Do you understand what Peer Reviewed Science is?

[Quixote1818]

Poll question: Do you understand what Peer Reviewed Science is?

When you hear that there has been over 650 published peer reviewed scientific research papers that ALL say mankind is contributing to global warming, and NOT ONE that says otherwise. Do you understand what that means?

[valerief]

1. It means Bush is right and EVERYONE else is wrong.

:sarcasm:

edited to add sarcasm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. The "650" papers...

Is actually just a pool of randomly selected papers on global warming. There are thousands and thousands.

That said, people who deny global warming couldn't give two shits about peer-reviewed science.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

29. I'm sure you're right - there are far more than 650 papers

Every internationally-distributed scientific journal has the manuscripts submitted to it for publication subjected to peer review by other noted scientists in the field who volunteer their services. The vast majority of scientific manuscripts submitted to journals or to professional conferences go through this screening process and undergo rewrites or revisions according to the consensus of the journal editors and the peer reviewers.

This database lists nearly 3,000 papers on the subject of global warming. And that just cover publications through 2001. I'm sure by now there are thousands more.

http://www.esi-topics.com/gwarm/index.html

[Lorien]

45. It's in reference to peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals

over a ten year period (the article appeared in the Utne reader early last year. Sorry, I don't have a link).

[Az]

3. The problem is the word "proven"

Science does not prove things. It can provide sufficient evidence to compel acceptance to such a degree that denial would be ridiculous. But proof... that is the stuff of math and other abstract constructs. Science must always leave the books open in case further evidence comes along. But it can provide so much evidence that we can stop fretting about whether a thing is true or not.

[Katherine Brengle]

7. Same here -- it is still a "theory" -- but "theory" has a lot more stability

than people understand.

650 peer reviewed studies means that this is a valid theory.

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"

[Quixote1818]

11. I struggled with the word "proven" and decided to take it out

I used it because based on statistics and the number of mathematical calculations, the probability of it not being true is extremely tiny. Perhaps a thousand to 1 or a million to one. Thats basically "proven" with minuscule probability of being wrong. You are probably right that "proven" is not the best word though.

[Katherine Brengle]

19. Dammit I already voted "Other" on a technicality lol.

The new first answer is excellent.

[Quixote1818]

22. I wish I had thought that through better the first time

When I posted it I knew my wording was flawed. I suspect that poll results would be more like 95% if I had done it right the first time.

Thanks

[Clark2008]

38. Well, you can now count my "other" in the No. 1 choice.

Thanks for the correction.

[dorkulon]

9. So are you saying the theory of gravity has not been proven? nt

[Katherine Brengle]

20. Actually, all that has been "proven" is that gravity can't NOT exist --

truthfully.

[Az]

21. Bad choice

Gravity is one of the least understood aspects of science. That it exists is the most stable part of the theory. But what it is and how it works still continue to be problematic.

Let me give you another example instead.

It is a theory that the sun will come up tomorrow. It has not and can never be proven. This has to do more with our limitations than anything else. We do not know all things. Thus what we learn of the world around us will always be limited.

Like a logarithmic curve science always approaches absolute proof but never is able to reach it. It is a fundamental aspect of the philosophy. We cannot prove anything about the real world. You cannot even prove that you are not a brain in a vat being fed false sensations about the world around you (the Matrix trap).

This in no way diminishes the power of science. It is this ability to deal with the truth of our limitations that enables science to burn away falsehoods. Science works more like a sculptor than a painter. A painter attempts to create the truth. A sculptor knocks away the falsehoods and reveals the truth.

The key thing that science does is reveal what is not true. A theory proposed will be beaten to death by the peer review process. If it cannot be shown to be false then it is accepted as true... until evidence comes along that overturns it. But it cannot be proven to be true by means of science.

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withold provisional assent". I suppose that apples may start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms. - Stephen J. Gould

[hfojvt]

25. not like Pythagorus

The original theory was that object goto their 'natural' place. Then it was thought that heavy objects, logically, fall faster than lighter objects until Galileo demonstrated that was not so. Then it was called a 'force' g = G m1*m2/4piR-squared. Now forces are out and it is said that mass 'bends space' although how mass does that and the distinction between that and a force escapes me. More to the point, with relativity masses are no longer constants so the original formula must be modified, apparently like everything else, so that m1.1 = m1*square root of 1-v-quared over c-squared. And the same with m2.1. Later, with ever more precise instruments and time, it may be discovered that the 'constant' G is really a function of the expanding universe and so changes over time infinitesimally by some formula we have not yet discovered. Not to mention a "unified theory" explaining all the various forces - strong force, weak force, electromagnetic force, and gravity under one umbrella. This may change our understanding entirely and allow us to build anti-gravity devices and more precise and devastating weapons, which is the primary purpose of science - to "find a way to collect the relatively diffuse violence of nature and drop it in small and convenient packages on your enemies." (Kurt Vonnegut 'Galapagos')

[Clark2008]

37. That's why I picked "other."

There's a higher-than-not probability, based on the 650 + peer-reviewed papers, that global warming IS happening and has been made worse by man (even Al Gore says the earth has natural warming trends - he simply points out that this warming trend is much higher than those in the past).

Therefore, yes, it's been "proven" by a margin of 99.9 percent, but these wingnuts are too stupid to realize that, just because it's cold outside, doesn't mean that overall warming and freaky weather patterns aren't occurring.

What I'd like to know is how do the .01 percent get so much media time, comparatively speaking?

[Toots]

40. Science disproves things..

Basically it is so until shown to be otherwise...

[enki23]

4. there is no direct distinction between "theory" and "proven science"

some theories are better supported than other theories. einstein's theory of relativity is pretty well supported. theories regarding natural selection and the origin of species are very, very well supported. string theory is not very well supported, at least yet.

etc.

in any case, the evidence is pretty well in. there is precious little room left to doubt human-abetted global climate change.

[Quixote1818]

8. Statisticaly it's "proven". The probability that mankind is contributing to

global warming is about a million to one.

[Jonathan50]

5. Evolution is still a theory

There is far and away more evidence for evolution than there is for global warming and yet evolution is still a "theory".

http://www.answers.com/topic/theory

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē)
n., pl. -ries.
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

[greyl]

14. "Still a theory" implies that you're using the conjecture definition of theory.

The theory of gravity and music theory will always be theory, but they don't stand in opposition to fact.

[patrice]

6. It means the pros and cons, i.e. the strengths and weaknesses, of

any given piece of information are identified (by Scientific peers) and factored into what we "know".

All valid Science implies the possibility of its own negation.

It means that Scientific peers DO NOT CHERRY PICK information to fit their conclusions, because they get their asses kicked by their peers and they are totally discredited. That is unless the work for BushCo.

[patrice]

10. Science does not PROOVE anything.

It only finds either support or lack of support.

Proof implies 100% and that never happens because scientists cannot test every last factor affecting __________ in every combination with every other factor affecting ____________. It's a very open ended process in which theory is established by a reliable majority of empirical evidence.

[Quixote1818]

13. You are right, I took out the word proven.

Science deals in probability's and the probability of global warming being man made is extremely high.

[patrice]

16. Thank you.

That word is very abused by people who either don't know what they're talking about, or do know and are up to NO good.

Knowledge is very contextual. I know, because I used to teach AP Psychology (as Science NOT therapy) to high school seniors, some of whom were taking full-load AP classes. I've also been very interested in this topic ever since I read about the philosophy of Science over 20 years ago in my undergraduate degree. A good and highly respected book is Thomas R. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[Prophet 451]

12. It's still a theory

Of course, that doesn't mean it's not accurate. I forget who said it but someone once commented "people always say "theory" like it's something you made up on your way back from the pub". Evolution is a theory, global warming is a theory, relativity is a theory, even gravity is a theory. All four are almost certainly accurate but in scientific language, there is no clear distinction between "theory" and "proven".

[Quixote1818]

15. You are right, I didn't think through my answers. Thanks nt

[mainegreen]

17. Yup. People often confuse Theory for a hypothesis. n/t

[GliderGuider]

18. Actually, GW is an observed phenomenon.

The theory is that human actions are causing some significant proportion of the observed warming trend. That theory is now well supported and broadly accepted by the scientists working in the field of climatology. Though it has not done any of the original science, the IPCC is one of the largest coordinated peer review exercises ever conducted in a single field. The degree of consensus and certainty which has built over the four Assessment Reports provides strong support for the theory of anthropogenic influence as a driver of climate change.

So in other words it's time to quit carping and do something already. We won't be able to stop GW at this point, and much damage will be done, but with strong global action within the next 5 to 10 years we may be able to bequeath our grandchildren a habitable planet. If nothing significant is done for longer than 10 years, or if significant players refuse to participate, all bets are off.

[izzybeans]

23. This means there is a consensus in the community. It would be bad science,

at least in many circles, to claim something was 100% settled, and not falsifiable.

Rightwingers use this standpoint to try and undermine the certainty of the consensus in the community. But that does not take away from the fact that a representative sample of climate science articles (peer reviewed) demonstrates a consensus with at least 95% certainty. The fact that debunking studies of this nature are necessary speaks to the power of the astroturfing organizations who are professional spinners of uncertainty. They hang on the hypothesized nature of scientific knowledge to question whether scientists are true believers. What they don't get is that science does not operate on faith, it operates on reciprical trust, honorable criticism, and theory testing. The peer review process is a trust builder. It says "These authors know wtf they are speaking of."

[Duer 157099]

24. Peer-Reviewed simply means it's the concensus of the

scientific establishment -- and realize that the key word is "establishment."

It's a truism in science that real scientific breakthroughs are at first completely ridiculed by the "establishment."

(this comment has no bearing on the global warming issue, just a perspective on science in general)

[baldguy]

26. 2+2=4 is just a theory.

Just because it's been 4 in every instance we've experienced so far doesn't mean that it couldn't equal 5 tomorrow.

[Telly Savalas]

41. Mathematics, unlike science, is not based upon empirical observation.

[Odin2005]

49. Math is a branch of Logic.

IMO Math, and Logic in general, is derived from the fact that our brains are adapted to living in this Universe. I don't like Platonic notions of Mathematics being some fundamental principle of the Cosmos.

[Lisa]

27. most scientists I know can't agree on what to have for lunch ...

And I've helped organize several science conferences, so I should know!

So anything over 90% -- heck, even 70% agreement -- is pretty amazing. (I've also submitted papers to peer-reviewed journals -- sometimes it was okayed, and more often it wasn't, if they felt the evidence wasn't persuasive enough. That includes stuff on global warming, so the editors definitely weren't being soft on that topic.)

[WindRavenX]

28. this needed to be asked

So many DUers are so ignorant of basic scientific knowledge it is appalling.

If you don't agree that mankind has been the biggest factor in global warming, you are an idiot. It's just that simple.

[Taoschick]

30. And is your degree

In Climatology?

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Taoschick]

44. Do NOT call me an asshole

For asking you a simple question.

[WindRavenX]

46. LOL it's a disingenuous question you asked

There are many scientists on DU who have degrees in various fields of science-- they are all fully qualified to discuss the merits of global warming despite not having their degree in that specific field. I have not the ability to go into the molecular biochem level, but I do have the full background needed to call horseshit on 99.99999% of the "simple questions" designed to try to make global warming a less legitimate issue.
Nice try, though.

[Shakespeare]

52. It wasn't a "simple" question, it was a condescending, asshole-ish question.

So her remark is accurate.

[VenusRising]

31. Considering I live with a scientist

Yes, I understand what that means. It means that he sweats it out as other scientists pour over his work and decide if it's scientific merit is great enough to enter into the general knowledge bank. Or something like that. ;)

[Spider Jerusalem]

32. Sure.

It means that human-induced climate change is a hypothesis with a sound theoretical basis.

Note for the scientifically illiterate: the scientific meaning of the word "theory" is rather different than the colloquial meaning; a scientific theory is an explanation of natural phenomena which is well-substantiated and supported by observational data (eg the theory of universal gravitation, the theory of relativity, etc).

[POAS]

33. There is also a growing body of

evidence which suggests that while man is accelerating the warming of the atmosphere it is unlikely that any actions we take now can reverse the process because we are passed a "tipping point".

I, for one, hope this particular hypothesis is disproven!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

34. If 650 Peer Reviewed Scientists agree, then ...

"Peer Reviewed Science" must be a cult. Probably a sub-sect of Scientology, and their chief scientist is Tom Cruise. :rofl:

Some scientists claim that global warming is inevitable. Maybe due to human causes. But it would be nice to be able to predict the degree of warming, and when the peak will arrive, and how long it will last. And, the effect of conservation efforts on all that. And the effect of "carbon credits" (or whatever they're called) on all that.

Get busy, Tom.

Oh, yeah, and Tom, try to discover if it's true that global warming causes ice ages. That's another interesting cause/effect link that could be troublesome if true.

Lotsa science left to do on this subject.

[nam78_two]

54. Comparing peer-reviewed science to scientology

:eyes:
Just goes to show that the flat earthers will be able to twist part of any argument to fit their world-view. Do you truly think that the standrads for getting one's papers published in Nature, Science or even say The Biophysical Journal or JCB are the same as those for joining some cult :eyes:.....?

I am often not surprised that a large percentage of Americans believe in Creation Theory or whatever :eyes:....

As someone involved in scientifc research, the ignorance of this particular comment made me roll my eyes more than any other I have ever seen on DU...

:eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

65. My bad. I must have forgotten the smilie ...

Wait, no, I didn't forget the smilie. You must have not seen it. Your bad.

Nicely written invective, though.

My "BS-meter" goes haywire, however, when I read that a huge number of scientists agree on something as complex as global warming, agreeing on cause, schedule, duration, severity, corrective action, etc. There may be valid science here. But there could be a number of non-science forces as well:
Plagiarism,
Peer pressure (like DU General Discussion forum),
Hero worship,
Grant requests ghost-written by the same professional grant request writer,
Tom Cruise (a joke, no need to react),
Writing to political correctness dictated by "the standards for getting one's papers published in Nature, Science or even say The Biophysical Journal or JCB",
Hand-picking the sample of 650 scientists from thousands who disagree.

Or does none of that occur in "science"?

[Orsino]

35. I thought it meant that there should be less partisan bickering...

...and that the Dems shouldn't try to pass any legislation until the '08 do-over, giving the surge a chance to work. And that what we really want is privatized Social Security and tax cuts for the rich.

They like to pretend that everything means that.

[Jonathan50]

36. Thanks for making those of us who voted before the change in phraseology look stupid.

You put no notice that you had edited the original question in your changed post.

I think that was an unfair oversight.

[InvisibleTouch]

39. It's like the "theory" of evolution.

The word "theory," in science, has a totally different meaning than it does for the general population, where it's about the equivalent of "hypothesis," or "educated guess." In science, a "theory" is a concept that's so thoroughly supported by research and data that it's as close as a typical scientist will come to saying it's a 100% fact. Does anyone have a problem with the "theory" of gravity, for instance? After all, it's "only" a theory....

Anyway, I've long been of the mind that we need to stop using the phrase "theory of evolution," because it sends the wrong message. Evoloution is a fact, pure and simple - and the only argument in the scientific community, is about the details and the methods. (Admittedly those arguments can get pretty heated!) And global climate crisis is as much of a fact as is biological evolution. We need to emphasize it as such. There's power in language.

[johnaries]

57. Evolution is not a theory. Natural Selection is.

And there are actually several different theories of gravitation, because although it's a fact that gravitation exists no one is sure how it works.

But the premise of your post is correct.

[rucky]

43. It means that all scientists are faithless, godless heathens! n/t

[Gabi Hayes]

47. very simple answer to that one, expressed on TDS, IIRC:

facts have a liberal bias

or was it Colbert who said that?

[Odin2005]

48. Minor nitpick, theories cannot be proven, only disproven

Having absolute truth of the nature of Reality is impossible because we are not omniscient, omnipresent, and totally rational beings. We can only find better and better approximations of the truth. General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, for example, are better approximations of Reality then Newtonian Mechanics; but GR and QM give nonsense answers when you try to apply them at the same time, meaning a better approximation is needed, hence Superstring Theory and related theoretical physics.

[cgrindley]

50. Speaking as someone who actually peer reviews...

It means that if an academic attempts to publish material in a peer-reviewed journal, then his or her article is made anonymous and is then farmed out to between 3 and 12 professors at diverse colleges who write little reports on the article, indicating to the editor whether it should be accepted with revisions, rejected with the chance to resubmit or just rejected outright. Nothing is ever accepted without some revisions being required... these reports, by the way, can be as short as 250 words or as long if not longer than the original article.

The process doesn't necessarily include a notion of reproducibility, nor does it particuarly guarantee that the reviewers will be overly rigorous. It's more or less a popularity contest with incredible inertia, very slow to move in any given direction, almost incapable of publishing dissent.

It's sort of like we grade each other's papers and the ones that keep getting A's end up getting published. That doesn't necessarily mean anything at all.

[upi402]

55. Quite a service you do

A 'friend' had an article published. I was under the impression it was more of a validity/reproducibility question.
Thanks for your clarification.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/354/6/639?andorexacttitleabs=and&search_tab=articles&tocsectionid=Original+Articles&tocsectionid=Special+Reports&tocsectionid=Special+Articles&tocsectionid=Videos+in+Clinical+Medicine&tocsectionid=Clinical+PracticeAORBClinical+Therapeutics&tocsectionid=Review+ArticlesAORBClinical+PracticeAORBClinical+Implications+of+Basic+ResearchAORBMolecular+MedicineAORBClinical+TherapeuticsAORBVideos+in+Clinical+Medicine&tocsectionid=EditorialsAORBPerspectiveAORBOutlookAORBBehind+the+Research&tocsectionid=Sounding+BoardAORBClinical+Debate&tocsectionid=Clinical+Implications+of+Basic+Research&tocsectionid=Health+Policy+ReportsAORBHealth+Policy+2001AORBQuality+of+Health+Care&tmonth=Feb&searchtitle=Articles&sortspec=Score+desc+PUBDATE_SORTDATE+desc&excludeflag=TWEEK_element&hits=20&where=fulltext&tyear=2007&andorexactfulltext=and&fyear=1997&fmonth=Feb&sendit=GO&searchterm=hare&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

[cgrindley]

62. To continue

Reproducibility would require setting up experiments, running double blind tests for years... so a peer review of an article is mostly just opinion and a good scan for really horrible flaws in logic or crappy writing or poor documentation. I'll reject an article if it sounds insane and has no documentation for example.

I review perhaps 4 articles per year.

[nam78_two]

56. "The process doesn't necessarily include a notion of reproducibility"

Yes, but that is the kind of thing that can catch up with you. The Baltimore Case anyone?
C'mon peer-reviewed science is fairly reliable. Admittedly there are journals where the review process is less rigorous than others and as the guy from the Bell labs proved, even the high impact journals aren't immue to major glitches, but those are the exceptions rather than the norm imho...
As someone who has published papers, reviewed papers and worked for three different people as a graduate student/postdoc (2 of whom were big names in their respective fields) I am a firm believer in the overall reliability of the peer-review process.

[BlooInBloo]

59. Ah. So you know that good stuff hasn't been declined?

Thank GOODNESS we finally found someone SOOO omniscient!

[cgrindley]

64. I've never declined anything good

Good articles are so rare that I have yet to see one cross my desk. To tell you the truth, so far, I've never actually recommended anything for publication. The best I've given anyone is rejection with possibility of being re-submitted. Most articles are actually pretty sucky. Good stuff will always rise to the top.

[nam78_two]

67. Huh?

I have no idea where you got that from. I said the process is fairly reliable in the general case and pretty self-correcting. I never claimed to ominiscient...read the post.

[cgrindley]

63. uh

If you've actually done it or actually published papers, how can you possibly think that it's anything other than what it is? That is unless you define "reliability" as meaning that "safe" and "popular" articles get published and bug-nutty insane or overtly wrong stuff doesn't? I don't think I'd stress anything scientific beyond checking someone's math. Isn't there some study that suggests that 40% of peer reviewed articles more or less end up being proven incorrect? I frequently come into contact with scholarship from the 1920's to the 1970's, and about 1/2 of it is embarrassingly bad or just plain dumb.

The grad experience doesn't count. Grad students are so out of the loop that it's hilarious. Sure, they think they know what's going on, but they don't. Poor postdocs are even more marginalized and isolated.

As far as the reasons why articles on global warming get published: a) peer review merely suggests that the idea is popular and not obiously irrational and/or utterly insane; and b) the evidence appears at this time to support rather than dismiss certain hypotheses.

The reasons why the opposing view's articles dont' get published are likewise simple: a) people want tenure and promotion and they're not going to get it by having their articles repeatedly rejected, so even if a person disagrees, she or he is not going to say it and certainly not going to write it; b) the idea that anthrogenic climate change isn't happening is so utterly asinine as to render peer review unnecessary.

The only questions that remain in my mind are a) is the environment such a lost cause that I should start burning industrial waste in my backyard; or b) should I be happy that the biosphere will eventually bounce back after our population is reduced by a series of unspeakable Mathusian checks back to a safe level. Currently, it is my opinion that only totalitarianism can slow down the process of climate change, so there's really no point caring about the environment anymore.

[nam78_two]

66. What field are you in?

I can only speak for my own field admittedly (I am in Biophysics)-which granted is pretty far removed from climate science. Typically these days the only research that gets any funding is the kind where there is a relatively large number of people working on the same thing. There is a certain "reliability" in the process in the sense that, in the general case, people are going to try and build on the work published by their peers. The process is fairly self-correcting. How many times have we seen retractions, those long back and forths between different groups of researchers on the editorial pages of these journals. An experiment or a theory that is clearly pointing in the wrong direction can stick around for a while, but they certainly lose their credibility with the majority of the people in the area.

>>I frequently come into contact with scholarship from the 1920's to the 1970's, and about 1/2 of it is embarrassingly bad or just >>plain dumb.

I don't assume that it would be impossible to come across bad science. But what percentage is it of the total body of research done
? Besides, the significant improvement attained in terms of the accuracy of scientific measurements and techniques over the last 30 or so years can hardly be ignored. Most of the science that we base the medical treatments that we use is based on theories or research done in the natural sciences. I don't understand why a higher degree of skepticism is applied to the sciences when it relates to something we don't use on a day to day basis.

[ecstatic]

51. lmao @ option 2 nt

[uppityperson]

53. These are 650 different research papers, right? Not just cross linked to each other?

I voted option 1, wanted to make sure you meant different papers, not just people saying "X said" over and over.

[johnaries]

58. Peer Reviewed simply means it has been reviewed by peers -

other scientists. Altough other scientists may not agree with the conclusions of the peer reviewed literature, they have vetted it to the point that the facts presented as evidence have been checked and the reasoning is valid.

An important item that you have not mentioned is that almost every scientist who is raising questions about human influence in climate change has ties to the petroleum industry. One of the loudest critics to receive funding from the oil industry, Fred Singer, was also hired by Phillip-Morris to "debunk" the dangers of smoking and second-hand smoke. A simple Google search his name will bring up many interesting tidbits about him and his "work".

I also hear he's releasing a book soon.

[Gwerlain]

60. There is a paper I found...

that talks about scientific levels of certainty in terms of legal levels of certainty, and percentages. I think this is an important step, and I hope many scientists will take heed.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1748-9326/1/1/014003/erl6_1_014003.html

[Bluebear]

61. Another choice: "I'd rather have a beer with Bush!"

That's what helped get us into this mess.