Jones and CRU exonerated

I think you're quite deep in a hole right now, but just to help you along, I didn't say popularity increased the value of a paper. I said popularity is indicative of the value of a paper. I.e, if a paper is popular, that is likely because it is seen as a good paper by the people who would know.

This is not always true, however. Sometimes a paper is cited just to show how wrong it was.
:dl:

So now you are explaining to me why citation count is a bad way of assessing a paper? LOL, self-defeating arguments FTW!

Firstly, these papers are well cited and have not been falsified. Secondly, the acid test in science is not citations but whether a point is right or wrong, based on logic, reasoning and evidence. But I recognise that if you don't understand the content of the paper, and are desperate to show something is wrong, any port in a storm will do.

I'll leave you to keep digging your hole now.
Touché
 
Then you are arguing with the wrong people. We've been arguing on the basis of citations and peer acceptance. Since the paper Coolsceptic is pushing has has neither he tried to write those off as "popularity".

Straw man. This isn't about one paper, and you have been told this. But it is unsurprising that you try to reduce it to this, because it is the only argument you have left.

In the last thread, where you started this ridiculous citation count thing, I listed several articles, one of which had a citation count of circa 1100, another with a citation count of circa 1900. You ignored those two and referred to an overview paper (which helps explain things in laymans terms, but was unlikely to get cited much - but the twenty or so papers it called up were largely well cited).

You've been told this over and over. And yet you ignore it. Because it is the only argument you have left, and it is plain wrong.

Once more, in case you missed it: 1900 citations is not a low number. Get over it.
 
Yawn. No one is disagreeing that there is some persistence in climate. We can even come up with mechanisms for it, like the ice-albedo feedback.

And that is the fundamental problem here CS is under the belief that persistence is a purely statistical effect and that its presence proves there is no underlying physical effect. (What it actually proves is there is a non-linearity in the system, AKA a tipping point.)
 
My point was (and I believe it remains valid) that citation record is somewhat questionable as a check of a papers validity. Given that the other measures you noted are subjective and thus highly vulnerable to personal bias*, then surely the best judge of a paper’s worth is its contents?

What you are really saying we should rely on is personal opinion of the contents. This is far more subject to personal bias then any of the measures I’ve mentioned. Even a relatively informed opinion is going to be missing much of the nuance and larger context around the paper.

In fact it’s almost impossible for a paper to even make it into a serious journal if it doesn’t make sense on the surface to someone without the required context. This doesn’t prevent complete hogwash from getting published. This is in part because it’s not uncommon at all for a flawed paper to seem perfectly sound to someone outside that specialty, furthermore even people of the same specialty may not catch all the flaws, and the flaws they do catch may require some time.

IMO, unless you are actively publishing in the same field you should never trust your own assessments of a papers contents. Instead you need to take the paper, the comments/responses to it, follow up work, and work on which the paper follows up into account and evaluate all this as a whole. When a paper has few citations, however, it will lack the required debate and context to properly asses its contents, and you are back to that subjective personal opinion thing.
 
I don't claim to be an authority, and I gave you credit for going to the literature (which puts you years ahead of anyone else on this forum).

For which you have my undying gratitude.

Yes, and he also shows that reconstructions have non-overlapping variances, which if you accept the case you put forward, "proves" that one reconstruction has AGW in it and the other doesn't, even though they both cover the last one thousand years. Which is clearly wrong.

Luckily, Halley is honest enough to acknowledge this clearly in the paper and recognises that the data aren't good enough to draw the conclusion you desperately want to draw. Halley recognises the systematic errors in the reconstructions (e.g. von Storch's paper) and outlines what would be needed to improve them.
Which is why he stated:
"The reconstructed series show considerable variability among themselves. This is true not only for specific differences in temperature but also for the amounts of variability and spectral exponents. However, no matter which reconstruction is used to parameterize an LTP model of natural variability, a trend of 0.61
2218.gif
/century for Δt=157 is highly unlikely. Thus if natural variability is to explain the current trend with better than a marginal probability, all reconstructed series must be underestimating natural variability. Furthermore, the variance that has “gone missing” from the reconstructions must be many times greater than the current maximum-variance reconstruction. For example, the second d’Arrigo series, with the greatest chance for natural variability to explain the trend, would need to have over four times its present variance."

Once again: in science it isn't enough to read a paper and cherry pick your own conclusions. You need to understand what the paper is saying, with all of the nuances and caveats.
Ah, now I understand. When reading a scientific paper, one should ignore the author's interpretations and conclusions and focus on the nuances. Quoting the conclusions is cherry-picking. I'll try to remember this next time.
 
What you are really saying we should rely on is personal opinion of the contents. This is far more subject to personal bias then any of the measures I’ve mentioned.
All the methods you mentioned are subjective.

In fact it’s almost impossible for a paper to even make it into a serious journal...
Please provide the objective method for determining a "serious" journal.

When a paper has few citations, however, it will lack the required debate and context to properly asses its contents, and you are back to that subjective personal opinion thing.
Citations do not determine scientific validity they simply represent popularity.
 
What you are really saying we should rely on is personal opinion of the contents. This is far more subject to personal bias then any of the measures I’ve mentioned. Even a relatively informed opinion is going to be missing much of the nuance and larger context around the paper.

In fact it’s almost impossible for a paper to even make it into a serious journal if it doesn’t make sense on the surface to someone without the required context. This doesn’t prevent complete hogwash from getting published. This is in part because it’s not uncommon at all for a flawed paper to seem perfectly sound to someone outside that specialty, furthermore even people of the same specialty may not catch all the flaws, and the flaws they do catch may require some time.

IMO, unless you are actively publishing in the same field you should never trust your own assessments of a papers contents. Instead you need to take the paper, the comments/responses to it, follow up work, and work on which the paper follows up into account and evaluate all this as a whole. When a paper has few citations, however, it will lack the required debate and context to properly asses its contents, and you are back to that subjective personal opinion thing.

You seem to be suggesting that I should trust other people's opinions of a paper before my own? Who are these reliable arbiters of papery goodness? Do they carry a badge? Does Anthony Watts count? :D
 
All the methods you mentioned are subjective.

What "objective" measure would you say separates a good paper from a bad one? Feel free to go in to as much detail as possible on how you plan to quantify the validity of a paper.

Please provide the objective method for determining a "serious" journal.

excluding ones named "energy and environment" is a good start...

Citations do not determine scientific validity they simply represent popularity.

perfect, because science never proves anything is valid. Consensus among the experts is as good as it gets.
 
What "objective" measure would you say separates a good paper from a bad one? Feel free to go in to as much detail as possible on how you plan to quantify the validity of a paper.
You have so far been unable to do so.

excluding ones named "energy and environment" is a good start...
You hate for the peer-reviewed academic journal is noted.

perfect, because science never proves anything is valid. Consensus among the experts is as good as it gets.
And reproducible results don't exist.
 
Yes she supports debate and doe not arbitrarily reject skeptical papers.

No, she accepts bad articles because it corresponds to her politics. Didn't you read the quote?

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. It seems it has some form of referee system, but it seems this system is inadequate to get it listed as peer reviewed, indicating that it is flawed, which is what many leading scientists have claimed.

I think this discussion is rather dumb, to be honest. Everyone who has ever had anything to do with a scientific institution knows about peer-review, what to look for and what not to look for. E&E is clearly an attempt to push bad science through a mirage of peer-review, thus lending credibility to it in a time were the attacks on science is funded by multi-billion dollar organizations. As E&E is not listed by ISI, anything published in it isn't going to get noticed. Denialists, of course, rectify this by spreading every piece of trash article that lends credence to their ideology on blogs and forums. Real science, however, goes on and when this war on science is over and done with, journals like E&E will be long forgotten.
 
No, she accepts bad articles because it corresponds to her politics. Didn't you read the quote?
Lie, her quote states no such thing.

Energy and Environment is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals. It seems it has some form of referee system, but it seems this system is inadequate to get it listed as peer reviewed, indicating that it is flawed, which is what many leading scientists have claimed.
ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO's "Academic Search" and Elsevier's "Scopus". Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.

The academic journal is clearly peer-reviewed,

EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)

"E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

...thus lending credibility to it in a time were the attacks on science is funded by multi-billion dollar organizations.
You mean where climate science is funded by a multi-billion dollar government grant system and trillions in government regulations,

Climate Money: The Climate Industry: $79 billion so far – trillions to come (PDF)
 
Lie, her quote states no such thing.

I'd say it's pretty explicit.

ISI (Institute for Scientific Information) is owned by the multi-billion dollar Thomson Reuters corporation and offers commercial database services (Web of Knowledge) similar to other companies services such as EBSCO's "Academic Search" and Elsevier's "Scopus". Whether a journal is indexed by them is purely subjective and irrelevant to the peer-review status of the journal.

Welcome to the real world, Poptech, were things aren't automatic. Of course it's subjective. Someone had to evaluate the journal and decide "no, this ain't fit for listing with us". It's subjective, but based on guidelines. I'm sorry, but your pet journal just doesn't measure up. It is on par with the journal the Discovery Institute started to get ID articles through "peer-review".

The academic journal is clearly peer-reviewed,

EBSCO; Energy & Environment: Peer-Reviewed - Yes, Academic Journal - Yes (PDF)

"E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

Like I said, it is clear that the journal does have some form of referee system. It just doesn't measure up to the standards of other journals. It could be because the editor is biased and open about it. I'd like to see how she choses which scientists get to review denialist papers.

You mean where climate science is funded by a multi-billion dollar government grant system and trillions in government regulations,

No, I mean privately funded by private organizations without any form of public insight. Organization which are profit driven, giving money to "scientists" to lie about science, and publish bad science to support their agenda.

This is as opposed to government grants which makes no one rich, but is publicly funded with full disclosure. I'm sorry, Poptech, but there's just no comparison. One side is motivated by greed (incidentally, your side), and the other isn't.


Ah, yes. Government expenditure on climate related things is comparable to private funds being transfered to people to lie about science. Really, Poptech, you aren't very good at this, are you?

I should damn well hope they increase expenditure on climate research, as well as alternative energy and energy savings plans. $79 billion is shamefully little, given the defense budget for the US alone is $663.8 billion. Come on, world governments, you can do better than that.

Incidentally, Poptech, as you liked that article, you will love this book. It shows the financial dealings of the anti-science side.
 
The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President; its website draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton. SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."[1]


Background


Ferguson

Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.
Between March 4, 2005 and May 10, 2006 Ferguson edited a weekly bulletin titled Climate Weekly, then Climate and Environment Weekly and finally Climate and Environment Review, which was published by the Center for Science and Public Policy.[2][3]

Origin of SPPI

The initial media release of the Institute appears to have been issued on June 1, 2007. The release -- supporting the statements made by the then NASA Administrator Michael Griffin questioning global warming -- also listed Harriette Johnson from the Chicago-based think thank, the Heartland Institute as a media contact.[4]
From mid-July 2007 SPPI began publishing SPPI eWire, which is identical in content style to CSPP's Climate Weekly, Climate and Environment Weekly and Climate and Environment Review.[5] (SPPI is in the same building as CSPP, though in different offices - SPPI at Suite 299).[6] and CPPR at Suite 2100.[7]

SPPI name

Ferguson founded and named this group approximately eight years after George L. Carlo had founded the identically-named, pro-public-health Science and Public Policy Institute, to work on issues such as electro-magnetic radiation and health issues.
Ferguson states he was oblivious to the existence of Carlo's group, and that it was only after registering his organization in Virginia that he discovered Carlo's group existed, but by then his group had created the website and printed their stationery.[8]

Funding

On its website SPPI does not detail the sources of its funding or outline its approach to disclosure.

Personnel

While the SPPI seems primarily to be the work of Ferguson, it also features on it website the work of other prominent climate change skeptics who are involved with one or more other anti-Kyoto treaty groups.
The SPPI website lists its "personnel" as being[9]:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute]

rogues gallery indeed and his "paper" is by Joanne Nova :rolleyes:

:dl:

For some time - Google “Monckton” and “Nobel Prize” and see for yourself - the great sceptic-in-chief has been passing himself off as a Nobel Laureate.
Cornered last month by the Sydney Morning Herald, he reportedly said it was “a joke, a joke.”
Yet the website of his organisation, the Science and Public Policy Institute - as of yesterday - continues to press the claim. The site is extremely specific. Lord Monckton “earned the status of Nobel Peace Laureate (through) his contribution to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report in 2007.” That contribution itself is detailed. Furthermore, the website continues, “his Nobel Prize pin…was presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York.”
What credible person would not correct the error immediately - if it is indeed an error.
To be sure, I rang the Nobel Committee that administers the Peace Prize.
Committee secretary Geir Lundestat had never heard of Lord Monckton. I emailed him the Monckton website.
“The claim is ridiculous,” said Lundestat. “He is not a laureate - no way, no way.”
Thousands of people, he said, participated in the program of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which shared the 2007 prize with Al Gore.
“But the organisation won the prize. Not even Dr Rajendra Pachauri (the chair of the IPCC) is an individual laureate.”
No individual, no matter what their involvement with the IPCC, can pass themselves off an a Nobel Laureate.
As for Lord Monckton’s Nobel Prize pin?
“It certainly wasn’t issued by us,” said Lundestat. “We have no pin.”
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/lord-monckton-nobel-prize/

Fine fellow travellers Poptech idolizes...:garfield:
 
Last edited:

You mean to say that a denialist organization (laughably used as a source by Poptech)...

*gasp*

... lies? Surely Poptech couldn't have known about this or he would never have used them as a source, right Poptech?

I sure would like to get a Nobel Prize pin. It must have been odd for Munchkin to get it from a British person when the Nobel Peace Prize is handed out by a Norwegian institution.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom