HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Come on "physician", back that up with some facts.
The Oceans pH Level Is Falling
- Thread starter RobbyG
- Start date
- Status
physicslord
New member
Yeah, I noticed that comment about Nature too.
Nature is arguably the most respected journal in the world. It is also one of the oldest (if not the oldest) journals of science in the world. If your work is published in Nature it means it is relevent to the scientific community as a whole and means that your work must be very credible.
To call it a "rag" is just ridiculous.
Supermarket tabloids are something you would refer to as a "rag". I mean, are you lumping it in with the Weekly World News?
Nature is arguably the most respected journal in the world. It is also one of the oldest (if not the oldest) journals of science in the world. If your work is published in Nature it means it is relevent to the scientific community as a whole and means that your work must be very credible.
To call it a "rag" is just ridiculous.
Supermarket tabloids are something you would refer to as a "rag". I mean, are you lumping it in with the Weekly World News?
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Lol. That's all I'll say. But, we better keep politics out of this if we want the thread to stay open.
No its not. If you wish to include peer reviewed material in your manuscript it needs to be submitted with the manuscript. Nature does not peer review its articles and does not require they be peer reviewed before submission. Its an editorial process. I'm not sure you even know what peer review is.
That's the whole point. Peer review showed that the overall conclusion was false, yet people keep going back to that well. Give it up already. Its wrong. Find another argument.
Mike
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
LMAO, Nature isn't peer reviewed? A paper doesn't HAVE to be peer reviewed before it is submitted to Nature, Nature IS the peer review. You must be joking if you think they publish anything before it's scrutinized. Here's the process:
http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/referees/index.html#a2
And again, the overall conclusion for the Mann paper WASN'T false, it only had some changes that were essentially cosmetic. Here's the article for a second time:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7097/full/4411032a.html
RobbyG
Active member
I wonder how many people on this thread saw the show last night? The show tried so hard to sugar coat the whole thing yet it was still depicting a terrible fate for us humans in a time frame that is within our children's lives. I wonder what the non environmentalists thought about it.
eckrynock
Premium Member
Hmmmm..... how many times did I read the word 'uncertainties' in that nature article? Hmmmmmm.
non environmentalists.....
Robby, I sure hope you walk to work everyday (and everywhere else for that matter). How's this 90 degree heat treating you without air? You don't drink pop from plastic bottles or milk from plastic jugs do you? I hope you don't use chapstick when your lips are cracking because you don't have your air on when it's 90 out.
non environmentalists.....
Robby, I sure hope you walk to work everyday (and everywhere else for that matter). How's this 90 degree heat treating you without air? You don't drink pop from plastic bottles or milk from plastic jugs do you? I hope you don't use chapstick when your lips are cracking because you don't have your air on when it's 90 out.
I think if we put things in perspective it may help a bit. Imagine a world several hundred years ago in terms of human plight...i.e. lack of polio vaccine (or any vaccine for that matter), no antibiotics, no clean water (cholera), no anesthetics, to sterile ability, no surgery available, no power, no machines to do work/plow fields/assist in food production, no or at best poor roads with limited or no distribution ability, etc, etc, etc. This of course resulted in a very poor life expantancy of ~30 years (if lucky) not to mention poor quality of life. Now with all of the technology we have developed life is FAR better than in the past and life expectancy is also far better (~75+ years now). Don't beleive me? Go visit a third world country (I have and given medical care there). However, all of these devlopments come at a price. I just happen to beleive this price is worth it. For example, people quote soaring cancer rates...yet we in spite of this have such a high life expectancy. I'll take the cancer risk in exchange for an extra 40 years thank you.
BeltwayBandit
Member
Here are two examples of how the peer review process (at least in climatology, Nature and Science cover a broad range of scientific topics and I am not questioning their overall track record, only that of the climate sciences divisions) has been manipulated by some (called the 'social network of authorships' in the Wegman report):
Hans Von Storch on how he got a paper that was contradictory to Michael Mann's 'hockey stick' published: “This time it was easy, because for once we didn’t have Mann as a referee.â€ÂThis is how the peer review system is used by science popes to create their own infallibility."
"Far-fetched? In Utrecht, I talked to Tom van Hoof, a researcher who recently obtained his PhD. He produces CO2-reconstructions through research on leaf stomata. His results â€"œ even if indirectly â€"œ contradict Michael Mann’s climate reconstructions.Van Hoof knows the world of paleoclimatology by now and says: “Colleagues think my research is interesting enough to be published in Science or Nature, but for this I need to phrase it provocatively. I then run the risk, however, that I won’t get it past the referees and antagonise the ‘big shots’. I would like to continue as researcher in the field of paleoclimatology. So I prefer to let sleeping dogs lie.â€Â
The rest of the article is pretty interesting too. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Pope_L.pdf
While I would agree that the 'hockey stick' is only one piece of evidence in the overall picture, it is nonetheless a huge piece. That paper is used as the measuring stick to show that the current climate trends are somehow anomalous when compared with the historical temperature trends. Without that paper, we are back to: "Yes it is warmer, but we do not know if the rate and degree to which we are warmer is anomolous or part of the natural variation." That is critical to making expensive decisions in an attempt to 'correct' the problem if we believe it is anomolous. As to the 'hundreds' of other papers that support the 'hockey stick,' the Wegman report notes that most of those papers suffer from the same methodological errors that doomed the 'hockey stick.' We are truely back to square 1 in reconstructing paleoclimate histories.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
The paper isn't perfect, you won't get me to argue that, but the overall message it delivers is correct. That paper has gone through more scrutiny than any other scientific writing I can think of besides Origin of Species, and it still ultimately comes out on top. Give it some credit, sheesh.
wlagarde: I agree with most of what you say. But, there is a vast difference between advancing human welfare and pointless ecological destruction. You don't give the planet enough credit for the increase in human welfare it provides WITHOUT "developing" it. Where do you think a lot of those pharmaceutical drugs came from? Plants. Do you know how many unstudied plants go extinct every year? What are we losing? We don't even know, and it's a tragedy. Who knows what discoveries could be made in the ocean, the rain forest, etc. It's like tearing up a lottery ticket before checking the numbers. It's not responsible, smart, or ultimately beneficial to anyone. We don't have to destroy the planet in order to increase our welfare, in fact our welfare would go down. I posted an article earlier that deals with the benefit of natural services earlier, you might find it interesting.
A long life span doesn't necessarily mean you are going to be happy either. I'd rather have a happy 50 years than a miserable 100. Here's an interesting article I read today: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060712/lf_afp/afplifestyleenvironment
I think we should also be careful to not get too self-centered. The planet, IMO, is not just for humans. We should take other beings into consideration as well.
Hippie,
This is from the site you gave. As I suspected you don't know what peer review is. This is only review of the submission. Notice the last line "these decisions may be based on informal advice from experts in the field" . Informal advice? Peer review is a group of peers, or experts in the field, giving formal critique of the data. Checking on whether the formulas used were correct, data gathering proper and whether the experiments could be reproduced by independant labs. The scientists may be questioned by a panel of experts.
The nature process involves "editorial criteria" and need to have sufficent "general interest".
Not peer reviewed sorry. Publication is not peer review. Peer review happens before publication.
Mike
physicslord
New member
MCary:
You're argueing about papers that didn't meet the editorial criteria? What's wrong with that. They probably get millions of submissions per year. You think they should formally review all of those???
The papers that are published in the journal are submitted for a formal review before they are published.
You could have been a defense attorney man.
You're argueing about papers that didn't meet the editorial criteria? What's wrong with that. They probably get millions of submissions per year. You think they should formally review all of those???
The papers that are published in the journal are submitted for a formal review before they are published.
You could have been a defense attorney man.
There is little "pointless" ecological destruction. Too much drama in that statement.
The only people who want to live to be 100 are the 99 year olds. I would be curious if you said the same thing if you were in your death bed at 49. More drama. How about a happy 100 years? Maybe all you need to be happy is orange popsicles if you didn't get all worked up about the extinction of the two headed yellow western tree toad?
Oh the burdens of being human. The Nile crocodile doesn't have to think of any of this as he's munchin down a delicious African woman.
Mike
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Talking with you is like beating my head against a wall, so I think I'll stop for a while.
MCary,
If your going to use something to bolster an argument, it's generally a good idea to read the rest of it
The paragraph after the one you quoted from Nature's review process:
The bolding is mine, and there is further information that continues after that paragraph that describes the review process.
If your going to use something to bolster an argument, it's generally a good idea to read the rest of it
The paragraph after the one you quoted from Nature's review process:
The bolding is mine, and there is further information that continues after that paragraph that describes the review process.
Bill,
You could be right. It still reads like an editorial review to me. The editors send it a group of 4 experts and say "What do you think?" whereas the peer review process I'm used to as a scientist involves a review panel, usually by an organization of your specialty and duplication of all experiments by another lab or research team which must match your results perfectly (independent verification). But that was just my interpretation. I could be wrong as always.
Mike
You could be right. It still reads like an editorial review to me. The editors send it a group of 4 experts and say "What do you think?" whereas the peer review process I'm used to as a scientist involves a review panel, usually by an organization of your specialty and duplication of all experiments by another lab or research team which must match your results perfectly (independent verification). But that was just my interpretation. I could be wrong as always.
Mike
RobbyG
Active member
I try to do whatever I can to help, Electricity here costs about 3 times what it does in the USA so things like Energy saver bulbs etc are used by more people than regular bulbs, we buy every product with power consumption in mind, Solar Hot water heaters are used by many people. Most likely this is what the future holds for the USA, soon electricity will sky rocket like Gas and people will be forced to become conservative.
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
I never said quality of life isn't better now. My point is that you don't need all of the 'stuff' we have in order to be happy. All of the material goods we collect is where the real problem lies, and that is where most of the ecological problems originate. The historically 'happiest' countries are relatively poor compared to us. There becomes a point where you get diminishing returns on ecological exploitation, and we've reached that point.
MCary: At least you'll admit you're wrong to Bill. But come on, you're ignoring very obvious truths. If there were good research papers refuting man-made global warming, they would make print because it's sensational and it would sell a LOT of copies. I know you would buy a Nature magazine with the headline "Global Warming is a Hoax". But there aren't any papers refuting GW making respected journals, and you have to sit back and ask why eventually without blaming it on a 'conspiracy of elite scientists'. Good science will shine through eventually. And honestly, I hope you are correct in saying GW is a hoax, I really do. I would GLADLY eat my words.
- Status
Similar threads
