Energy & Environment is not a scientific journal.

I admire the efforts your taking here PatriotNews - but please keep it relevant. We are after peer-reviewed science - not opinion.

__________________

What does peer review mean exactly?

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

You give a man a fish you feed him for a day, you teach a man to fish you feed him for life"



Ideology: Self Preservation.

That hardly "debunks AGW theory" does it - as you claim.

It hardly supports you previous statement that "global warming is a myth" does it.

Try to read and learn how to understand these links you post PatriotNews. You know I am always here to help you.

__________________

Already been addressed

"Their test has two serious flaws: it neglects statistical uncertainty in observed temperature trends arising from interannual temperature variability, and it uses an inappropriate metric [σSE; see Equation (10)] to judge the statistical significance of differences between the observed trend and the multi-model ensemble-mean trend,  bm ."

__________________
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." — Albert Einstein
"Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding..." — Brian Greene
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/...te/project/29/


Energy & Environment claims to be peer-reviewed - that is debatable - but it is specifically NOT a scientific journal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_and_Environment
Energy and Environment describes itself as "an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use." The journal's publisher is Multi-Science and its editor since 1996 is Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, who is a former Reader in Geography at the University of Hull in England and writer on the political and policy aspects of climate change.

The journal's peer-review process has at times been criticised for publishing substandard papers [1][3].Roger A. Pielke (Jr), who published a paper on hurricane mitigation in the journal, said in a post answering a question on Nature's blog in May about peer-reviewed references and why he published in E&E: "...had we known then how that outlet would evolve beyond 1999 we certainly wouldn't have published there. The journal is not carried in the ISI and thus its papers rarely cited. (Then we thought it soon would be.) We were invited to submit a piece in 1997 or 1998 and we had this in prep and sent it in."

__________________

I thought the point you were making is that "global warming is a myth?"

__________________

Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author's scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries. Although generally considered essential to academic quality, peer review has been criticized as ineffective, slow, and misunderstood


While passing the peer-review process is often considered in the scientific community to be a certification of validity, it is not without its problems. Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association is an organizer of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, which has been held every four years since 1986.[7] He remarks, "There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print."[8]

Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

The interposition of editors and reviewers between authors and readers always raises the possibility that the intermediators may serve as gatekeepers. Some sociologists of science argue that peer review makes the ability to publish susceptible to control by elites and to personal jealousy.[10] The peer review process may suppress dissent against "mainstream" theorie

Thank you Bugs for walking straight into my Bear Trap.

__________________
"True Freedom is the Freedom to oppress others"

You give a man a fish you feed him for a day, you teach a man to fish you feed him for life"



Ideology: Self Preservation.

LOL. This a joke right? You do realize that Douglass, Michaels and Singer had to retract all these papers right? You do know that all three had connections with big oil? Their papers had been debunked a long time ago and they had to admit that their data was flawed. Good job there. You should really research the papers your citing. A little googling would have saved some face. Not to mention, those of us who read the science, saw these papers debunked four years ago.

Apparently that is your opinion. You even state above,
so who are you to say this is not the case? Are you the authority on who is? Do you have any proof that they are not. All baseless denials on your part.
I am posting the peer reviewed articles that debunk your AGW theories that you have been requesting but insisist don't exist in this special thread because there are so many of them. I would say taken as a whole this thread will do a good job of debunking the AGW theories. There are many more to come so be patient. Again, I never stated that global warming is a myth, so stop misquoting me. And drop the condescending attitude while your at it.
In laymens terms please. Not everyone is a scientist like you.

See above.
No I don't realize that. Where is your proof? It is not my job to prove your assertions, that is your job. Link please!

__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter
"I am personally opposed to shooting abortionists, but I don't want to impose my moral values on others." -- Ann Coulter on Fox News 6/22/09
“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” -- Ronald Reagan

Layman's version from wiki


"A minor issue in climate modeling is the perceived mismatch between actual conditions and those projected by the models. A 2007 study by David Douglass and colleagues compared the composite output of 22 leading global climate models with actual climate data and found that the models did not accurately project observed changes to the temperature profile in the tropical troposphere. The authors note that their conclusions contrast strongly with those of recent publications based on essentially the same data.[79] A 2008 paper published by a 17-member team led by Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory noted serious mathematical flaws in the Douglass study, and found instead that deviations between the models and observations were statistically insignificant.[80]"

Simple enough?

__________________
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." — Albert Einstein
"Science is the process that takes us from confusion to understanding..." — Brian Greene
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan