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

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:14:46 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Jonathan Kirwan wrote:
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.

Ok, our opinions here differ, big time.

That's fine. They will simply have to, I suppose.

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.

May I suggest you also write Dr.Steve Nerem?

Only a few days have passed. People have lives. My normal practice
is to wait a month, if my question is likely to involve more than a
minute or two of their time. I don't know what you wrote (feel free
to publish it here), but if you asked for something that might take
some care in responding I'd tend to allow a little more time.

Let me know what you asked. If I can see what that is and agree with
the slant of it, I'd be willing to put it in my own words and find
someone else who might be able to answer. You've already started Dr.
Nerem on your point, so jumping from two sides within a week would be
a bit... excessive. But there are other scientists working in the
area and I could probably track one or two down on my own and try that
approach.

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.

IMHO when an institute make a rather bold claim that has serious impact
on policymakers there should be a backup for information requests.
Either the researcher can read his/her email while traveling or
designates a secretary or someone to monitor it. In industry you'd have
a serious chat with El Capitan if you didn't put that in place before a
trip.

Doesn't work like that. Just because a scientist _happens_ to write a
paper that later just _happens_ to have some policy impact doesn't
mean their funding source adds more budget. One could always wish.

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 ... IPCC doesn't do basic research. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
    ... This is not opinion. ... Does Not Make These 'Opinions' Facts. ... but when the majority of scientists make a statement based ... Wine vineyards only grow in specific conditions, ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Common Sense - The Answer To The Fear Mongering of Global Warming
    ... This is not opinion. ... Exist and that We 'may-be' Loooking at a Period of Climate Change ... But if you stepped back a frame, he went on, you started to see that scientists today are looking at a snapshot, a highly cropped snapshot without context. ... Wine vineyards only grow in specific conditions, one of which is average temperature. ...
    (rec.radio.shortwave)
  • Re: Gore - A Pathetic Embarrassment To US Science - so sey the y lying GOP shills
    ... statements of climate scientists, is that other changes may well ... Their uniformity of opinion catches my ... on such ideas as rightard politicians have the legal right to treat ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Can Eyesight be Improved Naturally?
    ... or scientists like Dr. Stirling Colgate ... you will lose your distant vision permanently. ... Subject: The dynamic natural eye. ... Just one man's opinion. ...
    (sci.med.vision)