Slashdot Mirror

I would mod you up (have mod points) but I see you are already at 5. Unfortunately it seems ISI WoK is not free to access (and papers are mainly non-free.

Instead I would suggest to also look for the Public Library of Science (PLoS one) or Scirus.

If possible, Scopus is a really really *great* resource to find papers. Unfortunately it is also non-free.

It doesn't suit mine. I still prefer scirus to Google Scholar. For general needs yeah Google is good but why not want something even better?

The Economist's and Lawers and Law professors surely haven't been a part of or done the proper research. But "climatologist" didn't really exist as a well known "field" when I went through University 15 years ago. You may wish to check the publications for those on your list who are capable of doing such research despite not "being a climatologist". To be honest I wouldn't have even expected most "climatologists" today to call themselves "climatologists" - I mean how many universities have founded full fledged "departments of climatology" - but rather for them to be physicists and geologists (or something similar) - and just be *doing* climatology.

So let me grab two names at random from your list that you've already "discredited" simply because they don't have the official title of "climatologist" and see if they've got any proper publications in the field:

Dr. Henrik Svensmark: Physicist
http://www.scirus.com/srsapp/search?q=author%3ASve nsmark+Henrik&ds=jnl&ds=nom&g=s&t=all

I've had to go outside scirus for "Fred Goldberg" because it's kind of clunky when more than one person matches a last name, and I'm not certain how widely (in terms of scientific journals) it's database covers. Here's my best reference for "Fred Goldberg":

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:ouqkCiaX7fsJ:w ww.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx%3Fid%3D2178 +fred+goldberg+physicist+climate&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd= 3
"Goldberg is a member of the Swedish Royal Institute of Technology and earned his doctorate in Mechanical Engineering. He feels that not being a climatologist allows him to make scientific observations contradictory to mainstream opinion, whereas those in the field may be reluctant to express dissenting opinions for fear that it could damage their standing in the community. He has done considerable research in the area of climate change including participation in frequent expeditions from 1966 to the present to extract Arctic polar ice cores. "

I'm not claiming all of them are "on the level" - I certainly don't believe it was the Sun - and I'd probably agree it's an infomercial - but beware that you too can be falable and commit as grave an error as you claim they are making, and I am concluding that YES you are being sanctimonious.

I'm not being sanctimonious, but I'm not going to waste my time watching some infomercial. Have you watched "An Inconvenient Truth" yet or are you too sanctimonious?

I already know that Steve McIntyre and Dr. Ross McKitrick are not climatologists. Are any of them?

OK. So I've had to do a lot of work to get one name. Prof. Karlen is a climatologist. So, what was his contribution? If I do a Scirus search, I don't find much, but perhaps I'm not searching on the right terms. He wrote a paper in 1973 on Holocene climatic variations and another in 2000 on high-altitude fresh waters.

Ahah. I did another Scirus search and found this article. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be anything there. I really wish I knew what he had written as every other article I can find only deals with the holocene. Although the title is suggestive, it wouldn't be the first time that what one would infer from a title did not agree with the conclusions.

I'm not being sanctimonious, but I'm not going to waste my time watching some infomercial. Have you watched "An Inconvenient Truth" yet or are you too sanctimonious?

I already know that Steve McIntyre and Dr. Ross McKitrick are not climatologists. Are any of them?

OK. So I've had to do a lot of work to get one name. Prof. Karlen is a climatologist. So, what was his contribution? If I do a Scirus search, I don't find much, but perhaps I'm not searching on the right terms. He wrote a paper in 1973 on Holocene climatic variations and another in 2000 on high-altitude fresh waters.

Ahah. I did another Scirus search and found this article. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be anything there. I really wish I knew what he had written as every other article I can find only deals with the holocene. Although the title is suggestive, it wouldn't be the first time that what one would infer from a title did not agree with the conclusions.

I don't see http://scirus.com/ - scientific information search engine.

I do understand why intelligent, well-meaning, well-educated people (amongst others) will bring this up - especially if they lived through the 70's and were not involved with the climatology science itself (as very few were, of course). I would not be surprised, either, if you could find a small handful of climatologists (and possibly even journal articles) from the 70's who suggested this.

However, The difference is that it was never accepted by mainstream climatology. Therefore, the global cooling "alarmists" have more in common with the global warming "deniers" of today than with the global warming "alarmists" (and I use both words loosely). That makes this comparison invalid when arguing against "consensus science".

If you want to search journal articles form the 70's and 80's, you can always go here. You may not be able to pull up the entire article, but you should be able to find the abstracts. (You might want to be selective in your "Information types" - unless you want to get home pages, too.)

Research with Google scholar,

Real research is done by Scopus, Scirus or Citeseer.

Of course, some of those links are available only only subscription but, that is the state of the "free scientific knowledge" for the masses.

It sucks.

They actually are probably a huge contributor to the rate of research since they have enable researchers to more quickly find information.

No.

Looking for research information on Google is like looking using Wikipedia to quote information for a paper.

We researchers use the following (between other) places to do serious research:
Scirus
Citeseer
ACM digital library
JStor
PubMed

There are some other specialized catalogues for Economics (Jstor is quite good) or other non computer science related even directly Elsevier.

Of course your University library may be useful and proceedings tend to help too.

I will recommend you Scirus for scientific papers/information. It is really helpful and has nice refining features, I will try teoma anyway.

Google Scholar - fast, link to articles that cite it, no reference links, multiple sources, instituitional access, reliable, good ordering

CiteSeer - slow, citations, references, multiple sources (including local), bibtex entry, not a reliable server

PubMed - monster of medical related, fast, no citations, no references, single source, fast, reliable, not best ordering

Scirus - fast, reliable, no citations, no references, single source

Best feature wise is Citeseer but for overall experience Google Scholar puts on a good show

Also try Scirus from the facts at FAST. I've often had better luck there than on google.

anyone used this?

I thought "fair dealing" made provision for academic study of copyrighted material?

Yeah, but if the copyrighted material is only available at a large cost, then you can't study them.

The "fair dealing" provisions only allow you to copy some portions for the purposes of academic study, they don't guarantee the availability of the material.

To see what I mean, search for almost anything at scirus (the science search engine). Try reading any of the articles with the "ScienceDirect" links. Maybe you're a student, but they still want their money before you get to read their copyrighted materials.

Another great science search engine (though not a digital library) is Scirus.

It is immoral to ask the public to fund research with their tax dollars and then ask them to pay for it again if they want to see its results, via subscription costs.

There are already a few encyclopaedias online - one can be found here As to science related search engines - why not try Scirus.