Hi,
What is this fascination with "peer reviewed journals". To answer part of Count Iblis II's comments relating to ice cores, Yes, there is peer reviewed evidence to back the comments I made. They can easily be found in the details of many of the studies that are often quoted in relation to CO2 levels in ice cores and global warming. There are other papers, peer reviewed, available that question methodologies concerned. They are not difficult to find.
But since when is "peer reviewed" a guarantee of accuracy or even honesty. South Korea spend billons on technology based on "peer reviewed" studies that turned out to be fraudulent relating to stem cell research. Now that was a pretty big error considering just how scrutinised the research was. Yet all that scrutiny did not stop the fraud or that the results were fake.
Going back a little bit you can find in the 80's journals that refused to publish studies which showed that ulcers were caused by a bacteria. Since there was no peer review, obviously it must must been wrong!
Einstein could not get his most famous theory reviewed and when it was it was rubbished because he was about the only person on the earth at the time that could understand it.
Until the 50's plate techtonics was the belief of a lunatic fringe. The scientist that first worked all the clues out and put it together never did get a peer reviewed paper published and was unable to work in the field that was his passion.
Of course that was years ago, and science has developed so much that such mistakes would never occur today.
Pure science is as riddled with petty jealousies, politics, cheats and outright frauds as any other human endeavour. If any view finds favour in a field of research, to swim against the tide requires far more than simply the search for academic excellence. It requires the ability to ignore vicious insults, the loss of funding and the prospect of not being able to work in the field where you are most qualified. This certainly does not simply apply to climatology but the current histeria concerning global warming will one day be used in ethics classes for science students to show just how extreme the herd mentality can get in scientific research.
So forgive me if I do not quote peer review articles on a discussion forum that is not subject to peer review but is here only for the benefit of those that wish to offer counter views and engage in discussions with those of other views so that all may gain a better appreciation of the breath of reasonable opinion available. And perhaps learn something.
Peer review does not guarantee valid conclusions. Puplication is a guarantee of nothing other than the journal thought the subject printworthy. Cold fusion was published and quite rightly the assertions were discounted when the experiments could not be replicated. The trouble with a subject such as climatology is that it is often impossible to replicate the research and so only the published information can be scrutinised. It is less likely in these cases for flaws to be discovered, especially where the study accords with the current mainstream thinking of the time.
Richard
