----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Tarr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 5:20 AM Subject: Is it hot in here?
> http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040426-090538-2682r.htm > > A feverish fate for scientific truth? > > Some things are sacred to scientists: Facts, data, quantitative analysis, > and Nature magazine, long recognized as the world's most prestigious > science periodical. > Lately, many have begun to wonder if Jayson Blair has a new job as > their science editor. On Page 616 of the April 8 issue, Nature published an > article using a technique that it said, on Page 593 of the same issue, was > "oversold," was inappropriately influencing policymakers and > was"misunderstood by those in search of immediate results." The technique > is called "regional climate modeling," which attempts to simulate the > effects of global warming over areas the size of, say, the United States. > As reported by Quirin Schiermeier, scientists at a Lund, Sweden, > climate conference, "admitted privately that the immediate benefits of > regional climate modeling have been oversold in exercises such as the > Clinton administration's U.S. regional climate assessment, which sought to > evaluate the impact of climate change on each part of the country." > Then, 23 pages later, Nature published an alarming and completely > misleading article predicting the melting of the entire Greenland ice cap > in 1,000 years, thanks to pernicious human economic activity, i.e., global > warming, using a regional climate projection. > > > Kevin T. - VRWLC > Lying liars and the lies they tell Kevin, do you really have that much trust in a Moonie paper? What appears obvious on the surface is that Nature published two papers, one that shows some difficulties and limitations of a technique, and one showing results of a technique. Science is not all cut and dry. There are a number of global climate models, that have uncertainties in them. Global warming hawks tend to favor models that discuss about 3-4C increases in global temperature due to human activity over the next 50-100 years, while global warming doves ten to favor models that are more in the 1C-1.5C range. The most likely results are somewhere in between. Publishing both papers is a normal part of good science. Lets look at the general case of results like these. One paper uses a particular model to make a prediction. People somewhat familiar with the field should have an idea, from the authors, name of the model, which one is used. Then, they can use the paper discussing limitations, published in the same journal, to further qualify their understanding of the model. Let me give a parallel from hurricane forecasting. There are a number of hurricane forecast models. They can often give different results. The predictions of the models are "published." Discussions of the limitations and the apparent biases of each model are also given. The summery analysis gives both a prediction and a discussion of the uncertainty in the prediction. This is done in a real time environment. With most science, this takes place over a long period of time. Numerous papers are written, adding bits and pieces to the puzzle. During this process, people and groups of people do their own summaries. There are also, from time to time, survey articles written. This is not arguing that I know for a fact that Nature does not make editorial mistakes. It is simply saying. 1) Any conclusions from the Washington Times should be taken with a very big grain of salt. 2) Even with that, the actual facts they report seem like reasonable activity for a journal. Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
