This post is directed at the ABC News (Aus), ‘Drum Opinion’ post of the same name! Ref: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2761976.html
The foregoing comments in previous parts apply to funding and other influences. It is also appropriate to iterate that addressing one side of an issue is not “clearing up the debate “, which is why this blog is attempting to address the “other side”.
CLEARING UP THE CLIMATE DEBATE: Director of the Global Change Institute, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg submits some climate “sceptics” to peer-review and finds them wanting.
Looking at the fundamental aspect of ‘peer review’, where, as Ove points in his paper:
Peer review is the basis of modern scientific endeavour. It underpins research and validates findings, theories and data.
Submitting scientists’ claims to peer review is a straightforward way to assess their credibility.
It stands to reason that the peer reviewing, in order for it to be meaningful, would be done by other qualified scientists, preferably in the same science field, who would thoroughly understand the work, and who would critically examine it, consider it’s accuracy, agree that the methods, experiments and conclusions were scientifically sound, and who would ask questions and get feedback from the author where appropriate.
Selecting a peer reviewer who is associated with the project, or the author, or has some other connection or vested interest, or known pre-disposition to agree with the work would lessen the credibility of the review, or even negate it.
The Climate Commission was established by the Australian government to help build consensus around climate change.
Comment; admitted agenda to build consensus “around ? “climate change””. No study, no debate, no consensus, no science, no impartiality, funded by the government!
Peer-reviewed by internationally respected scientists, the report summarises key evidence and conclusions regarding climate change for Australia and the world.
May have been peer-reviewed, but no acknowledgement of same, either the reviewers or any reviewing notes.
Rising temperatures, changing rainfall, threats to human health and agriculture, and deteriorating ecosystems are carefully documented from the scientific literature. The report makes compelling reading and a solid case for rapid action on greenhouse gases such as CO2.
This is Olave’s comment, an assessment that I venture to query in respect of his agreement with “rapid action on greenhouse gases such as CO2”. From a technical point of view, the implied justification for a carbon tax which relates to CO2 but not to other, perhaps more important, GHG’s, is not supported.
Now we come to a rejection of critical comments by some experts, who are criticised for not having peer-reviewed papers.
But is there really so much scientific dispute over the facts of climate change?
One way to resolve this is to ask a simple question. If Carter and company hold different views to those expressed in the majority of the peer-reviewed, scientific literature, then have they submitted their ideas to independent and objective peer-review?
This is a critical process that sorts opinion and rhetoric from scientific knowledge and consensus.
If the answer is “yes”, there are legitimate grounds for concern over the report’s conclusion.
If the answer is “no”, the arguments against the Climate Commission’s report fall away as unsubstantiated opinion.
Three comments: Carter and company have a great deal of expertise and published material but not in journal format. Without researching this, I believe attempts to do so have been met with prejudicial denial, at least in some cases.
Such acceptance is normally taken as a sorting of “rhetoric from scientific knowledge and consensus” but it is not necessarily the case. In fact the lack of such ‘sorting’ is a claim against many AGW published papers, including the IPCC reports where peer-reviewing is, in the outside world, termed ‘pal-reviewed’.
Thirdly, the credentials of the person making criticisms are not as relevant as are the statements, which may actually be true. True peer-reviewed statements may have a better chance of being correct, one’s with agenda bias less likely so. The persons critical of AGW alarmism are not being given a chance to openly debate their case, not that an impartial arbiter could be easily found. Climate science is far from cut and dried.
Monumental, world-changing decisions are being based on this and other such documents. Governments relying on agenda-driven documents and proposals are responsible to their public and they are letting us down by being a party to unsure and possibly false science.
Carbon trading has yet to be proved necessary and the motivation has yet to be made clear to the public.
[This post is obviously not a complete, scientific treatise on the subject. It is however, a guide to the reader to indicate that the ‘warmist’ papers are not to be taken at face value. They need to be analysed and proven to be above question before acceptance, because they are agenda-driven and might cost you your lifestyle and maybe even your freedom.]
The other series articles will be addressed, in turn.
Comments on “open letter” are Part 1: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 1.
Comments on “greenhouse effect” are Part 2: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 2.
Comments on “alarmist AGW views justified” are Part 3: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 3.
Comments on ” the staggering ways we influence the shape of the globe” are Part 4: “Conversations: Climate change is happening” Part 4.
The GOLDEN RULE 