The Science Journal, Nature publishes a Flawed Global Warming Paper : Peer Review Problem

INFORMATH ^ | 11/03/2006 | Douglas J. Keenan

[SirLinksalot]

See also : Problems With the Peer Review Process.

http://www.informath.org/apprise/a3600.htm

[GSlob]

I have a better idea: maybe we should start trying to estimate the temperatures not by grape harvest data, but by the comparative tasting of actual vintages, since 1370. A good research grant would, of course, be needed - and I fully trust that among the FReepers there will be found enough selfless volunteers in the cause of climate science.

[Arm_Bears]

Peer-review is over-rated.

Most contemporary "scientific" journals have adopted a liberal world-view, and editorial boards/reviewers are selected primarily from academia. This arrangement ensures that favorable "research" makes it into print.

[facedown]

The paper appeared in Nature, the world's most highly-regarded scientific journal.

Only by lefty numbnuts.

[atlaw]

Out of curiosity, which scientific journals do you regard highly?

[NicknamedBob]

"... selfless volunteers in the cause of climate science."

Hear, hear! It is forward thinking individuals such as you who make this country great!

Your willingness to step forward brings a tear to my eye.

[NaughtiusMaximus]

Here, publish this: "Famous FReeper says, "The weather is more the way it is today than it has ever been before." Grant monies threatened, scientists stunned."

[Kenny Bunk]

.....comparative tasting of actual vintages, since 1370. A good research grant would, of course, be needed - and I fully trust that among the FReepers there will be found enough selfless volunteers in the cause of climate science....

Even though this work would be arduous in the extreme, I for one, am willing to leave my luxurious retirement to join your team of selfless oenotechs.

Much of this work has been done by Ted Kennedy,with fatal results to members of his team. But science demands the duplicability of experiments, and I, in the tradition of Pasteur, am willing to lay my life on the line.

And that's even if I have to drink dessert wines. We'll git'erdone!

This just in from California: Gallo Brothers report that in an emergency, some of their products could be made from grapes.
This just in from France: The French have a 100 million-gallon wine surplus. They plan to turn it into brake fluid, antifreeze, Citroen Suspension Fluid and a host of other industrial chemicals, rather than go the 'Two-Buck-Chuck' route.
Warning: Do not attempt to stop your Renault, Drive your Citroen on rough roads, or use le chauffage dela voiture (dans Québec, du chariot)

[Blueflag]

I would argue that Scientific American is more highly regarded and more objectve in fact, though equally "socially conscious" to use a eupemism.

[Blueflag]

As I understand wine making (which is admittedly a very small understanding of the finer points) the grapes are harvested more around a measure of the desired sugar content -- much of which is controlled by solar power hours -- no so much temperatures. Photosynthesis yields sugar, not temperature (although an increase in temp yields a higher metabolic rate).

What's my point?

The seasons that were harvested EARLY may have been years with lots of sunshine late in the season, so the grapes were ready sooner. Later season harvest might have been cloudier.

I think the premise is flawed that later harvests result from cooler summers/falls.

I remain to be convinced.

[facedown]

Out of curiosity, which scientific journals do you regard highly?

In my field: Biochemistry, Journal of Biological Chemistry, and for might-be-something-to-it curiosity, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[maine-iac7]

I have a better idea: maybe we should start trying to estimate the temperatures not by grape harvest data, but by the comparative tasting of actual vintages, since 1370. A good research grant would, of course, be needed - and I fully trust that among the FReepers there will be found enough selfless volunteers in the cause of climate science.

Count me in!

[maine-iac7]

apropos of nothing, I love your ID, SirLinksalot.

[r9etb]

Isabelle Chuine.

[William Tell]

Blueflag said: "The seasons that were harvested EARLY may have been years with lots of sunshine late in the season, so the grapes were ready sooner."

Isn't it also possible that signs of an early winter can rush the harvest? I know that the grape-growers around here panic if the crop gets rained on at the wrong time. Rain water sitting on the grapes can cause them to burst.

[cogitator]

...and another demonstration of the overconfidence placed in peer review.

The peer-review performed by reviewers for journal publications is only the first of a multiple-step process that encompasses the term "peer review".

Once papers are published, the scientific community then has the opportunity to examine the publication, determine if the results are worth additional investigation, perform additional research, and publish either supporting or rebuttal publications. This is also peer-review, and frequently far more important than journal pre-publication review.

Deficient papers do get published. That fact doesn't undermine scientific results, in general. But it's a good indicator that multiple supporting results are indicative of actual scientifically-evaluated "truth".

[A. Pole]

Looking at the data made it manifest that there are serious problems with the work of Chuine et al. In particular, the authors' estimate for the summer temperature of 2003 was higher than the actual temperature by 2.4 °C (about 4.3 °F). This is the primary reason that 2003 seemed, according to the authors, to be extremely warm. There is also another reason. The three warmest years on record, prior to 2003, were 1945, 1947, and 1952. (The instrumental record goes back to 1922, or even 1883 if we accept some inaccuracies.) The estimate of Chuine et al. for the summer temperature in each of those years was much lower than the actual temperature.

Political Correctness is DESTROYING science !

[AndrewC]

Rather, what is important is that a paper on what is arguably the world's most important scientific topic (global warming) was published in the world's most prestigious scientific journal with essentially no checking of the work prior to publication.

Why should it be checked? It supports the paradigm.

[metmom]

Peer review problem? Nah! can't be. I mean, it's supposed to be about infallible, isn't it?