Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LordFu They refuse to publish contrary papers, so it's hardly suprising you won't find any in scientific journals. There are several stories on the phenomenon, but here's one that was handy:
Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming' - Telegraph
I love how the telegraph displays it's bias by inseting the picture of the scientist in a picture of a power plant. Painfully obvious.
"The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.
advertisement
However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly." |
When the paper was released there really wasn't very much peer-review explicitely against global warming. Only recently have such studies been released. Naomi Oreskes even states in the study that articles against the consensus probably do exist, they just couldn't find any.
Btw the idea that science journals don't publish anti-consensus view papers is hardly true. In the couple cases where people have complained the papers contained very little quality. It speaks more against the global warming deniers that not only is their work not good or credible enough to get published, but they then complain about it afterwards because nobody is taking them seriously (and one can only wonder why). This is of course another example of the air horn phenomenon. Despite thousands of papers supporting the consensus view the 10 or so which don't agree tend to get amplified a bit, even though w/i peer-review scientists have found them to be untrue (as is the case with that graph you posted earlier -- you really don't know the title of that study? It's a great illustration of how the peer-review system weeds out bad science).
Quote:
|
JunkScience.com -- Steven Milloy, Publisher
|
You do realize that ironically junksciece.com is itself junkscience? Your website is what is know as "Internet bunk." It is a website that appears to contain credible information but really doesn't. I can forgive you though because the appearance and double speak would lead you to think that it is. If you look around though the website has historically made claims like "smoking tobacco is perfectly healthy" and other similarly outrageous claims, all the while appearing to be a legitimate resource.
Steven Milloy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Internet Bunk The Junk Science Page George Monbiot on climate change and Big Tobacco | Environment | The Guardian Quote:
The IPCC "hockey stick" is proof that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age have been removed from their data-set.
World Climate Report » Tropical Seas Sink Hockey Stick
"The “Hockey Stick” curiously wipes out the “Medieval Warm Period” of 1,000 years ago and the “Little Ice Age” that began 450 years ago and ended around 1900. We are supposed to look at the blade of the stick and conclude that the warming of the past 100 years is completely unlike anything seen for at least 1,000 years. It comes as no surprise that the “Hockey Stick” is prominently presented in many of the documents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Defenders of the “Hockey Stick” make claims that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were confined to the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and not felt throughout the rest of the world. This always seemed odd to us at World Climate Report given that variations of solar output seem to explain the higher temperatures 1,000 years ago and the colder temperatures of the Little Ice Age."
|
The hockey stick graph is a rather old study and is really fairly unimportant to climate science. It just made a lot of news attention when it first came out. The hockey stick graph is more than likely incorrect.
But why does it matter? There are numerous other reconstructions that show the same general conclusion. Some aren't as "hockey-looking" but they all point to the same conclusion that current warming is very unusual and that it is happening very rapidly. So it's not really a matter of this one study being incorrect; you have to look at the bigger picture.
The area around the medieval warm period and little ice age is still not completely understood and this is probably where the biggest area of controversy around the hockey graph is. We do know that the medieval warm period mostly affected the northern hemisphere and was largest during the summer, but that it also probably had a more limited effect elsewhere. Of course it wasn't nearly as warm then as it is today. This last fact is something that cannot be disputed, even if the hockey stick graph is wrong.
Here's a graph of several temperature reconstructions from that time period, and as you can see, they all support the same general conclusion. It is this conclusion that's important, not necessarily which particular study is most correct because frankly no one method is entirely perfect.
So taking pokes at the hockey stick graph wont get you anywhere. I agree that it probably is a little too "strait" where the medieval warm period and little ice age are, which is why it looks so much like a hockey stick, but this really doesn't matter all that much. This study is ancient, and Mann has sense done some new studies that actually contradict his first. It just received a lot of publicity when it first came out, which is why it seems so popular, but science has moved on sense then and has created more accurate reconstructions (like those above).
Your assertion that scientists deliberately ignore the little ice age is how ever incorrect. In the one case where a study seems to indicate that there was no such thing it was a simple mistake, and the idea that this is widespread is completely false.
Quote:
The IPCC cherry-picks research to support their agenda.
And, you label me a "denier" in the same sentence that you potray my arguement as a strawman. Nice.
|
You're misunderstanding me. Arguing against global warming on the basis of the IPCC or Al Gore is a straw man because the IPCC and Al Gore != Global warming.