I would like all of you who do not think global warming is real and caused by man to please state where you're info is coming from.
When a scientist puts a theory out there it has to be peer reviewed to be accepted. This entails other scientist trying to find hole in the theory. They love to tear each others work apart to prove the other guy wrong and it get pretty ugly sometimes.
There are thousands of studies which have been peer reviewed that state that we have been causing global warming. There is NOT ONE scientific paper that has been able to pass the peer review process refuting this. All of the studies that people refer to have be debunked.
Every major leader in the scientific field has come out in agreement that we are causing global warming.

Why would so many people who have no scientific back round try to convince you different? That is the thought that you should be asking yourself.

I'm not sure that you understand what peer review is, its purpose, and what it entails.  I also don't think you understand what a scientific theory is.

First, peer review does not magically transform an article, theory, or paper into unequivocal truth.

Second, you speak of peer review being required for "acceptance".  "Acceptance" by whom? Everyone?  The general public? Every last "Scientist" on Earth? Professors & scientists who are experts in the field?
   Peer review is nothing more than a procedure for "acceptance" by a journal for the publication of a submitted article.  Generally, a paper submitted to a journal for publication is given to 3 or 4 specialists in the relevant field to determine if the submission is fit for publication.  Usually, they are paid on an article by article basis.

Third, not all scientific journals are created equally.  The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, is NOT equivalent to the Journal of Molecualr Biology.  Anyone submitting a paper for publication will try to have it published by the most respected journal possible.  However, garbage science is routinely published by lesser journals because they have fewer choices among their submissions.  Nevertheless, these submissions are peer reviewed before they are published.

Fourth, the procedure of peer review is intended only to ensure that a submitted article meets minimum criteria for publication.  This ranges from the submitted study's adherence to generally accepted scientific methods, to the adequacy of the description of how the data was obtained, to the grammar of the submitted paper.  Peer review does not address the analysis of data; the accuracy of the conclusions drawn by the author; whether the results become generally accepted by other scientists; AND HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RELIABILITY ACCURACY, OR "TRUTH" OF THE THEORY OR CONCLUSIONS of a given submission.

Fifth, despite your claim that:

This entails other scientist trying to find hole in the theory. They love to tear each others work apart to prove the other guy wrong and it get pretty ugly sometimes.

Peer review has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH OTHER SCIENTISTS TRYING TO FIND A HOLE IN A THEORY.

Sixth, despite your claim that:

There are thousands of studies which have been peer reviewed that state that we have been causing global warming.

I am unaware of a SINGLE study which state this.  If you are so dependent upon the meaningless designation of "Peer Reviewed"; the least that you could do is cite a few of these thousands of studies.  Many studies detail evidence that this is the case, and many studies presume the truth of global warming.  However, to my knowledge, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (which is NOT peer reviewed) is the only "respectable" document which claims that humans definitively cause global warming.
You demand citations (which Paleocon provided in droves in your other post) and provide none of your own.

Seventh, you claim that:

There is NOT ONE scientific paper that has been able to pass the peer review process refuting this.

This may be your most asinine and ignorant claim.  Paleocon has proved it wrong, and you have no response.

Eighth, you claim that:

All of the studies that people refer to have be debunked.

What on God's green Earth are you talking about?  Can you cite examples?  How, and By Whom were they "debunked"?  You don't even demand citations, though plenty have been given.  What you demand is "PEER REVIEW" as if it is the be all and end all of scientific truth.  Even so, you clearly don't have any clue what the term "Peer Review" means.  Can you cite your precious "Peer Reviewed" debunkings of various studies?  Which studies are being "debunked"?  Who is doing the "debunking"?  And, their analysis which unequivocally "debunks" the studies of other scientists?

Ninth, you claim that:

Every major leader in the scientific field has come out in agreement that we are causing global warming.

What is your PEER REVIEWED source for this claim?  Which "scientific field" are you referring to?  Your claim is unquestionably incorrect, as has been PROVEN by your preciously PEER REVIEWED studies, by the lack of any citation of ONE SINGLE PEER REVIEWED STUDY TO SUPPORT THIS CLAIM; and is in total disregard of reports to the U.S. Congress naming those highly respected climatologists who disagree with your gratuitious assertions; and also disregards multiple lawsuits by respected (and PEER REVIEWED) climatologists against the IPCC to have their names removed from the Assessment Reports because the highly politicized Executive Summary clearly and intentionally misrepresented the findings of the studies of these climatologists.

Tenth, Mostly -- you're an ignorant putz.

Not the end all but what is excepted by a majority of the scientific community. There will always be others who disagree but when such an overwhelming amount of science is stacked in one direction. Yes it is a theory like gravity which is also an accepted theory. I'm sorry I don't put links to everything I don't have that kind of time.

The-Horror wrote:Not the end all but what is excepted by a majority of the scientific community. There will always be others who disagree but when such an overwhelming amount of science is stacked in one direction. Yes it is a theory like gravity which is also an accepted theory. I'm sorry I don't put links to everything I don't have that kind of time.

It is the true mark of the liberal to refuse to accept facts!  Reason is another stranger to the liberal.  Both traits are demonstrated most brilliantly here in this one post.  

"I don't care what the facts are, my mind is made up."  

The producers of "Air America" must be very proud of you.

And notice the irony in  the first sentence of his post.  Global warming is "excepted" by a majority of the scientific community.  If this isn't a Freudian slip then nothing is.  Liberals can be so amusing.

paleocon wrote:

The-Horror wrote:Not the end all but what is excepted by a majority of the scientific community. There will always be others who disagree but when such an overwhelming amount of science is stacked in one direction. Yes it is a theory like gravity which is also an accepted theory. I'm sorry I don't put links to everything I don't have that kind of time.

It is the true mark of the liberal to refuse to accept facts!  Reason is another stranger to the liberal.  Both traits are demonstrated most brilliantly here in this one post.  

"I don't care what the facts are, my mind is made up."  

The producers of "Air America" must be very proud of you.

I don't even understand what he means!  The topic, I thought, was peer review; which he seemed to think conferred scientific certitude on a study/paper/theory.  I thought I explained it to him, but then he says that peer review means that something is "excepted" (sic) by the majority of the scientific community.  

Aside from not being concerned with facts, like all liberals; and presenting zero evidence, like all liberals -- he also strays from HIS OWN TOPIC, & starts talking about the "overwhelming science" of Global Warming.

Again, like every lib who posts on this board, he apparently doesn't bother to actually READ responses to his posts.


Oh, and gravity is a force governing the universe -- it is NOT theoretical.  

Another lib clown with literally nothing to add.  It grows tiresome.

Bad Science



The case against peer review.




By Daniel Engber





In September 2001, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine weighed in on the healing power of God. A Columbia University research group reported that patients at a fertility clinic in Seoul were twice as likely to get pregnant when Christians prayed for them. Within a month, the study was in the New York Times science section and on Good Morning America, where the medical editor for ABC News called it "very well done" and opined that "getting pregnant involves a lot of biological, psychological, maybe even spiritual factors that we don't yet understand."


The prayer study has since fallen from grace. Scientists around the world wrote angry letters to the journal attacking the methodology, and the research-protections office of the Department of Health and Human Services looked into whether the subjects had properly given consent. Last year, the study's senior author removed his name from the paper, saying that he hadn't directly participated in the research. The real lead author will not discuss the work, and the third author—a parapsychologist, lawyer, and convicted con man—is now serving time in a federal prison (for an unrelated charge of fraud).


Why did this quackery get so far before being exposed? The prayer study seemed legitimate because it appeared in the pages of a "peer-reviewed" medical journal. That means the paper was vetted by an independent panel of experts in the field.



Peer review is the gold standard of modern science. For medical researchers and other scientists, it's the gateway to funding, publication, and career advancement. When they apply for government grants from the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation, their proposals are reviewed by a panel of their colleagues. When they submit their completed work for publication, journals and university presses ask for the opinions of others in the field. And when they apply for jobs or tenure, scientists are judged largely on the basis of their peer-reviewed publications.


Scientists give peer review so much authority because they view it as a part of the grand tradition of scientific inquiry—an extension, even, of the formal experimental method. Peer evaluation is the endpoint of a cautious progression from theories and predictions to experiments and results. The system dates from the 1700s, when the Royal Society of London set up a "Committee on Papers" with the power to solicit expert opinions. It became the standard for scientific publication only after World War II, when the dramatic expansion of scientific research swamped journal editors and made them look to outsiders for help. Ever since, scientists have claimed that peer review filters out lousy papers, faulty experiments, and irrelevant findings. They say it improves the quality of an accepted paper by providing helpful comments for revision. And they can't imagine a better way to accomplish these goals.


So, what explains the Columbia prayer study? Journal editors will tell you that peer review is not designed to detect fraud—clever misinformation will sail right through no matter how scrupulous the reviews. But the prayer study wasn't a clever fraud. It was sprinkled with suspect elements, not the least of which was a set of results that violated known laws of science. The authors also used a needlessly convoluted experimental design; these and other red flags in the study have been cataloged on the Web by obstetrician and enthusiastic debunker Bruce Flamm. Even on its own terms, then, as a filter for lousy papers and bad experiments, peer review of the Columbia prayer study was a spectacular failure. Here's the problem: Despite its authority and influence over every aspect of the scientific community, no one has ever shown that peer review accomplishes anything at all.
In 1986, a deputy editor at the Journal of the American Medical Association named Drummond Rennie announced the first scholarly conference on peer review. A series of high-profile cases of scientific fraud had hit the medical journals in the early '80s, and lousy papers were making their way into print on a regular basis. Editors like Rennie were in the mood for critical self-examination.


If peer review didn't work, it was an extraordinary waste of time.

http://www.slate.com/id/2116244

Eyas wrote:I don't even understand what he means!  The topic, I thought, was peer review; which he seemed to think conferred scientific certitude on a study/paper/theory.  I thought I explained it to him, but then he says that peer review means that something is "excepted" (sic) by the majority of the scientific community.  

Wait, you thought you could REASON with a LIBERAL?  THAT is amusing!  You're joking, right?  Seriously?  Reason with a liberal.  And I thought you were a sophisticated man of the world...

[quote="TheIndependent"]Bad Science



The case against peer review.




By Daniel Engber





In September 2001, the Journal of Reproductive Medicine weighed in on the healing power of God. A Columbia University research group reported that patients at a fertility clinic in Seoul were twice as likely to get pregnant when Christians prayed for them. Within a month, the study was in the New York Times science section and on Good Morning America, where the medical editor for ABC News called it "very well done" and opined that "getting pregnant involves a lot of biological, psychological, maybe even spiritual factors that we don't yet understand."


The prayer study has since fallen from grace. Scientists around the world wrote angry letters to the journal attacking the methodology, and the research-protections office of the Department of Health and Human Services looked into whether the subjects had properly given consent. Last year, the study's senior author removed his name from the paper, saying that he hadn't directly participated in the research. The real lead author will not discuss the work, and the third author—a parapsychologist, lawyer, and convicted con man—is now serving time in a federal prison (for an unrelated charge of fraud).


Why did this quackery get so far before being exposed? The prayer study seemed legitimate because it appeared in the pages of a "peer-reviewed" medical journal. That means the paper was vetted by an independent panel of experts in the field.



Peer review is the gold standard of modern science. For medical researchers and other scientists, it's the gateway to funding, publication, and career advancement. When they apply for government grants from the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation, their proposals are reviewed by a panel of their colleagues. When they submit their completed work for publication, journals and university presses ask for the opinions of others in the field. And when they apply for jobs or tenure, scientists are judged largely on the basis of their peer-reviewed publications.


Scientists give peer review so much authority because they view it as a part of the grand tradition of scientific inquiry—an extension, even, of the formal experimental method. Peer evaluation is the endpoint of a cautious progression from theories and predictions to experiments and results. The system dates from the 1700s, when the Royal Society of London set up a "Committee on Papers" with the power to solicit expert opinions. It became the standard for scientific publication only after World War II, when the dramatic expansion of scientific research swamped journal editors and made them look to outsiders for help. Ever since, scientists have claimed that peer review filters out lousy papers, faulty experiments, and irrelevant findings. They say it improves the quality of an accepted paper by providing helpful comments for revision. And they can't imagine a better way to accomplish these goals.


So, what explains the Columbia prayer study? Journal editors will tell you that peer review is not designed to detect fraud—clever misinformation will sail right through no matter how scrupulous the reviews. But the prayer study wasn't a clever fraud. It was sprinkled with suspect elements, not the least of which was a set of results that violated known laws of science. The authors also used a needlessly convoluted experimental design; these and other red flags in the study have been cataloged on the Web by obstetrician and enthusiastic debunker Bruce Flamm. Even on its own terms, then, as a filter for lousy papers and bad experiments, peer review of the Columbia prayer study was a spectacular failure. Here's the problem: Despite its authority and influence over every aspect of the scientific community, no one has ever shown that peer review accomplishes anything at all.
In 1986, a deputy editor at the Journal of the American Medical Association named Drummond Rennie announced the first scholarly conference on peer review. A series of high-profile cases of scientific fraud had hit the medical journals in the early '80s, and lousy papers were making their way into print on a regular basis. Editors like Rennie were in the mood for critical self-examination.


If peer review didn't work, it was an extraordinary waste of time.

[url]http://www.slate.com/id/2116244[/quote[/url]]






Thank you!

Excellent article supporting what I was trying to explain to the aptly named "The Horror".

I have been googling all day looking for "Pear Review Articles."  I could only find a few but it seems that the best pears come from a place called "Harry & David."  But they seem really expensive but that makes sense since many of their stores are in really expensive malls.  

I wonder why people don't write reviews of the pears in grocery stores.  It seems they would be pretty good and cost a lot less than those fancy pears from the malls.  

Well, I'll keep you posted on what I find but the results are far from definitive on this topic.  It looks like there is some controversy on the whole subject of pears.  Apples and oranges seem to get more and better coverage in the world of fruit journals.  I suspect there is a government conspiracy to suppress "pear review articles" that do not conform to the consensus as reflected by the FDA and the IPCC (International Pear Conveyors Consortium).  

Boy, the IPCC certainly makes a lot of people angry.  Google it and you get TONS of bad things said about them.  I wonder why people get so worked up over pears anyway.  The world is a funny place.  And the argument over the IPCC seems to be heating up all over the world!