Merged Recent climate observations disagreement with projections

TellyKNeasuss said:
P.S. I'm wondering why Dr. Stockwell chose to publish his critique in an energy industry propaganda journal rather than in a science journal.
Click to expand...
That is a valid question though I would reword it as:
I'm wondering why Dr. Stockwell did not publish his critique in a high impact, peer reviewed scientific journal.

A possible reason is that the paper is not a really scientific paper - it contains a mixture of science and political comment. Thus it is beter suited for a mixed journal like Energy and Environment despite the fact that it will have many fewer readers.
 
Reality Check said:
That is a valid question though I would reword it as:
I'm wondering why Dr. Stockwell did not publish his critique in a high impact, peer reviewed scientific journal.

A possible reason is that the paper is not a really scientific paper - it contains a mixture of science and political comment. Thus it is beter suited for a mixed journal like Energy and Environment despite the fact that it will have many fewer readers.
Click to expand...

My real question is why wasn't it published as a letter in Science. The only possibilities that occur to me are that Dr. Stockwell knew that he didn't have a valid criticism or that the editor of Science didn't think that Dr. Stockwell's criticism was significant enough to merit publishing.

My take on the Rahmstorf, et al., paper, unlike PopTech's, is that the motivation was to counter claims that the IPCC has over-estimated changes. I didn't take it as making a categorical claim that the IPCC has under-estimated changes, given how many caveats about the shortness of their time series they included in the paper.
 
Poptech said:
Please provide the scientific procedure for determining if a scientific journal is "high impact".
Click to expand...

You count the number of times articles in the journal in question are cited by other articles in other scientific journals.
 
Poptech said:
That is subjective criteria determined by ISI. There are other methods now thanks to the internet.

No I asked when does something become "high-impact"
Click to expand...
When it has an impact factor that is higher than the average impact factor.
ETA: I personally prefer the eigenfactor (but that does not even list Energy and Environment!).
 
Last edited:
Poptech said:
That is subjective criteria determined by ISI. There are other methods now thanks to the internet.
Click to expand...

Why is it "subjective"? And what are these "other methods"?

No I asked when does something become "high-impact"
Click to expand...

Something becomes "high-impact" when it is read and respected by pertinent people. And, yes, that is subjective. But you're not going to claim that Energy and Environment has anywhere near the impact of Science (which has an impact factor of 29.78), are you?
 
Poptech said:
Here you can read all about it from some real climatologists:

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions? (PDF) (Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Science, MIT)

Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know (Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D. Ecological Climatology ; Robert C. Balling, Ph.D. Professor of Climatology)
Click to expand...

Why don't you summarize for us what you learned from reading these and why you think that they raise legitimate doubts about AGW. I have no interest in purchasing a book. And I'm not impressed that you can name 3 "real climatologists" who agree with you; I personally know more than 3 people who were involved in writing the 4th IPCC assessment.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Why is it "subjective"? And what are these "other methods"?
Click to expand...
It is subjective because it is based on their ranking criteria. Other methods exist such as the ranking by author instead of journal.

TellyKNeasuss said:
Something becomes "high-impact" when it is read and respected by pertinent people. And, yes, that is subjective. But you're not going to claim that Energy and Environment has anywhere near the impact of Science (which has an impact factor of 29.78), are you?
Click to expand...
That is nice so you can freely define "high-impact". Since E&E is not listed by ISI it does not have their subjective "impact factor" and I am certain that if it was it would not be listed higher than Science. All of which is irrelevant to this paper and it's conclusions.

First it has to be "Peer-Reviewed", then when presented with that, it is subjective value criteria and on and on.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
Why don't you summarize for us what you learned from reading these and why you think that they raise legitimate doubts about AGW. I have no interest in purchasing a book. And I'm not impressed that you can name 3 "real climatologists" who agree with you; I personally know more than 3 people who were involved in writing the 4th IPCC assessment.
Click to expand...
Summary: Global Warming Alarm-ism is not supported by the science. The first paper you can read free of charge.

I can name hundreds of scientists that support my position. As for the IPCC report you may find this interesting.

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax (Canada Free Press)

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”
In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”.
Click to expand...
 
Poptech said:
It is subjective because it is based on their ranking criteria.
Click to expand...

What about their ranking criteria makes it subjective?

Other methods exist such as the ranking by author instead of journal.
Click to expand...

Would that not be a ranking of the impact of authors rather than of journals?

What in Stockwell's paper invalidates AGW?
 
Poptech said:
Recent climate observations disagreement with projections (PDF) (David R. B. Stockwell, Ph.D. Ecosystem Dynamics)

Computer Climate Model Validation has again failed despite the best attempts at mathematical deception by its proponents.
Click to expand...


If you ignore the last year then the trend is a steadily going up. So based on the previous 20 years of data in the graph the temperature change is going up. We can ignore the last year's data because it is still within the margin of error.

So what is the problem?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom