4 ms·

Can someone comment about this recent study: "Effect of human activity on climate change insignificant"[1]? 1. http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news

Can someone comment about this recent study: "Effect of human activity on climate change insignificant"[1]? 1. http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16562-finnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-insignificant.html http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/finland/finland-news/domestic/16...

lumberjack 7y ago
"The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points." FTA you linked but didn't read.
- sampo 7y ago
  > The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed Not defending the content of the paper (haven't read it), but it's really stupid to criticize a paper that has recently been submitted to a preprint server for not being peer reviewed.
  - acdha 7y ago
    > it's really stupid to criticize a paper that has recently been submitted to a preprint server for not being peer reviewed. Isn't the entire point of the peer review process to have experts in the field review the methodology and reasoning? It seems reasonable to note that although something may appear to be an academic paper it has not yet been reviewed and thus is more likely to have problems.
    - sampo 7y ago
      Pretty much all physics papers/manuscripts are first available on the arXiv server, while the authors are waiting for the journal peer review process, which takes several months, to go through. That's how physicists have worked for over 20 years already. You could take any physics paper/manuscript in its pre peer review state, and criticize it for not being peer reviewed.
ahoy 7y ago
It certainly seems like lots of people have already https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-ma...
dev_dull 7y ago
I guess it seems important to say I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions of the paper, I just saw it starting to circulate and wanted to know HN thoughts on it.

lumberjack 7y ago

"The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed and other climate scientists have refuted the conclusions reached by Kauppinen and Malmi. Critics have said that in addition to not being peer reviewed, Malmi and Kauppinen fail to provide correct physical explanation, have not linked to- or sited to enough sources to support their claims and although they denounce climate models, they use one themselves to prove their own points." FTA you linked but didn't read.

sampo 7y ago
> The paper has been criticised for not being peer reviewed Not defending the content of the paper (haven't read it), but it's really stupid to criticize a paper that has recently been submitted to a preprint server for not being peer reviewed.
- acdha 7y ago
  > it's really stupid to criticize a paper that has recently been submitted to a preprint server for not being peer reviewed. Isn't the entire point of the peer review process to have experts in the field review the methodology and reasoning? It seems reasonable to note that although something may appear to be an academic paper it has not yet been reviewed and thus is more likely to have problems.
  - sampo 7y ago
    Pretty much all physics papers/manuscripts are first available on the arXiv server, while the authors are waiting for the journal peer review process, which takes several months, to go through. That's how physicists have worked for over 20 years already. You could take any physics paper/manuscript in its pre peer review state, and criticize it for not being peer reviewed.

ahoy 7y ago

It certainly seems like lots of people have already https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-manuscript-falsely-claims-natural-cloud-changes-can-explain-global-warming/ https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/non-peer-reviewed-ma...

dev_dull 7y ago

I guess it seems important to say I don’t necessarily agree with the conclusions of the paper, I just saw it starting to circulate and wanted to know HN thoughts on it.