Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Environmentalist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (19851)	1/28/2008 12:29:02 PM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

It's funny that neofib is holding up "peer review" as a new infallible standard, something along the lines of "consensus" or "original sin". If it ain't peer reviewed it just ain't nothing.

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (19851)	1/28/2008 9:21:23 PM
From: neolib	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 36917

Well, good, you found one. I note the following: 1) JGR has had a long history of publishing AGW doubter articles. It would be nice to see this paper survive peer review with a somewhat more skeptical review panel. 2) The paper is recent, so we should get to see what others think of it. 3) One of the authors is a well known AGW basher, who has published some nutty claims before IIRC (Noise produces hockey stick graphs, though I might be confusing him with his sidekick McKintyre (SP??) 4) His basic claim, that temp trends should be uncorrelated with socioeconomic variables would appear to be a fiat statement that global warming cannot be caused by humans, which is what he is trying to test for. As such, I would say the paper is fundamentally out to lunch. Further, per climate models, the N. H. is supposed to warm more, and is also the area of higher socioeconomic rank, so I would expect correlation on that front as well. If he does a good job with sufficiently small grids within these areas to test for a correlation vs. socioeconomic models, he might have done an OK job. FWIW, given what I know about both him and the journal, I would not hold my breath. However, this is what the AGW doubters need to do, is publish, not blather. There is nothing saying they can't do good work, and nothing saying they might not be correct. They need to accumulate the weight of evidence in their favor. So far, that is abundantly lacking. You might note that despite all their efforts, as well as great support from various political & economic interests, M&M's hockeystick analysis had a fork stuck in it by scientists, and is not gaining mindshare in that quarter. It gained plenty of mindshare among the ignorant. I'd guess this is headed for the same fate.