It seems that every so often, on an increasingly regular basis, industry pundits put out "evidence" that global warming is a myth, or at the least that such temperature fluctuations that we are now experiencing have historical analogs. Looking over the article, I see very little real science about it. They cite ring width analyses as a measure of current climatological conditions, yet there is so much more to dendrochronology than just temperature (I myself have done a research project using dendrochronology). Also, they say that they replicated MBH98's procedures "as closely as we could using publicly available documentation." If this were a true scientific paper, the authors would have been in contact with the authors of the paper in question, receiving help and guidance in replicating their procedure. Science is not a secretive venture like business.
Perhaps what concerns me most is the fact that this journal is not peer reviewed. Neither of the authors have any sort of background in climate history research, or atmospheric science for that matter. One is an economist and the other has been an officer on mining expeditions. Their concerns do not seem to lie in contributing to a larger body of science, but promoting their viewpoint for business interests.
Slashdot Mirror
What? A link? This is Slashdot -- I want your post to be funny without having to click any more.
It seems that every so often, on an increasingly regular basis, industry pundits put out "evidence" that global warming is a myth, or at the least that such temperature fluctuations that we are now experiencing have historical analogs. Looking over the article, I see very little real science about it. They cite ring width analyses as a measure of current climatological conditions, yet there is so much more to dendrochronology than just temperature (I myself have done a research project using dendrochronology). Also, they say that they replicated MBH98's procedures "as closely as we could using publicly available documentation." If this were a true scientific paper, the authors would have been in contact with the authors of the paper in question, receiving help and guidance in replicating their procedure. Science is not a secretive venture like business. Perhaps what concerns me most is the fact that this journal is not peer reviewed. Neither of the authors have any sort of background in climate history research, or atmospheric science for that matter. One is an economist and the other has been an officer on mining expeditions. Their concerns do not seem to lie in contributing to a larger body of science, but promoting their viewpoint for business interests.