<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 07/13/2011 06:30 PM, Art Deco wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAB8VJX6gEK4GWhmnESSEpT=3-SO2dyRbrjdq6xP4sCG5L87QAw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
You need to read this sentence again paying close attention to the
bolded word.:<br>
<br>
"The essential point, however, is that once we have accepted the
authority of a particular scientific discipline, we cannot <b
style="color: rgb(204, 0, 0);">consistently</b> reject its
conclusions." <br>
<br>
Scientists can make mistakes, but such mistakes are generally
self-correcting in the long run. Personal competition,
competition for recognition, and above all, competition for
financial resources drive scientists to carefully scrutinize other
scientists' work. Perhaps you've never been in that environment,
but it is not always pretty.<br>
<br>
It takes a nearly blind person to dispute the reality of average
temperature increase worldwide over the last 140 years, the lost
of ice mass worldwide, and the rise of sea levels. There may be
several causes, but there is strong evidence that human activity
that generates carbon dioxide is a not insignificant factor.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I fear that the normal feedback loop is at the very least delayed in
this case, simply because a paper that criticizes the agreed-upon
"narrative" gets labeled a "contrarian" paper and can reflect badly
upon the scientist that submitted it, even if it was correcting a
real problem. This throws the balance off, which could have
detrimental effects upon the whole system. If you believe that
certain climate scientists are abusing the peer review process, then
such a paper might never get published in the first place. This is
a real danger to the process. <br>
<br>
To fix it, I think, we need to divorce the political from the
scientific. Which is why I was blathering on about scientists
sticking to the science and what it actually says instead of trying
to raise the alarm about what certain climate scientists think it
might mean.<br>
<br>
<br>
Paul<br>
</body>
</html>