Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm certainly not an expert in the domain of "climate change", but it doesn't appear to be difficult to find reviews of the subject that come to different conclusions than reached by the NYT.

For example, here's a recently published paper authored by qualified individuals and the conclusion endorsed by several reviewers [0]. Bottom line was that "Global Average Surface Temperature" data was not credible and that "... it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever-–despite current claims of record setting warming."

This analysis and others leave the impression the subject of climate is not "conclusively settled" nor without legitimate controversy as to how data is interpreted and used for predicting future trends.

It's a shame that important research has become a "football" kicked around wildly for political advantage rather than being left in the realm of authentic scientific study for as long as necessary to understand the processes of Nature that we call "climate".

[0] https://thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data...




It's published on wordpress.com, non-peer reviewed etc.

There is a range of credible opinions on some aspect of climate change (for example, the impact of water vapor around cities on measurement). It's probably worth concentrating on the ones which have at least been peer reviewed.


Googling the author's names, you'll quickly find a snopes article in the first results:

http://www.snopes.com/climatology-fraud-global-warming/


True enough, I didn't check out the authors or those endorsing the report. The report wasn't from a peer-reviewed journal, but then neither is the NYT or Snopes.

The analysis could be considered on its merit. I'd leave that to people better qualified in that field than I am.

We'd expect bias, that's entirely normal in all research. But the deep polarization of the scientific community considering climate data and findings is symptomatic of the absurd political influence on the field. The extreme level of viciousness surrounding climate research has to render all of it suspect in any honest observer's mind.


I understand the article wasn't peer-reviewed, it was only an example of the absurd level of polarization that has distorted the scientific process in climate research.

However, it must be said "peer review" is no guarantee of scientific purity, the peer review system is subject to being gamed and can exhibit severe bias against unconventional approaches or novel findings.

One version is the "file-drawer effect", operative in a range of science publishing. For example, accepting drug studies showing positive results but not those where drug treatment doesn't separate from placebo gives a falsely favorable impression of the effectiveness of the drug.

Logically we could assert that in the presence of bias toward publishing climate studies supporting warming vs. reports not showing warming, the credibility of widely quoted results becomes questionable.

It's natural, healthy and desirable for serious students of a subject to disagree. OTOH whenever political force imposes suppression of opposing points of view the process of science grinds to a halt, leaving only pseudo-scientific mythology in its place.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: