"These findings may seem to imply that fewer storms in the future will be good news for disastrous western U.S. wildfires, but drier conditions near the ground combined with higher lightning
flash rates per storm may end up intensifying wildfire damage instead"
quote: The majority don't suggest a 10 degree rise either. But you say you "trust" those papers that claim this. Why is that?
quote: On the contrary, I do trust it. It does what its designed to do. What you fail to understand is that peer-review is not intended to validate the results or conclusions of research. Its a simple "minimum standards" check, not a full-scale audit. Reviewers read the paper-- that's it. They don't check the data or redo the calculations. That's not the goal of the process.
quote: 6) Scientists then conduct more experiments which may or may not support the previous finding. Models get revised and updated along the process.
quote: For popular journals that have a high number of submissions, peer review has a second purpose-- to ensure the paper is "newsworthy" enough. This step has nothing to do with the quality of the research...its based strictly on the novelty of the results.Peer-review works quite well in many cases. In others, it doesn't...which is why the field of astronomy (among others) has pretty much dispensed with peer-review entirely. Nearly all major researchers in astronomy now simply put their papers online in electronic format.