Re: OT: sea level 'rise' hmmmmm....

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:00:18 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:

[...]

If you were interested in having someone actually address themselves
to Loehle's paper through a quality peer-reviewed periodical, Loehle
will need to actually get it published in a respectable periodical
first, peer-reviewed. No one needs formally deal with something that
is just tossed out into the public, without informed review even.


Now AFAIK Loehle's paper was peer-reviewed.

Actually, I'm just expressing my own opinion about it. It's not.
I've been following the details about Energy and Environment for
years. My conclusion is that it is NOT a quality publication that
demands a response from anyone. About on the level of Popular
Science, for example. If you want to conflate all periodicals into
one single mush, you are welcome to do so. I don't.

If we all keep saying to the
guys of the other opinion that all their sources, journals, papers,
scientists etc. are not credible we will never get anywhere. Certainly
not to any kind of middle-ground concensus.

There is a difference between informed opinion and plain opinion. I'll
stop there and hold short of more inflammatory comments.

You are already proceeding with contacts. Keep at it, see where it
takes you. If you find difficulties that would suggest a real
problem, let me know and I'll see if I can't get more serious
attention to the issue.

I could start saying the same as you did above about IPCC scientists and
publications, and with what I believe good reason, but right now I won't.

IPCC doesn't do basic research. It's charter is more along the lines
of providing an informed digest.

BTW, no answer yet ...

Sorry to hear that. I think the longest I've had to wait is two
months. In one case on plate techtonics, I'd tried to contact one of
the primary researchers in Seattle. He called me back three weeks
later. He'd been in Japan, personally going through records 300 years
old, on the subject I'd called about. It was an enjoyable and lively
discussion to have... but I had to wait a while for good reasons it
turns out. I didn't press him beyond the single contact. No follow
up, no pressure. Just the first message. Three weeks later, when he
had a moment, he called back to someone he had no idea of. I find
this not uncommon.

Jon
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT: sea level rise hmmmmm....
    ... I'm just expressing my own opinion about it. ... My conclusion is that it is NOT a quality publication that ... If you want to conflate all periodicals into ... scientists etc. are not credible we will never get anywhere. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Bad LDL cholesterol may benefit elderly
    ... I pointed you to that publication. ... > The facts are presented. ... >>> problems with the implications of the findings. ... > Do I need to justify my opinion or conclusion to you? ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Bad LDL cholesterol may benefit elderly
    ... I pointed you to that publication. ... The facts are presented. ... >> problems with the implications of the findings. ... As to whose opinion is "right" - that is a facetious question showing your ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Dugdales Monasticon Anglicanum
    ... " Has anyone an opinion of the accuracy of Dugdale's ... William Dugdale merely assisted Roger Dodsworth (who ... at the time was on his death bed) in the publication ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Mexican Laetoli?
    ... > There HAS been a publication - maybe not in the currently accepted ... published in enough detail to form an independent opinion. ... The Royal Society has nearly a 350 year ... the reality of these prints. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)