Siteadmin, Check users, nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
30,650
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 475:
Line 475: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Science of global warming (view source)
Revision as of 14:07, May 15, 2007
, 14:07, May 15, 2007Emissions do have an effect, so let's describe this
:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
:Peer review of journal articles is the gold standard of publishing, but it is NOT the essence of the scientific method. Nor is it directly related to how science advances. Reading an article is one thing. [[Reproducibility of results]] is another. It can take years and even decades for enough scientists to confirm or disprove an idea which has been reported in a scientific journal. The [[History of science]] shows this. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 09:37, 15 May 2007 (EDT)
==AGW==
Cut from article:
:... contrasts with the effects predicted for [[anthropogenic global warming]].
What effects are predicted? And on what basis? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:07, 15 May 2007 (EDT)