May I have your comments?

Question

I posted a response to Jello's question about peer review. I'd welcome your comments.

You're right on both points of course, Cosmo. I believe I touched on that there is some specificity based on the branch of science. I'm sure that you'll agree that the points about error, rounding up, numbers of data points and so forth would apply to all. Climate studies will doubtless remain uncontrolled and retroactive for the forseeable future. Now that we have the means to obtain the same data for other planets, the accuracy of both weather and climate models has improved, now that we know where earths data falls in on a larger scale. The fact that events are as predicted, but far ahead of schedule, is one of the more troubling aspects of this.

I strongly agree Jello. Conflict of interest is rampant everywhere in science. Drug companies sponsor the studies that get their drugs through (or by) the FDA, the Major oil companies have a large standing offer to anyone who can publish a study that would affect the credibility of climate data. I have to admire the restraint of the skeptics, as they have so far chosen not to collect the money.

Well Bob, I have to disagree with you about Mr. Jello. His opinion has less plasticity than some, but that is not altogether a bad thing. I was not attempting to change his opinion. My purpose was to explain that the role of peer review (properly done) is NOT to rule on the conclusion, but to inspect the methodology involved in generating the data, as well as whether it is in fact what it purports to be. The whole idea of scientific journals is to provide others with usefil ideas for their own work. This would not be possible without peer review.

I'm sorry 5_for_fighting. The purpose of this post was to dispell those kinds of mistaken impressions. Peer Review has nothing to do with passing judgement on the findings. NOTHING! It applies various Quality Control standards to the methodology. It's supposed to try to be neutral on the conclusions. It's pretty much a 20th Century concept. When Galileo was tried before the Inquisition his opinion stood alone againts all the experts. They did not even consider his methods, which were branded "sorcery". That's pretty much the opposite of peer review as it's practice today.

I kind of suspect the quality of your answers would benefit if you DID read the posts. (just a thought)

Answer 1

One of your earliest statements sums it up pretty well:

"The purpose of peer review is NOT to assure that what gets published is true. The purpose is to make sure the established standards for research have been followed."

Peer-review basically ensures that the data was collected properly, analyzed properly, and the conclusions based on the analysis make sense. The peer-review committee can't verify that the data is accurate (but subsequent experiments can), but they can ensure that the scientific method has been properly followed.

Mr. Jello is just looking for a conspiracy theory to buy into with regards to global warming. He doesn't understand how science works, but your statement (quoted above) sums it up accurately.

Answer 2

I haven't read your other post, but let me say this. Peer review is obviously only as good as the peers. For most of history, everyone believed the earth was flat. Peer review did nothing to change that mistaken "consensus". Now we have an alleged consensus among scientists that global warming is caused by man. Science is not about consensus. Science is about proven facts. The problem with peer review is that if the peers have a foregone conclusion as they review the published papers, then the peer review is worthless.

Today, there is absolutely no denying the fact that pro-global warming scientists receive funding from governments and schools. So long as there is fear over global warming, the funding will continue. There is also no denying that anti-global warming scientists have been shunned, ignored, and ridiculed. It has only been in the last year that the anti-gw scientists have started to voice their disagreement.

The sad fact is that the pro-global warming scientists are working for a consensus rather than following the accepted scientific method. If a hypothesis or theory can't stand up to scrutinization, then that hypothesis or theory has to be adjusted. With global warming, scrutinization is not met with objective scientific discussion. Instead anti-gw scientists face retaliation from other scientists (often at the same school or in the same organization) that stand to lose funding. The scientific method should welcome scientific criticism not suppress it.

On top of that, when peers are using computer models to review others, there is an automatic bias built into the research. Someone had to program the computer model. With our incomplete knowledge of weather and climate on this great planet, results from computer models are suspect at best. If computer models can't tell us what our local weather will be like in 2 days with any certainty, how can we them to give us accurate results on an immensely more complex global scale?

And finally, if NASA can go 7 years with a blatant error in its temperature data, what good is peer review if everyone is using the same erroneous data?

Answer 3

I liked your post. Well thought out without choosing sides.

I think too many see peer review as a gold standard when clearly it isn't.

amancalledchuda has it best so far. I also think it's wrong for one person to get the money, manage the money, test a hypothesis, write a review, and have it reviewed by his peers.

There should be better standards, better control of the data and make this field more like the pharmaceutical industry standards.

It should be a common desire to remove areas of doubt, and to remove turf battles from the science.

Additional Notes - Yes in much science there is conflict. There are ways to reduce the human factor and I would like to see these steps implemented in the global warming debate.

Answer 4

You described peer review in medicine/drug industry. Climate studies are somewhat different, in that the potential for controlled experiment is limited.

Answer 5

Way too long. Basically ineffective.

Remember, your purpose is not to convince Jello, which is clearly impossible. No facts have _ever_ changed his silly ideas. He keeps on spouting the exact same wrong stuff, over and over.

And your audience is not highly educated people, who already know his ideas are silly.

It's to briefly illustrate to those who might be confused by him why he's wrong. Brevity and clarity are all. References are good, they distinguish well supported answers from made up nonsense.

Keep in mind why you're here and who your audience is. I trust it's to help people, not to win a debate.

EDIT - Your comment to me would be a much better answer. Brief and to the point. Overkill is not a good idea.

The "blatant" error cited below was an extremely minor correction. It amounted to 1/1000 of a degree, globally. It changed absolutely nothing about global warming science.