Is the "Science" of global warming like the "Science" of parapsychology?

Question

Parapsychology is taught in many fine universities, for example: Princeton University, the University of Arizona, the University of Edinburgh, the University of Amsterdam, and the University of Hertfordshire in England. and the University of Virginia.

Anyone of these universities will give you a degree or even a doctorate in the field of Parapsychology Science.

If a parapsychology researcher writes a paper, and submits it to his peers, who accept the research as valid and correct, does this mean we can talk to the dead?

Really, what is the purpose of peer review? Isn’t this just a very low bar designed to protect the butts of magazine publishers?

Does the acceptance of an idea by someone with the same beliefs prove the idea correct?

Answer 1

The "science" of global warming is most like the "science" of Santa Clause.  If people would only stay awake and peek out from behind the sofa now and then, they would learn the truth.  It aint as we are being told by the earth religioneers.  Enviropope Algore is a liar.

Answer 2

Yes of course, but it's usually isolated to specific community. You see this all the time in the real world. The list includes every conceivable group of professional standards ethics boards in existences. Some have been caught doing dirty deeds, after all you have to realize those that  make up review grouping do have a vested interest. "Nothing like having a paid professional witness in a court room." What's the difference, if it's International,Federal, or State. Try to get a Doctor to testify against another, same with most any standards committee.

Answer 3

Jello, surely even you know that the purpose of peer review is not to establish whether the conclusion of a paper is true or false, but simply to assess whether certain established standards have been met.

Answer 4

The two are the same if data are collected and analyzed objectively.  You seem to be making the straw-man argument that parapsychology is by definition subjective, therefore all climate research is subjective.  But claiming you can't do true scientific research on parapsychology is ridiculous and shows a very low level understanding of what objective research entails.  

Your philosophy is that rejection of an idea by someone with the same beliefs as you proves the idea is incorrect.  How is that different from your last question?

Answer 5

I think you've dug about as deep as you can. Stop while you have some dignity! Please, do us all a favor.

Answer 6

"Peers" may be competitors, happy to rip an idea or thesis to shreds if at all possible.  At any rate, they are most likely to be familiar with the logic and knowledge base of the particular subject, and may actually care; even if most of a journals' readers only take it to have something prestigious for their bookshelf, or a reference for their library.

Answer 7

What you seem to be missing here, 'lo, is that nobody thinks peer review establishes what constitutes correct science. It is simply the standard which all scientific research is held to.

In other words, I might not accept a piece of peer reviewed research, but I absolutely will not accept a piece of research that hasn't passed peer review.

Just like your analogy with chiropractors earlier (and I agree with you that chiropractic medicine is to a large extent quackery), those that get published aren't necessarily right. But those who *don't* get published almost certainly are wrong.

What puzzles me about most of you AGW skeptics is you seem to prefer that research not be submitted to peer review at all. The process may not be perfect, but it's definitely better than no quality control whatsoever.

Answer 8

Peer review is a way for people to have their work published to let others know what they have done so that it can be recreated by someone else and either supported or disproved. It's how people get to know what other people in their field are doing, and by building off each others work, supporting it, improving it, or dismissing it, we are able to make strides in different areas. This is how theories are formed... people do the same types of experiments over and over in different conditions and if it supports their hypothesis time after time, they become theories and maybe even laws eventually. Peer review is in support of this process. It's not that the peers accept this belief and therefore it's true, it's that they are able to recreate the circumstances and see whether it works again or the person who wrote the article is phony.

As for global warming, I'm not sure what will happen, but I believe people are correct in thinking we have an impact on this planet, and with all of the polution we are doing and the natural resources we are taking up, I have no doubt it is going to be negative. And it's nice that people can think it won't happen for billions of years, but I feel that's a bit hopeful.

Hope I helped.

Answer 9

You can't compare the two of them at all.

What's your point? Just because you can't show any peer reviewed reports showing AGW is false you don't like the standard? If peer reviewed papers are so easy to get, why don't you show us some "skeptic" peer reviews so you can please those of us who thinks it's at least the best you can get to ensure quality on a study?

Answer 10

"Does the acceptance of an idea by someone with the same beliefs prove the idea correct?"

If they have the same 'religion'/belief they will only see one perspective.

We should all know about the 'Father of Global Warming' - James Hansen

http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaun...

Most people should by now be aware that Pharmaceutical Companies purchase science to twist facts and sell expensive drugs that kill.

http://www.tuberose.com/Science_For_Hire...

Just look up the word IATROGENIC = millions of victims of "Death by Doctor/Drugs' - which may soon be the second leading cause of death.

Answer 11

Put this in your 'Peer-Review' file:

The Truth About Scientific Consensus And Peer Review

By Robert Higgs

I do not pretend to have expertise in climatology or any of the related physical sciences, so nothing I might say about strictly climatological or related physical-scientific matters deserves any weight. However, I have thirty-nine years of professional experience―twenty-six as a university professor, including fifteen at a major research university, and then thirteen as a researcher, writer, and editor―in close contact with scientists of various sorts, including some in the biological and physical sciences and many in the social sciences and demography. I have served as a peer reviewer for more than thirty professional journals and as a reviewer of research proposals for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and a number of large private foundations.  So, I think I know something about how the system works.

Peer review, on which lay people place great weight, varies from important, where the editors and the referees are competent and responsible, to a complete farce, where they are not. As a rule, not surprisingly, the process operates somewhere in the middle, being more than a joke but less than the nearly flawless system of Olympian scrutiny that outsiders imagine it to be. Any journal editor who desires, for whatever reason, to knock down a submission can easily do so by choosing referees he knows full well will knock it down; likewise, he can easily obtain favorable referee reports. As I have always counseled young people whose work was rejected, seemingly on improper or insufficient grounds, the system is a c**p shoot. Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes. In no event can peer review ensure that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions.

At any given time, consensus may exist about all sorts of matters in a particular science. In retrospect, however, that consensus is often seen to have been mistaken. As recently as the mid-1970s, for example, a scientific consensus existed among climatologists and scientists in related fields that the earth was about the enter a new ice age. Drastic proposals were made, such as exploding hydrogen bombs over the polar icecaps (to melt them) or damming the Bering Strait (to prevent cold Arctic water from entering the Pacific Ocean), to avert this impending disaster. Well-reputed scientists, not just uninformed wackos, made such proposals. How quickly we forget.

Robert Higgs is Senior Fellow in Political Economy for The Independent Institute and Editor of the Institute’s quarterly journal The Independent Review. He received his Ph.D. in economics from Johns Hopkins University, and he has taught at the University of Washington, Lafayette College, Seattle University, and the University of Economics, Prague. He has been a visiting scholar at Oxford University and Stanford University, and a fellow for the Hoover Institution and the National Science Foundation.

He is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Gary Schlarbaum Award for Lifetime Defense of Liberty, Thomas Szasz Award for Outstanding Contributions to the Cause of Civil Liberties, Lysander Spooner Award for Advancing the Literature of Liberty, Friedrich von Wieser Memorial Prize for Excellence in Economic Education, and Templeton Honor Rolls Award on Education in a Free Society.

Answer 12

What I do know is that Robert Higgs, the source that BB is using, is a liar.  He states:

"In retrospect, however, that consensus is often seen to have been mistaken. As recently as the mid-1970s, for example, a scientific consensus existed among climatologists and scientists in related fields that the earth was about the enter a new ice age."

  This is in no way true.  No real scientist would make such a statement of falsehood and expect to get away with it.  

There was nothing even close to a  consensus about global cooling.

What there was, was a handful of scientists who theorized about global cooling in 1972.  

By 1975, the lead scientist recanted, saying he had under estimated the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11...

"It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.

"Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions."

"In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion."

  I'm afraid  skeptics are going to have to find some better sources.

Oh now I see, after reading BB's answer a little further, it is obvious that Rober Higgs isn't even a scientist.  He's an economist.  LOL  What  a joke!

Answer 13

I wouldn't even stop there.  I would probably include psychology as a similar "science" since it seems to be more about guessing what they think might be probably maybe happening.  I remember hearing once that the psychologists were the preist cast of the leftwing society so I'm guessing I will get lots of thumbs down from the alarmists poking fun at their religion.

Answer 14

You present no more than a red herring argument and as such have again proved that your bias supersedes any legitimate argument.

But nothing new.

Answer 15

Not at all. I've followed parapsychology for years. The evidence is weak, few scientists believe in it, most laugh at it. You can lose your career by simply having an interest in it.

How is this like AGW? What a pisspoor analogy. Peer review PREVENTS c**p like unreplicable psi experimentation from becoming mainstream science, the same way peer review prevents fringe unreplicable anti AGW theories from becoming adopted by the mainstream.

AGW is gaining evidence all the time. More and more people believe it. More and more skeptics are recanting or getting quiet about it. I am curious what parallel universe you are writing from. Your analogy works against the point you are trying to make.

Answer 16

I agree- peer review is useless.  GW is comprised of lots of unsubstantiated data that was incomplete to start with.  So, science "filled in the gaps" with the number they "thought" should go there-

My biggest problem with GW goes back to the fact that there were no cars or humans to pull us out of the first ice age- I think it shows extreme egotism to assume that the human race can that drastically effect the temperature of the earth- if our power is that strong, then we should be able to stop tornados, hurricanes, droughts, etc.

I'm not convinced!  Not sure I ever will be!  I read Michael Crighton's book State of Fear- quite an eye opener!  It explains many of the flaws of GW!

Answer 17

Peer review means absolutely NOTHING!  As far as being accepted...  Well, look at Jim Jones, Hale Bop, David Koresh, Charles Manson....  Were their followers correct?

I think if a few can follow blindly, then give them some media attention, then you can have masses follow blindly.

I think an inconvenient truth was perfectly timed around Iraq and Afghanistan and gave the Bush haters something to latch onto.  Some of my friends even KNOW that the data is flawed but believe in it anyway, for absence of another trendy fad to follow.  I have them scientology pamphlets instead. lol