Letters to the Editor
droogoy
Published Letters: 590 Editor's Choice: 9
-
"Extraoridinary Rendition" - no, just extraordinary impatience with contrarians
[Read the article: Desperate times, desperate scientists]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Solar Power wrote:
I am disputing the sound scientific basis for the IPCC reports, which are not subject to scrutiny, and which roundly declare human produced Co2 is causing such an alarming rate of warming.
This is totally incorrect. While the IPCC reports themselves were not specifically subject to "scrutiny" this doesn't matter since they represent the distillation of content of more than 1800+ papers published in peer-reviewed journals over the past ten years. Thus, the scrutiny already occurred at the time the papers were vetted in their respective journals.
In the same way when I submitted work to appear in the (1986) Meudon Solar-Terrestrial Prcoeedings, my paper had already been vetted since it was published in the peer-reviewed Journal of the Royal Canadian Astronomical Society. This was a paper to do with the empirical -statistical limits of flare prognostication.
I look forward to your additions, as you say, if the thread is still open, basically my concerns are with the bottom line in US scientific research: i.e FUNDING.
And my contention is that funding is still possible even if one is an out and out contrarian. The other avenue, of course, is to publish the work independently - then distribute it - as at the next major scientific conference. This has been done for ages.
From what I have seen, in the various places I've been, the noise of the contrarians is much louder than any substance they have on offer. I have yet to be convinced - and I have been directed to umpteen blogs, and websites, that anything valid or substantial is being proferred.
I more or less take these contrarians in the same way I have taken the Velikovsky cranks - who are ardent about rewriting the laws of celestial mechanics simply because all the answers aren't immediately delivered to satisfy their speculative questions.
If you are challenging the mainstream accepted dogma, then you are less likely to receive funding, and thus important challenges to scientific study are simply brushed aside.
Sorry, don't buy it, and I haven't seen it. If your premise were true why would a contrarian like Tom Osterkamp recently get his paper published (with good science!) in Eos Transactions? (Osterkamp has claimed the melting permafrost in AK is not really due to global warming, but to increased temperatures underground from geological processes)
The fact remains that "dogma" or no dogma, good science will still be published. But it has to be good, not half good. It must rise to the level of providing compelling evidence or data for the claim made.
This means that today’s endeavours in science are controlled by finance and not by human ingenuity.
Again, don't buy it! Osterkamp's ingenuity surely got his latest contrarian paper published, BUT - his science and data presentation are impeccable. His publications and others show that where there's a will there's a way, and more importantly - where there is high QA quality science, there is a way.
Pseudo-sicentists and proto-Velikovskians need not apply.
The realclimate site is an example of what I’m talking about: plenty of funding, and not a step out of place which may jeapordise the continued flow of dollars.
Realclimate.org is one of the best sites there is. Surely better than 99% of what passes for informative or scientific. Their scientific posters - too- have already had their work published and in most cases this is what they are expatiating on. It isn't just crap launched off the top of their heads. The post I sent to you earlier was out of an actual conference going on in real time.
The funding for sites like realclimate is through their members, who are also largely of the IPCC. Since the IPCC numbers are in the 18,000- 22,000 range they have many people who can contribute to the site on an ongoing status. This is why they are so well funded.
The contrarians have their quality sites too, such as Roger Pielke's. They have nothing really to complain about!
I would love for you to take a look at the thunderbolts.info theories, as this seems to be within your realm, and as you seem young enough to wish to challenge your own precepts
Well, I am sorry to disappoint - but I have spent more hours than I should have perusing sites like that. (And to be sure, I shouldn't even be spending this much time responding -since I am working on the final pages of a solar physics monograph).
I have studied in my spare time all the multifold aspects of climate science and global warming for the past 22 years. I am comvinced the evidence is of such QA that it shows we face a real, not confected, emergency. I just hope there is enough time to do something - and finally terminate the egregious, non-stop "debate".
Call me a fossil if you will.