Join us on November 14 for 24 Hours of Reality: The Dirty Weather Report. Broadcast live on the Internet, it’s an event that anyone can attend. And it’s your chance to join millions around the world to demand real solutions.
Taking place over 24 hours, this event will put a spotlight on every region of the globe — featuring news, voices, and multimedia content across all 24 time zones. Every hour will be different. You’ll hear from experts, musicians, comedians, and everyday people about the impacts of climate change on their lives and homes.
"Propaganda," William?
Leading the event will be our Chairman, former Vice President Al Gore, who will conclude with a presentation on November 15 at 7 p.m. Eastern Time.
Most of all, we want to hear from you. During these 24 hours, we’ll ask you to sign a pledge and join a global movement to demand action. You can join the social media conversation, make connections, and send us your ideas. Find out how we can, and we must, solve the climate crisis — and how you can help.
Myth: There is a problem with the peer-review process in general—and since the argument has become so politicized, climatologists who disagree with the consensus may be afraid to speak out.
“Climate change has tended to be caught in a straightjacket between so-called ‘skeptics’ and so-called ‘alarmists’ with seemingly little room left in the middle for people who may have reasonable doubts or heterodox views about the range of policy descriptions that should be considered for climate change of uncertain dimensions.”
–Steven F. Hayward and Kenneth Green, American Enterprise Institute, in “AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned,” Washington Post, February 5, 2007.
–Steven F. Hayward and Kenneth Green, American Enterprise Institute, in “AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned,” Washington Post, February 5, 2007.
Peer-reviewed research is research that has been published in a scholarly scientific journal after review by an expert peer or peers from the authors’ same field. The process is undertaken to ensure that authors meet the standards of their discipline, and to establish the validity and accuracy of the research. With an occasional exception, the peer-review process generally works quite well.
Today’s widely-held views on global warming are based on literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies. The research contained in these studies is scrupulously vetted to guarantee that it is based on solid scientific evidence and methodology, and that the conclusions contained therein stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Climatologists who disagree with consensus views have little to fear from the peer-review process as long as that research conforms to scientific standards. In any event, the research of a few scientists who may hold dissenting views—whether their research is published subject to peer-review or not—at best will add only a small bit of information to a very large body of well-reviewed, established knowledge.
For More Information:
- www.aip.org/history/climate/public2.htm
- www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/peer-review-a-necessary-but-not-sufficient-condition/
No comments:
Post a Comment