re: #199 HelloDare

Just because this piece does not appear in a scientific journal doesn’t mean it is without merit.

No. But it does mean it hasn’t survived the peer review process. Publication in peer reviewed journals and subsequent defense of published work in the same environment is how science is done. If someone has a scientific theory that they expect to be examined, critiqued and ultimately accepted by the scientific community, peer reviewed publication is the gold standard leading to such acceptance.

Ultimately, debates over global warming and it’s causes are scientific questions. They need to be conducted within the framework of scientific research - not on personal web pages or in tabloids publications. Those are the venues favored by Bigfoot afficionados and crop circle advocates.

Work with scientific merit is easy to get published in accepted journals. There’s no cabal of evil enviornmental overlords blocking publication; the work simply has to meet minimal standards of methodology and integrity. And there has been a good deal of work published in the scientific literature on global warming supporting many different sides of the argument. But if the work hasn’t been through peer review, that’s probably because, from a scientific standpoint, it isn’t up to snuff. Or it flat-out sucks, for any number of reasons, from a scientific viewpoint. Lack of publication does not speak well of the quality of ideas being put forward.

If the science behind global warming is going to be debated, it needs to be debated within the framework science is conducted in.