lindismith:
I wouldn’t take too much force in this publication on Wikipedia. I checked the history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benny_Peiser&action=history
and I see that during the past 3 months, that entry (the exact one you quoted) has been edited and changed several times. The reference I gave you was from Peiser’s own site. I take the site owners reference of his own material over wikipedia. In fact, the entry you quote was added after Nov 25, 2006 and not added by Peiser, but by someone under the alias Kim Dabelstein Peterson. ( less than 1min) NOTE: I may just bump this one up to Peiser to comment on for his own entry into the wiki. I also bookmarked Tim Lambert’s page..
Considering the emotional charge behind the subject, I reiterate, I would take the authors reference over the wiki’s which is publicly edited. In addition, the wiki is not a valid source for scientific papers.. but I do have to admit that it is a good start. College papers that quote wikipedia have received failing grades. (See reference on deletion of items with respect to NAR’s president in the wiki)
Another question would be at which point was the consensus shift and whether it was bandwagon jumping (as you suggested that I do at the end of your first reply). The emphasis on not rocking the boat and agreeing to concensus was noted on either the second or third reference that I gave you.
Again, I also reiterate.. and probably should have stated in the following manner: Science is NOT a voting machine. It does not work on the premise that the ‘results are in’ or ‘the science is in’. Note that even in your first quote above, which is from the wiki “However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous”. If a hypothesis has notable flaws in its projections, it is subject to review. Scientific work does not operate on the bulk number of papers, but on validating or invalidating conjectures, hypothesis(s), experiments, models etc on previous papers and in many cases proposing alternates. Note: The global warming models/hypothesis indicated ocean warming, but recent facts indicate the opposite has happened. This does not prove that the opposite of the hypothesis is true, but it indicates that the hypothesis of global warming through the action of CO2 is either incorrect, or incompletely understood.
Subnotes: I worry about papers whose justification is along the lines of “scientific uncertainties in predicting…that hinder aggressive policy making” (Fernau ME, Makofske WJ, South DW:Review and Impacts of Climate-change Uncertainties) it is too much of a cart before the horse problem.
One sub-paper I did like and will pursue when I have spare time is “Hudson JG: Journal of Applied Meterology 32(4): Apr 1993) – Cloud Condensation Nuclei.. which is also along the lines of a Russian paper on cosmic ray cloud ‘seeding’. Indeed the knowledge on CCN is insufficient. (Cloud formation also changes the light/IR absorption characteristics of water).
