Hi Count,

Actually the problem is more difficult than just peer review. You have to get past the editor first. There are very few people with qualifications in Climatology. I was told today the figure is around 200 for the US. Most that undertake research or publish papers have qualifications in other fields. I wish to complete a PhD dissertation in Climatology and only one University in Australia is able to take this on and even then it is done by the Mathematics Department.

So submitting a paper to a journal where you have no qualifications in the field of Climatology or only basic qualifications, will not get you very far, unless you are well known. Ms Oreskes is very well known and is an Historian yet she is often quoted (even by me but for negative reasons) and thus had no trouble getting editors to agree to papers. It would seem that you become a "world class expert" in Global Warming and thus have easy access to editors in recent times only if you agree with Global Warming or are not disputing some key aspect.

I have sought publication or review a few times and often do not even get the courtesy of a reply. I actually have never even reached a peer review. Does this mean I am terrible in the field that I have chosen to study?

Thank you for your links. I am afraid the science was quite dense to me and it is not an area I understand at all. But I did understand the argument that went on, especially the very poor response second hand. The whole system seems to work very well indeed. The authors had a paper in their chosen field. There was a problem with the review process and they complained. The complaint was resolved (even if by submission to a different publication) and the paper published after some modification in response the very constructive critiscms by the reviewer.

The points I have been making the last couple of days relate to the way the discussions were going more than anything.

If a thread was discussing one particular point such as the real temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period or the use of tree rings to arrive at temperature averages, then I'd be able to quote physics studies and provide links etc so that persons such as yourself could easily follow along.

I think by the way I wrote the last few posts in this thread and the other one going at the moment "Global Warming IS Fault of Man ..." that these were opinions. Based on research but opinions. Oh, the reference to solar activity referred to a paper about to be published so I cannot give any link to it and to a New Scientist article which I did give a reference for (but not a link).

While I am not up on the science to solar activity and its relationship to Climate on earth, the science does seem reasonable and because, like predicting the tide, there are known patterns to the sun, a prediction of a quiet period seems to be not something that is in the realms of Nostradumus type predictions.

I have certainly read reports that link Climate to solar activities but the mechanism for it, being to do with the fluctuation of the magnetic field of the sun, which in turn affect the solar radiation on the earth - as far as I understood the science - certainly seems rational. However I have seen Global Warming arguments where sunspot activity, solar flares and magnetic fluctuations are said to have little or no effect on the earth without any science being used to back up such assertions.

So I understand your position. In the field of solar science I am in the very same position. It is interesting to see the arguments put and a rationale to the science but it is not an area that you can create a laboratory experimint to replicate just how the process works. Historic observation records do very much support that the lack of sunspots corresponds to a cold period and intense sunspot activity corresponds to a warm period, so that seems to provide good evidence to support the science involved.

As to the validity of the collection and analysis of data in climate science, there is a completely different forum that may provide an interesting review of the sciences involved. Today (21 September) the State of California filed suit for $50 billion against GM, Ford - six auto makers - alleging public nuisance for producing products that contribute to global warming.

Nuisance is a very old tort but a rather novel one to apply in a situation like this. It has been used because suits against power companies by various states relating to similar arguments have been dismissed in the preliminary stages.

If this lawsuit gets to the point where evidenciary filings occur then the issue of the scientific validity of the methods used in climate studies is likely to be scrutinised in depth. If it goes to trial then it is very possible that these issues will be considered and decided whether they are really valid. It certainly is different compared to peer reviewed publishings but the scrutiny is likely to be much more intense and may actually expose the methodologies to critiscm and even judgement on the issue.

I probably will not be posting for a few days and if I don't post for more than a week don't expect a post ever again. I have mentioned that I'm stuck at home because of a spinal injury, partial paralysis and the like. So now I have a raging staff infection that I didn't notice for a while because it started in an area where I have no feeling. Its spread to more than half my leg just this evening and I've been told that I will need an antibiotic drip.

I do hope I see how the threads have been progressing in my hopefully short absence.


Regards


Richard


Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness