pdc_lgf re: #108

I cannot think of a good reading list. The problem, as you note, is having a minimal background in science so as to determine whether something is solid or shaky. In my mind the best blog out there right is Watts Up With That - closest I have come to putting things in common language.

Sadly, you need a serious background in a lot of fields to delve into global climate - something even the so called experts lack. In addition, there is a serious quality control issue as I have been discussing over at Climate Audit. The current journal peer review process seriously broken. It’s OK for a scientific debating society on the latest theorems and papers. But if you looked at the peer review processes required in a place like NASA for engineering space flight, the process is a joke.

When the climate scientists went from debating theory to applying theories to human systems, effecting human lives, they needed to upgrade their review process so knowledgeable people can challenge and refine or reject the theories. In an real world system, there is no hiding behind journalistic self licking ice cream cones.

I wish I could be of more help, but it takes a lot of experience to sniff out the shady theories verses the hard data. And with so many people pushing untested, unverified claims as proven fact it has become a large garbage collection exercise to find the wheat for the chaf