Do anthropogenic global warming skeptics believe peer-review is a low standard?

I can't think of a higher standard for verifying the validity of scientific studies than letting other scientists check the methods, assumptions, etc. but then again, I'm not a GW skeptic.

As a side note, the top answerer also doesn't seem to understand the difference between referencing your wiki and referencing wikipedia.

EDIT: He also doesn't understand the concept of peer review. "Peer" means the scientific community, not neccessarily like minded people.

EDIT: STL - Is this the link you are referring to? http://greenhome.huddler.com/wiki/global-warming-a... Or was it something else?

OMG dave m and Ben O's answers make me want to scream in frustration. The process of publishing scientific studies for peer review means ensuring that all pertinent data is included so that it can be reproduced by other scientists. All interested scientists have access to the information. Like everything else in this world it's not perfect, but do you have a better idea dave m?

And religious organizations using peer review? Um no.

"low standard" is a lot better than NO standard.

The quality of any paper on any subject (not just science) is clearly increased when other people, knowledgeable about the subject matter, review it and check for errors. When that review is anonymous (so criticisms can be freely expressed without fear of retribution), as in the case of most science journals, the quality is even greater.

Still, clearly some errors make it through. That's why the scientific process doesn't stop there. The published article (after the initial anonymous peer review) is then read by many more people working in the same or closely related fields. They too have an opportunity to point out errors or ask questions about unclear aspects of the paper.

And finally, if the paper is of any interest and there's any question about the validity of it's conclusions, others will try to duplicate (or prove wrong) the results with their own study.

It's a beautiful process and the most effective one devised by humans to approach a true understanding of complex issues. It's too bad people, even people with some college level science, don't seem to understand it well (often choosing to believe personal blog articles by arm-chair scientists who lack both the education and experience to really know what the heck they're writing about).

10 years ago I was skeptical. Thought it might be just a weather cycle. However, now that I have seen the data it is clear that there are changes. Calling it global warming can be a misnomer though. While the global average temperature is going up there can be places where there it is cooling. This leads to some people pointing at the cooler temperatures and claiming that the climate change is false because it is not warming. Funny, I was reading an article just a while ago talking about how a lot of climate change deniers base their denial on religious reasons. They claim that the earth was made for humans and that the god responsible would never allow the earth to become in hospitable.

Oops, looks like Dr, Jelly's on the run...

Manda - spot on, thanks.

Jelly - not sure I would agree that Dr. Crichton or Dr. Gray are "peers" but willing to concede it to demonstrate that you really don't know what peer review is about; If something was reviewed by a group of peers (not like-minded as you keep trying to push) and Drs. Chrichton or Gray had objections, then those would be taken into account, debated amongst the group and if the objections were valid enough and the arguments well made enough then corrections would be required before publication...

Glo-bwl: Have you swallowed Jelly's fictitious definition of 'peer' or have you chosen to deliberately misrepresent the word? Definition (see link below): "a person of equal social standing, rank, age, etc". Note there is no reference to equal opinion, thought or belief.

davem: Sure, state your opinions, but without any substantiation I see no reason why anyone would take those opinions seriously - got any back up for this outrageous claim? Because I can substantiate my claims that attempts to undermine proper peer review of the IPCC did occur - but by the skeptics so who is really being unethical?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/...

Peers were offered $10,000 by American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank to undermine the IPCC report

As for ifoyo - a bunch of unsubstantiated gobbledeegook doesn't deserve a response

If it works the way it was designed, then no. The reports are reviewed by other non-interested scientist, AND the work is made public for others to try and disprove. Unfortunately, it appears many of the AGW reports never get truely "peer reviewed". They are reviewed by friends of the authors or others who have a vested interest in the report being published. Also, the actual work is not freely diseminated to the public. A perfect example of this would be the Hockey Stick. This report was the center piece of the 3rd IPCC report. It was supposedly peer reviewed. Once it was published, the author, Michael Mann resisted all attempts to have his work publicized. Once it was, the entire theory was completely debunked. I am surprised people listen to any thing he has to say anymore.

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf0...

Peer review is not only a low standard - it's utterly irrelevant to REALITY. If 100 people agree on a wrong answer, it's still wrong. Peer review determines acceptability not validity.

Richard Horton of the Lancet puts it nicely:

"...we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."

--Horton, Richard. "Dangers of over-dependence on peer-reviewed publication [editorial]." Nature 1999; 401: 727.

Peer review by like-minded "experts" who are hand picked unscrupulously is not valid peer review at all. This is, I believe, the norm of AGW material as part of the grander scheme or scam.

Now, where real science is involved (medicine, physics, geology etc...), not financially and politically motivated science, peer reviewing may be quite useful. But certainly not as part of global warming science. If one chooses to be devious, there are unethical ways around honest peer review and this is the case with AGW.

When it comes to finding arguments, the deniers have no standards. Most of them stoop to quoting the opinion page and web blogs, and pretend that these sources are equal in weight to scientific literature.

The peer-review process is a critical and important component of establishing a reliable body of knowledge. This site would be more interesting if the deniers would cite scientific literature, and I challenge then to do so.

Speaking for myself, my problem with it is that it can quickly devolve into groupthink. The purpose of peer review was to use competition, like a market force - the idea was that many scientists with competing theories would review each other's work, and that as a result only valid science would be published.

But that idea doesn't work in the context of broad agendas.

Imagine how peer reviewed anthropology would have worked in Germany in the 1930s.

Never mind peer review, man caused ice melts, doomsday scenarios, etc. The latest info reveals that there lies a fault under the Arctic from Greenland to Siberia. It began volcanic lava eruptions in 1999. The Arctic ice began melting at that time. The lava flows at 2500 -3000 degrees F. It has been observed to be a mile wide and many many miles long. It is more than hot enough to account for all the ice melt over the last 8 years. Also enormous releases of CO2. the Ice seems to be reforming again. Thank God for Al Gore and all the Chicken Littles. Will they be eating crow?

The same effect is seen in the 'El Nino's' from the Western Pacific Ocean. No regular 'cycles', sporadic warming of the huge Pacific Ocean. Man made, indeed.