I don't know what the relevance of "one paper" is here. I didn't count them but we are talking about something like three dozen papers in high profile journals, by dozens of different authors, debating an important point.
Forgive me if I was unclear; I was not talking about one paper. I was talking about
any one paper: Does any paper's presence in a high-profile journal mean anything in and of itself? i.e. It got past the
first peer review process. RPSr was only enumerating the papers, identified as "peer-reviewed". Well, sure. They were reviewed by the--what--three or so reviewers and the editor to get into Nature (I'm by no means diminishing this achievement, btw). Then the real fun begins, as the rest of the field reads and comments on the work, perhaps tries to reproduce the results, suggests changes, refinements, etc. My point was the RPSr was only counting papers, not weighing their importance. Remember your accusation of me "counting scientists" when I said that I generally trust a consensus to even out the "quirkiness" of individual scientists?
I don't know the importance of the papers he listed, which is why I asked the question. I was not making an accusation that
one paper was ignored because it
was discredited. I was asking a sincere question of whether or not RPSr's enumeration of ignored papers was evidence enough of bias. I have doubts there, but am willing to be corrected.
Again you are missing the point completely. We are not talking about one peer-reviewed paper on one topic. We are talking about dozens on one specific topic, with contradictory viewpoints. This is not about being "discredited", this is about a debate in the scientific literature. Plus, you are speculating - if you think the papers have been "discredited", show us where.
I have never said that any of these papers were discredited; please do not misrepresent me. I said that the papers enumerated by RPSr were identified only as "peer-reviewed", which says nothing about how they survived in the wild. I am
curious about what has happened to them out there--I made no speculation. What happened to these papers? Were they accepted? repeated? verified? met with the sound of crickets? I am not a working climate scientist, so I do not read the whole of the primary literature; I was hoping that someone here was more familiar with the status of these papers.
Both you and CapelDodger are acting as if Roger Pielke is demanding his view as truth. This is absurd. He has not demanded that. He has pointed out that, in his view, an important debate in the literature has been ignored. He is suggesting it should be seen in parallel to the lead authors view. How hard is this to understand?
Ok. I'll accept that he is asking for balance. I never actually held the position that he was "demanding his view as truth", but I can see how my exchange with CapelDodger might give that impression. I have, however, held (and still do) that he is demanding that his view be
included. The articles that you linked read to me like a child not picked for the team. Yes, that was an ad hom. Yes, I should argue his message, not his voice. His voice, however, in these articles at least, was a bit strident and accusatory. He might persuade more people to his point of view if he did not preach so loudly to his choir. He certainly didn't persuade me (for what
that's worth!
)
The articles are evidence. Go and see how the articles read, and how the AR4 chapter 3 reads and note the difference. If you can show those articles have, in your words, been "discredited", then go do it. Otherwise we can sit here all day speculating about which papers have been "discredited" from complete ignorance.
Again, I
never accused these articles of being discredited. I stated that identifying them only as "peer-reviewed", as RPSr does, says nothing about their veracity or weight. I asked the question to you and other working scientists if their
mere publication made them more important than I am giving them credit for. I still contend (please correct me if I'm wrong) that a paper is not verified or considered relevant to a discussion until it has undergone some degree of vetting by other independent groups, either by repeating, or otherwise corroborating the experiments and results.
OK it is at this point that I see no point in going further. Conspiracy? Roger Pielke Sr accuses bias, not conspiracy.
Easy tiger
There is a fine line between believing that the IPCC WG1 writers all got together and decided to exclude RPSr's (and others') work (conspiracy) and all of the writers independently deciding to exclude RPSr's (and others') work (bias). I will however retract the word "conspiracy". He is not, however, doing himself any favors by writing in the tone of the articles you linked.
