    I could tell you that ground temperature stations and weather balloons are very inefficient forms of measuring global temperatures, and that weather satellites in conjunction with other sources have only shown a rise in temperature of around 0.6 degrees celsius in the past 100 years, which is fairly normal during an interglacial period. You will pass it off as mumblings of a neocon.

    I could tell you that if greenhouse gas was the culprit of the rise in temperatures, then the temperature of the troposphere would be increasing at twice the rate of ground temperatures. It is not, in fact it is not increasing at all, but you don't care about that do you?

    I could tell you in 1989 as the Cold War and the threat of nuclear war were winding down, the Union of Concerned Scientists began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists. Only three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology.
    Or that President Clinton and others cite a letter signed by 2600 scientists that global warming will have catastrophic effects on humanity. Thanks to Citizens for a Sound Economy, we know now that fewer than 10% of these "scientists" know anything about climate. Among the signers: a plastic surgeon, two landscape architects, a hotel administrator, a gynecologist, seven sociologists, a linguist, and a practitioner of traditional Chinese medicine.
    Yeah you can say CSE has had some funding from Exxon, but does really skew the results that much? If Exxon was really smart it would have jumped on the global warming bandwagon like other giant companies have, as there is a huge profit to be made in that. Instead, they can now be found "paying off" scientists. Now by no means do I think Exxon is a great company, but come on guys.

    I could say that CO2 is one of the least efficient greenhouse gas and only accounts for less than 1/20 of a percent of the makeup of our atmosphere, or 380ppm. And that water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the greenhouse effect. Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, has demonstrated this phenomenon very effectively. We witness this cloud phenomenon around here almost nightly.

    I could say that the Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. While the highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

    I don't know why I need to try to disprove something that is based in very little actual scientific evidence. A result of the earth warming is not evidence.
    A minor correlation is not evidence. The hockey stick effect can no longer be touted as evidence of anything, it was proved as false. "An Inconvenient Truth" may be scary, but it is so riddled with holes that it is little more than a docudrama. And yes, i have seen it.
    I am a skeptic.

    I am no environment hater. I do what I can and probably do more than many of you. (this is not an invitation to compare)
    I am not against reducing our dependence on fossil fuels or other new technology. Quite the contrary, I just think that this alarmist attitude is the wrong way to do it. Inducing fear is a fantastic way to gain fame and power. (this is not an invitation to discuss other issues if they do not pertain global warming)

    This is why other skeptics on this board tend to not respond to these types of posts.
     
  10. knothead

    knothead Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    WPEB, awesome reasoning. The other guys, unable to refute what you presented to them regarding the peer review process, attempt to shut down further discussion by flashing thier credentials, and admitting they participate in the process you desribe. Hilarious. You will have them reduced to name calling in no time.
    Sounds to me that peer review can be shopped until you get the desired result.
    Not sure, but is that a part of the scientific process.
     
  11. knothead

    knothead Banned or Parked

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    118
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Redmond, WA
    "You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Dr. Arroway in Carl Sagan's Contact (New York: Pocket Books, 1985]"

    Sounds much like those who put tier stock in "peer review".
     
  12. QHays

    QHays Premember

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2006
    Messages:
    168
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Here and There
    Dr. Olmstead -- I encourage you once again not to take the bait. As those of us in the scientific world know you are a much respected phylogenist and molecular biologist. I have spent some time in the Wingfield lab so I am familiar with your work. Again, it's a sad reflection of the state of science in America when this sort of "debate" occurs on a flyfishing forum, a site where one would hope to find reasonably informed and enlightened people (although many who have chimed in certainly are). The obvious lack of scientific understanding and vehemence with which science is derided is disturbing to say the least. Believe what you will -- scientific study and discovery will continue, we will continue to prove hypotheses right and wrong, and none of us will lose any sleep over the musings of nonbelievers. Enjoy the largess of our work...
     
  13. WPEB

    WPEB member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2004
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Bothell, WA
    For a scientist you really seem to hate debate. Maybe you got into the wrong profession?
    Even Dr. Olmstead seems to be open for debate.

    I will quote a chadk post because it once again seems relevant:

    "Those who have something to sell, those who wish to influence public opinion, those in power, a skeptic might suggest, have a vested interest in discouraging skepticism” (Sagan 1995).

    You want to know what will really be a sad reflection of the state of science in America? When the debate stops. When the debating about something so life-altering, so important for all life on this planet, stops. Curiosity is in human nature. Without curiosity, without skepticism about the accepted norm, there would have never been any scientific advancements. As a scientist you should know that.

    And for kent here is a carl sagan quote as well:

    "Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don't practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us -- and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along. [Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection]"

    Charlatan? Al Gore?
     
  14. Philster

    Philster Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    2,939
    Likes Received:
    346
    Location:
    .
    I have a question. The earth is a closed system right? Lets get back to the origin of this post. Any research about the areas the "nutrient rich" water came from... How is it changing? If the main flow of this water results in a deadspot, what about the periphery of the flow field? What about the final dissipation of the nutrients? It has to go somewhere. Are there other regions, perhaps much more vast that are currently benefitting from a massive influx of nutrient rich water? I don't know. You don't know. But most importantly nobody seems to be checking...

    What is the danger of establishing policy based on a myopic analysis by scientists who "own" an area of Ocean? Yes for the scientists who consider those two regions their backyard this appears catastrophic. However, once again the actual impact is a natural phenomenom, and it doesn't end in their backyard.

    The road the fertilizer truck drives over looks like hell. And after the harvest the field does too.
     
  15. FT

    FT Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2005
    Messages:
    1,374
    Likes Received:
    234
    Location:
    Burlington, WA
    WPEB,

    Thanks for taking the time to post the summary of Dr. Schulte's finding of his review of the climate change papers. I was going to do it, but since you already have, it is not necessary to do so another time.

    I also find it interesting that water vapor, which the authors of the IPC report admit is a major factor in atmoshperic temperatures, is left out of the computer model "forcings" used to arrive at their predictions of increased global temperatures.

    For those of you who think that 30 years of temperature data are all that is needed to know what is happening with average temperatures of a given geographic spot and that what has been observed over that very short 30 year time span, there is the problem of the mini ice age that happened after the several hundred year long warming of the middle ages. In other words, if the warming observed during the middle ages would have been a good predictor of what was going to continue happening in the future, the mini ice age would never have occured. Unfortunately, the mini ice age did happen. Therefore, should we really be concluding or trusting predictions based upon 30 years of data that things are really going to heat up when such predictions based upon several hundred years of data would have been grossly wrong when the mini ice age hit?

    Folks (this is for those who may not know this),

    Just because someone is a professor emeritus, it doesn't mean he or she is not actively involved in research, it simply means the person is no longer a full-time faculty member at a university. And if he or she wasn't still doing some teaching or research with the university, the title of professor emeritus would not be granted. Also if a professor doesn't get things published and bring in some research dollars, the university will send him down the road before he earns tenure (this is known as publish or perish).

    Likewise, folks wishing to earn a Ph.D. don't get to just research anything they are interested in for their dissertation, they must get approval of their proposed research from their faculty advisor and dissertation committee. In other words, there are built-in biases and barriers (some subtle some not so subtle) to well-quailified scientists in a given field which prevent said scientists from going against the grain of what the current "consensus" is.