| 
Posted Jul 30, 2009 by Devonseaglass-dsg
Entry: The Science of Climate Change - A55110566
Author: DSG - U13965605
I am innocent until proven.
|
 
|  | |
| |
Posted Jul 31, 2009 by Giford
Hi DSG,
I only skimmed through this, but my first impressions are two things:
There are a few points where style might be an issue - notably the last sentence.
I'm not convinced that this is strictly neutral. I realise this can be an emotive issue, but there is good evidence that climate change is happening (i.e. the Earth is measurably warmer now than it was 20 years ago); even 'denialists' dispute only mankind's role in this. And again, the idea that CO2 causes 'only' a certain percentage of global warming and thus an increase in CO2 will cause no noticeable warming is spurious. Only about 16% of my body mass is fat - that doesn't mean that fatty foods won't noticeably increase my weight. There is also direct evidence of a correlation between prehistoric atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures. And so on.
One thing that I have seen work well in the past with controversial Entries is to get someone to write a 'paired' Entry giving the other side of the case. That might work here.
That 'someone' won't be me though - this is not my field!
Gif 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 31, 2009 by h5ringer - The Maestro Cat
I'll need time to read this more carefully, but one thing grabbed me immediately:
<<Einstein’s famous equation that relates the speed of light with energy>>
Einstein’s famous equation that relates *mass to* energy
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 31, 2009 by Devonseaglass-dsg
Giford,
Thank you for your thoughts. It is difficult not to take a side in this emotive issue. I hoped to avoid that by discussing the science and not the result of climate change. Is the science up to the job? Are we being duped by emotion and not saved by vigorous science? It's a fine line between a 'scare' and a scientifically supported hypothesis.
Why do we have to rely on a scientific 'consensus' on this issue? Did Einstein have to drum up a consensus?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 31, 2009 by Devonseaglass-dsg
h5ringer,
Thanks, you are right, but he speed of light also.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 31, 2009 by Devonseaglass-dsg
Gif,
Another thought; the peer review process in most scientific journals does not use a consensus based process. Referees submit their opinions individually and there is not a strong effort to reach a group opinion.
This is scientific rigour.
When a hypothesis has to rely on a consensus, many people are avoiding the need to repeat the experiment and do the science.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Jul 31, 2009 by Giford
Hi DSG,
Yes, you're right about (scientific) peer review - the idea is to eliminate obvious errors, not to support the 'mainstream view'.
Peer Review in h2g2, though, is (partly) there to ensure that personal opinion is not part of the Edited Guide - we're supposed to be an encyclopeidia. I don't want a long debate with you in this thread about it - I've made my point, and a long debate would only damamge your chances of getting this Entry into the Guide, which is always a shame. I will leave it to others to say whether they agree with me or not.
And I remind everyone that I didn't read the Entry properly, I only skimmed it.
<aside>
Einstein's equation could be written as c=e/c^2, thus relating the speed of light to energy. But it's not usual.
</aside>
Gif
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 1, 2009 by Julzes--the_missing_letters_spell_yroix
If you want to be balanced, in the end you may get this through peer review with totally opposite conclusions. You failed to note much that is in the science, and I propose that h2g2 cannot handle a short article on the subject. Perhaps you should write about a subject where you really know what you are talking about. If you insist on this topic, learn more about it. Not fully researched. 
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 1, 2009 by Devonseaglass-dsg
Julzes, please explain waht you mean.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 2, 2009 by Julzes--the_missing_letters_spell_yroix
Tomorrow if you don't mind. I have a lot to do.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 3, 2009 by Julzes--the_missing_letters_spell_yroix
A short article on this particular subject could only be aimed at early elementary school students. This topic has to be handled with a relatively full history of the debate. Disdaining science or consensus scientific opinion is not going to get through a site such as hootoo, which is pretty dedicated to science. I'm sorry you think that science is a closed world. I don't know in what sense you mean this. Is it your experience that scientists won't talk with the general public? All areas of specialization are closed to the degree that one has to initiate oneself to the conventions and jargon.
Now, your section "What is science?" comes close to being a good section, but what I am saying is that in my opinion it could make up only one very small part of a good article that reads with an opposite conclusion.
What was said earlier about the speed of light being the wrong thing is correct. It is a constant as postulated by Einstein to resolve certain paradoxical results and relate the fields of electromagnetism and mechanics through his special theory of relativity. Yes, it appears on the opposite side of an equation from energy along with mass, but the multiplication by the square of the speed of light is the way that energy and mass are related, strictly speaking.
I'm not going to comment further. The piece of cake is just my symbol for zero out of 4 thumbs up. Fundamentally incorrect.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 4, 2009 by Not-so-bald-eagle
Congratulations on writing an entry on the climate that is neither hysterical nor boring. It's going to be hard to keep it controversy-free and for that I enjoy the 'science' approach. I think the first paragraph could be reworded a little, particularly the last two sentences (while having a private rant about the South Sea bubble of carbon permits designed to......[mumble, mumble, rant, rant]).
Similarly, I think you might take another look at the Conclusion, particularly the last paragraph (i'm not sure that the 'common' sense is that common).
You are brave taking on this topic and I hope a good cool-headed entry gets into the guide
 
PS I'm too lazy to check facts
PPS As regards opposing theories and the like, I think such a thing might be better in the Post
|
| | |
| |
Posted Aug 4, 2009 by Devonseaglass-dsg
Not so bald,
Thank you. I will ponder upon your remarkable suggestions and hope I am up to them and will improve my feeble attempt.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Sep 7, 2009 by Not-so-bald-eagle
|
| | |
| |
Posted Sep 8, 2009 by Julzes--the_missing_letters_spell_yroix
This is greatly improved, if I recall correctly. I'm not going to comment on it further because I don't want to sway other reviewers.
Good luck.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Sep 8, 2009 by Rockhound
|
| | |
| |
Posted Sep 28, 2009 by lanzababy - Pirate - Scout - adrift on life's ocean
I'm bringing this to the top of the pile - How's this one coming along DSG?
|
| | |
| |
Posted Sep 28, 2009 by Devonseaglass-dsg
Oh I made some changes in the light of comments, and twiddled around with it to make it a little less of a rant, and now its slowly decaying and releasing CO2 into the ether.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Sep 28, 2009 by lanzababy - Pirate - Scout - adrift on life's ocean
thanks DSG - it's a help to point out when you make edits, as people will re-read it. And further comments keep this alive at the top of PR.
|
| | |
| |
Posted Sep 28, 2009 by Devonseaglass-dsg
will do, thanks.
|
| | |
| |
| |
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
|
Home
Reply
