Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 Next
Comments 95451 to 95500:
-
WSteven at 07:30 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
I have to admit, it took me a couple of careful reads to absorb this article. So, just to make sure that I'm clear on this: 1. The MWP was an event localized to the more northerly latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. 2. The MWP was above average globally for that period, but not drastically. 3. Todays average global temperatures top those of the MWP. Correct me if I got any of that wrong, or missed anything. -
michael sweet at 07:22 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter, According to Wikipedia, the ocean masses about 1.3 billion gigatons. Greenland masses about 3 million gigatons of ice. It takes about 334 kj to melt one kg of ice and about 4 kj to raise one kilogram of water one degree celcius. I calculate it would raise the ocean about 0.2 C to melt all the ice in Greenland. The Antarctic is about 10 times bigger than Greenland so about 2C to melt all the ice in both ice sheets. I think the ocean can absorb more heat than the ice. -
robert way at 07:21 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
fydijkstra, Eye-balling it is a flawed methodology. Lets consider this though, I used 1981-2010 because it was the 30 year trend period. If I were trying to inflate the trend I would have used 1982 instead because 1981 had a really high anomaly. In fact if I use 1982 I get a trend of 7.2 per century and if I used 1986 to 2010 I get a trend of 8.0 per century... If I use your "cherry picked" 1920-1945 graph I get 3.5 per century. I assume you were trying to pick the coldest time to the warmest over that period so here it is, from 1917 to 1938 it warmed at 7.6 per century. Still less than the present warm period. But what is interesting about picking that time period is you are selecting from the trough associated with a major volcanic eruption and including the recovery in the trend. Regarding your other commentary, the NAO is not the key oscillation for determining the warmth of the Arctic, try the AMO which is well established to contribute to Arctic warmth (Chylek et al. 2009 and Chylek et al 2010). The early century warming had a much stronger positive AMO, extremely low volcanism, high solar irradience and a predominantly positive NAO. All the ingredients one would need for a warm period. Our current warm period in the Arctic is driven by GHG forcing with some contribution from the AMO and the remainder being likely due to ice albedo feedbacks which Flanner et al (2011) have found to be greater than previously understood. -
JMurphy at 07:09 AM on 17 February 2011It's the sun
Johngee, it seems to me that Mr Corbyn is always predicting freezing, Arctic-like conditions and so, like a broken clock telling the correct time twice a day by accident, so does Mr Corbyn. However, he hasn't been doing so good this year, as the following forecasts show : December 09: Wet and windy start giving way to severe Arctic blasts with heavy snow and blizzards in parts. Turning mild or very mild later – a ‘green’ Christmas before colder year end. I recall December being very cold, the coldest in a hundred years or something, but still he got it wrong. Ferocious and dangerous winter weather [for January 2011] Um, quite the opposite actually. [February] Overall much colder than normal with snowy Northerly / Easterly blasts at times Well, not so far, anyway but who is going to rely on that being correct...except by accident ! Jan AND Feb will be unusually cold in Britain, Ireland, & Europe Maybe I've been lucky not to have experienced any of that here in London ? Generally, the tone of his 'scientific predictions' and his website can be surmised from the following text, taken directly from the source : Constant references to 'ClimateGate News' ● ‘Global Warming’ forecasts will fail AGAIN. ● ‘Man Made Climate Change’ is failed science based on fraudulent data ● Gordon Brown & all politicians, please, PROVE IT or DROP IT ● 2010 is the year of the fight for evidence based science & policy ● Carbon Trading & all CO2 reduction schemes must stop. ● ‘Warmers’ flee from challenge to present evidence for CO2 case. ● CO2 theory lies refuted by science fact ● ‘Man Made Climate Change’ scam now ignominiously doomed Hmmm... -
Peter Offenhartz at 07:07 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
@muoncounter(32): I agree completely with your comment except to note that the "slowing" I refer to has kicked in a long time ago. Global warming would be much faster if it were not for the vast volume of ice holding things back. What I'd like is for you (and others) to do the math. Have a look at the annual ice melt vs the total ice volume. The result is something of a surprise, I think. -
JMurphy at 06:49 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
An Alternative View of Climate Change for Steelmakers, (Iron & Steel Technology, Volume 5, Number 7, pp. 87-98, July 2008) by John Stubbles... Is NOT a peer-reviewed paper - it is an article printed in that journal. The Failure of the Popular Vision of Global Warming, (Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, Volume 9, Number 1, pp. 53-82, 1992) by Patrick J. Michaels... Is NOT a peer-reviewed paper - it is a "Conference Proceeding with Prescreened Review". And how about this for an unbiased view : Alarmist Misrepresentations of the Findings of the Latest Scientific Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (The Electricity Journal, Volume 20, Issue 7, pp. 38-46, August-September 2007) by Henry R. Linden Tells you right off how he's going to slant that paper, doesn't he. No wonder he had to go to 'The Electricity Journal' ! The more we can see of this little list, the more ridiculous and desperate it becomes. This thread has become a good source which can be used against anyone who dares to bring up this list again. Well done everyone. -
Utahn at 06:44 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech-"First you need to apply a direct comparison to my list and the common argument that is made. It is not whether smoking causes cancer but the exaggerated dangers from SHS. So if you can find 850 peer-reviewed papers supporting skepticism that SHS causes cancer or that the likely hood of it causing cancer has been exaggerated. I will immediately accept this as strong support." Why not firsthand smoke? Because you "believe in" firsthand smoke causing cancer, but don't "believe in" secondhand smoke? It's still 850 papers and, according to you, quality is subjective, but those high numbers are "strong evidence" against firsthand smoke alarm, right? I can come up with 850 papers that support skepticism of the "alarm" over firsthand smoke causing lung cancer. Why won't you join my crusade? -
shoyemore at 06:37 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Just as an addendum, it always seemed to me that this guff about the Medieval Warm Period could be easily killed off by consideration of the archaeological and historical evidence of the period. Being form Ireland, I take an Ireland-centric view. For example, I can across the work of a Welsh clergyman Giraldus Cambrensis who visited Ireland about 1185, when Ireland (supposedly) had a climate something like Portugal has now. Geraldus gave a complete description of the country and climate, and what he described reads a lot more like 20th century Ireland than Portugal!! He describes the wet, temperate conditions fairly accurately. Because of the Gulf Stream, some microclimates on our west coast share plants with Portugal and even the Canary Island. So it is not as if exotic plants had no time to get here. Similarly, some deniers have described the fields of wheat, oats and barley the Vikings grew in Greenland. However, the Norse were pastoral farmers. They had small gardens but herds of cattle and sheep were their pride and joy, and hay as a winter feed their most important crop. So you do not need a temperature record to dispove their extravagant claims about the Medieval Warm Period. -
Johngee at 06:34 AM on 17 February 2011It's the sun
Hi all, I have a friend who constantly bangs on about Piers Corbyn and his site ‘Climate Action’. Sadly I have very little time to research Corbyn’s claims. I was wondering if anyone has analysed Corbyn’s weather predictions comparing them to the main weather predictions of places like the met office and also his claims about making money by placing bets on future weather. I know this is about weather but Piers definitely believes AGW is a myth. Could someone look into his claims and perhaps do an article on him. There seems to be very little objective research done on his claims... that I can find anyway. We have Monckton Myths how about Corbyn’s Crocks? I posted here because I know Corbyn thinks its all about the sun. -
muoncounter at 06:28 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Peter: "total heat storage, via ice volume vs melt rate, has an important effect on slowing global warming" I don't understand why you are focused on this point. We have undeniable evidence that the Arctic ice melt seasons are growing more aggressive. The Arctic is the part of the globe with the most rapid temperature increase. Where and when is this 'slowing' of global warming going to kick in? -
shoyemore at 06:26 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Woops ... for "graces" read "graves" -
shoyemore at 06:25 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
I once came across a weird statement of Mockton that the Viking graces at Hvasley church in Greenland are now embedded in permafrost. That is totally untrue... Hvalsey is actually sinking into soft clay. Hvalsey Church -
dana1981 at 06:12 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Thanks pbjamm! -
Peter Offenhartz at 06:11 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Amplification/correction: When I said "the volume of ice is much more important than the extent" I was writing only about heat capacity/storage. Clearly "extent" is more important than "volume" when it comes to changing albedo. I regret any confusion. My point is solely that total heat storage, via ice volume vs melt rate, has an important effect on slowing global warming; the total volume of ice is HUGE compared to the annual melt. -
Djon at 05:44 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #12: Arctic Temperature Changes
fydijkstra, "because 1920-1945 had a faster warming (8 degrees per century, I guess)." You "guess". Does that mean you haven't actually calculated the warming trend over that time period? I think you're posting in the wrong forum if you want an audience that considers trend estimation by eyeball a credible analytic technique. -
Meet The Denominator
Poptech - So, there is no objective truth? G&T's paper violates several basic thermodynamic principles, but if they continue to yammer about it after the blatant errors are repeatedly pointed out - that's OK with you? Science involves judgement - judging whether results are real, replicable, well established. Some work is good science by those criteria, some is bad. That particular paper is an epic fail. The only reason I can see for you to continue to include dreck papers such as that, is an ideological confirmation bias - accepting anything that even remotely supports your viewpoint, regardless of whether it's reasonable or even remotely plausible. Which is another reason to dismiss your list as simply not relevant to the science. -
les at 05:41 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
478; "I have however had great success many places." Please, please, please no one ask him to justify that statement otherwise we'll be in fir another 500 posts discussing unsupirtable analysis!!! -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:40 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... Alarm has nothing to do with it. That's your absurd qualification to rationalize your confirmation bias. -
pbjamm at 05:40 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech, As has been stated here many many many times in this seemingly endless thread, AGW Alarm is completely subjective and based entirely upon your opinion of what constitutes alarm. -
mclamb6 at 05:39 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Again, why should anyone care about one person's definition of "AGW Alarm" when evaluating the whole of climate science? How about we stick to at least somewhat widely recognizable terms versus what passes for a definition in your little fiefdom? -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:38 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
I think we can safely call Poptech the "Christopher Monckton of peer-review." -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:34 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... "There is no way to reproduce your results that support AGW alarm because it is simply your opinion." Incorrect. AGW has nothing to do with my opinion. The research doesn't care what I think. -
pbjamm at 05:28 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech @475 It is irrelevant that papers in the Journal of Modern Physics B *can* be peer reviewed. It only matters that the paper in question was. I have no idea if it was or not so dont bother arguing with me about that point. -
Meet The Denominator
Poptech - You neglected the last paragraph of my post: "And the paper is so very bad! Even if, by some violation of editorial policy, it was peer-reviewed, I can think of no better debunking of your list than the fact that you have included this piece of dreck." -
mclamb6 at 05:25 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Considering that no one, other than you, uses "AGW alarm" as a frame of reference when evaluating science, your statement "There is no way to reproduce your results that support AGW alarm because it is simply your opinion" is rather meaningless. -
Dennis at 05:24 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Phillipe @461: wrote: "The 'list' is a meaningless piece of nonsense. It is of no interest whatsoever to anyone sincerely trying to understand the science involved." I agree. The reason I would like to see a more thorough examination of the flaws in this list is that documents like this get waved around by antiscience policymakers and pundits to the public as if it were valid science. It would be best to have a one-stop shop to go to to debunk them (preferably a resource journalists could use). Skeptical Science has started to do this with the Monckton Myths, but others (Poptech's 850, the Oregon petition, and Inhofe's annual list) exist as well. Perhaps this site is not the place to do that, as the focus here is on pure science. But I don't know another site that fits that need. -
Meet The Denominator
PopTech - Enough said. We've all gone around on this long enough. I (and a lot of others) have expressed my opinions of your list, criteria, and significance to the field (the topic of the thread in the first place), you've expressed yours. If your list has significance, it should be possible to convince others of that - you aren't having too much success there, however. Discussion has otherwise descended into a Three Stooge slap fest of repeated assertions and denials. Off to other topics for me... -
actually thoughtful at 05:20 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
Daniel Bailey - thank you - you are a fantastic resource on this blog (among others, it must be noted, but you and you alone post links with serious sounding titles to hilarious web pages with cartoons and songs. And the value of that is beyond measure).Moderator Response: [Daniel Bailey] Thank you for the kind words; muoncounter & others here are wicked funny, as well. When dealing with such sobering subject matter, I find humor helps keep me (relatively) sane. -
pbjamm at 05:16 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Dana, I originally discovered this site after a skeptic/denier acquaintance of mine unleashed a flood of accusations in the wake of Climategate. I decided I needed to reexamine my what I thought I knew about AGW. Most of what I could find was just rehashing the Climategate accusations of fraud and conspiracy. It was not until I discovered RealCliamte and SkS that I found any actual substance. Informative and easy to understand posts like this one are what keep me coming back. Thank you and and everyone else who contributes here. -
Meet The Denominator
PopTech - Hmm, I seem to recall someone on this list insulting folks by telling them they don't know how to use Google. Looking for 'anthropogenic "climate change"' in 'Physics, Astronomy, and Planetary Science' only (the largest subject category), limiting to a year-by-year list, the search shows 973 results in 2003, fewer in earlier years. After 2003 the numbers seem to get larger - but again, since you've collected papers back to the 1980's, plenty to compare to for a percentage estimate. Your claims that the comparison cannot be made are specious. And the burden of proof is on you to show that your list is relevant. First-pass estimations of the total number of papers published in the field indicate that it is not; if you wish to then do the work and show that we should take it seriously, rather than a collection of fringe opinions, 'bought science', ideological rants, and editorial biases - all admittedly my subjective evaluations of a number of the papers on your list. There's always a fringe - demonstrate that your list represents something more. Or be ignored. --- As to G&T 2009 - No, that was not peer reviewed. Their reply to the peer-reviewed debunking was, and by some miracle wasn't burned, but the original paper was not, according to their editorial policies. And the paper is so very bad! Even if, by some violation of editorial policy, it was peer-reviewed, I can think of no better debunking of your list than the fact that you have included this piece of dreck. -
Lazarus at 05:12 AM on 17 February 2011The 2010 Amazon Drought
BBC link doesn't work for me. There is no video on that page nor link to it that I can see. -
Albatross at 05:09 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Oh right, sorry Dana..I guess "looks wonky" is what I should have said. -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:05 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... "Incorrect, I have applied a much more stringent criteria to my list as I evaluate and filter every paper before it is put on the list." You have only applied an extreme form of confirmation bias to your list. You surely realize that repeatability is an important tenet of the scientific method. There is no way for anyone to qualitatively reproduce your results because they are all merely a function of your opinion. -
Dikran Marsupial at 05:03 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@457 wrote "Incorrect, I already addressed that." no you didn't (I checked). Give the number of the post where you addressed it "It supports skepticism of CO2 being a primary climate driver by supporting solar as being the primary climate driver. Thus it supports skepticism of AGW Alarm." Nonsense, just because solar forcing has been the dominant driver of paleoclimate does not mean that the current warming is non-anthropogenic. "A criticism of a paper does not mean it is refuted." Not necessarily, no, but often it does. If you don't have the scientific background to judge the difference then you ought not to compile a list and should leave it to someone who does, for the reasons I gave. "What is "irrelevant" is subjective and no peer-reviewed paper is going to be removed unless it is retracted from the journal" That is a non-sensical requirement. Journals generally only retract papers becuase of plagiarism or scientific fraud etc. I don't recall ever seeing a paper retracted simply because it was wrong. If that was general practice it would be very common. "when you would consider all the papers on my list to be "dud ammunition" You often complain you are being misrepresented, but you appear quite happy to engage in misrepresentation yourself. Not all the papers on your list are dud, as should be obvious by the fact that I said you ought to weed out the ones that are incorrect or irrelevant (the implication being that there are some on your list that are not duds). I shan't hold my breath waiting for the apology though. "Your intentions are rather obvious - do anything you can to get me to reduce the size of the list." Apparently, size isn't everything, it is what you can do with it that matters ;o) The IPCC has a bigger list of peer reviewed papers that support its position. I do want you to reduce the size of the list, but only so that you can increase its quality. I am against alarmist claims that are not backed up by mainstream science just as I am against "denialist" claims that are not backed up by mainstream science. That is because I am interested in the science. -
Eric (skeptic) at 05:02 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech, for the record I had no intent to get you to reduce the size of your list. I have provided links on this forum to papers that are not on your list but should be. There are some threads like "it's not bad" where some papers from your list would be useful. But obviously I can't go to that thread and post "here's 850 papers saying it's not bad", it would not help my case. -
Albatross at 05:02 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
PT, "I have stated multiple times that I am religiously agnostic and fully support evolution theory." My last post. Your position on creationism is irrelevant and not the point I was trying to make. However, I'll rehash for the sake of clarity-- regardless of your religious leanings, that does not mean that you cannot use or adopt the same techniques used by the young-earth creationist debating Dawkins in my example to further your ideology. Cheers -
Rob Honeycutt at 05:01 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... "Incorrect, I got 24,000 results for 2010 using the search phrase "climate change"." Break it down into journals. Or authors. There's more than one way to skin a cat. -
Rob Honeycutt at 04:58 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech... "Incorrect all the counted papers are peer-reviewed." Prove it. How could you possibly know unless you were on the actual review board or contacted a member of the reviewing board for confirmation? -
Meet The Denominator
From the IJMPB Aims and Scope, where G&T 2009 was published as a 'review article': "To ensure top quality, review articles are by invitation only and all research papers undergo stringent refereeing." This was not a peer-reviewed paper. -
Philippe Chantreau at 04:55 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Dennis, there is little point in doing what you propose. The "list" is a meaningless piece of nonsense. It is of no interest whatsoever to anyone sincerely trying to understand the science involved. It does not matter that the papers listed are technically peer-reviewed, per some database listing. E&E is not a real science publication, it has an agenda and even claimed it. They may have a different tune now, in their quest for being taken seriously, but what they do is clear. The quality of the stuff coming from it has shown to be dismal (they even published that pathetic Beck piece), and quality in this case is not a subjective notion. It pertains to how thorough the work is, how it makes sense with the existing body of knowledge, how much it advances the field, how useful it is to other reserachers. Even the CATO journal is part of the goofy list. A political organization trying to influence policy in the direction of its preferred ideology. Advocacy from CATO is and always will be only that, regardless how their "journal" is listed in databases. All this junk has no bearing on reality, whether it's called peer-reviewed or not. The total amount of papers that support AGW and concern about AGW is way higher than 850, even if one sticks to only science papers from real science publications. That the number is difficult to estimate does not change this fact. PT is just playing on technicalities with the Google Scholar thing. When numbers are as large as Rob found, you know that even after you cull out all the unrelated stuff you will still be left with a very large number, so what does it matter exactly how large it is? Whomever can be swayed by that kind of nonsense deserves to be taken on PT's wild fantasy ride. This ridiculous list thing is the map to get there. -
mclamb6 at 04:55 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Please provide support for the contention that all papers are peer-reviewed. Specifically, please verify that the paper referenced in this thread in the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law (if I recall the title of the journal correctly) was peer reviewed. Please provide your definition of peer reviewed. As an attorney, I can tell you that a law review article, while scholarly, is not typically subject to any type of peer review, at least as that term is generally understood in hard science disciplines. "Peer review" in that context is not much beyond editing for grammar and ensuring that the footnotes are in proper Blue Book form. Indeed a law review article is nothing more (in nearly all instances) than an extended, well-researched opinion piece that is incapable of "proving" anything one way or another. -
Meet The Denominator
Poptech - "Incorrect all the counted papers are peer-reviewed." Counterexample: G&T 2009, which is on your list, was not peer-reviewed. It was an editor invited "review" paper; subsequently (and repeatedly) debunked by actual peer-reviewed works. No reviewers were involved in the G&T article itself. The only lists it belongs on are those showing how bad some science can get. It doesn't belong on a peer-reviewed article list. -
Lou Grinzo at 04:54 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
A few comments on some or all of the above: Heidi Cullen talks about Bangladesh in her book "The Weather of the Future", and points out that that country has about half the population of the US in an area the size of the state of Iowa. And a disturbingly high percentage of it is very low-lying coastal land. Daniel makes an excellent point about the relative threat from Greenland vs. that of the Arctic ice or the WAIS. As Arctic ice dwindles every summer, the Arctic amplification, a.k.a. the "albedo flip" will become a very big deal. The change in albedo from ice to open ocean is very large, and it will happen over million of sq. km. And as for the WAIS, I can barely think about the implications of it doing anything even remotely "interesting". Daniel also pointed out something that I think a lot of people (including me) have been negligent in stressing: The wildly non-linear nature of human impacts from sea level rise. A small amount of SLR results in occasional problems from storm surges and high tides in a few places. A little more SLR and the problems happen more often and in more places, but can still be treated as anomalies. But as you approach a SLR of meters it suddenly becomes a challenge of moving large coastal cities like Miami to higher ground, permanently, or dealing with the NY City sewer system that can't operate during sufficiently high sea levels. (Cullen also talks about the NYC issue in her book.) There's also a freshwater connection here: In some places in the southeast US they've already had to stop using some municipal wells for groundwater because of saltwater incursion. Despite its costs, desalination is going to be a very important technology around the world, much more so than it is already. -
Peter Offenhartz at 04:54 AM on 17 February 2011A basic overview of melting ice around the globe
@michael sweet(27): @MuonCounter(20): The volume of ice is much more important than the extent. Approximately 3% of all water is locked up in the form of ice. (I'm talking about land ice, i.e., Greenland and Antarctica, not sea ice.) Given the heat of melting/fusion of ice, this is a huge amount of heat storage. To understand the rate of global warming, it is necessary to understand the RATIO of the annual ice melting to the total ice mass. I ask michael sweet to think again about the relative heat capacities of ocean and ice; I don't think I am wrong. -
dana1981 at 04:51 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
The text isn't obscured but it does look a little wonky. I'll try to fix it, thanks. -
Albatross at 04:46 AM on 17 February 2011Monckton Myth #13: The Magical IPCC
Dana, The MM logo is obscuring some of the text. Good post by the way. -
Meet The Denominator
Poptech - As I have noted on this thread you can Google complete results to 2009 using single year and single field searches. Even past that (2010, 2011), none of the searches I bothered to run gave more than 1400 results. But since many of the papers you list go back to the 1980's, we can certainly look pretty exhaustively at pre-2010 works and numbers. Using sampling it's not necessary to peruse more than a hundred or two, reading their citations and summaries, in order to establish a decent estimate of the percentage of papers that agree with the subset you have listed. More papers will simply reduce the +/- of the estimate. My initial estimate is <4%, although I haven't done this (haven't bothered, really) in depth. So - Your protestations that sampling and estimate are invalid, that one must completely and exhaustively read all papers in all fields in depth to get an order of magnitude estimate? Bzzzt - incorrect. You are demanding a more stringent criteria of people looking at the 'denominator' than you have used on your own list. If we sample and assume that you have found all of the papers meeting your criteria (I do not), that percentage will give a lower bound on the number of articles that do not agree with you. You are the person claiming that 850 is a 'significant number'; it's up to you to prove your case. Demonstrate that they represent a significant opinion, a significant percentage of work in the field - rather than incorrect fringe elements present in every discipline. The burden of proof is on you. -
mclamb6 at 04:30 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech @ 449: Please correct your erroneous statement that all the papers are peer-reviewed. They are all in peer reviewed journals, which is quite different altogether. -
RickG at 04:29 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Rob Honeycutt: Poptech... You are the gift that just keeps giving. Thank you. I think that's why John let's all this ridiculous repetition continue. No one destroys the credibility of Poptech's 850 list than Poptech himself. -
Dikran Marsupial at 04:29 AM on 17 February 2011Meet The Denominator
Poptech@449 wrote "No one has pointed out anything valid that has affected the numerical total of the list. The list is accurate as all the papers are peer-reviewed and support skepticism of AGW Alarm." Not true, I pointed out one such example here (peer reviewed - but does not support skepticism) The trouble is while the list of 850 papers may support your skepticism, that is not the same thing as supporting rational skepticism. It would be a more useful resource if you were to do a bit of curation and weed out all the papers that are incorrect or irrelevant. However, it is your choice, if you want to make skeptics who use your list look silly by feeding them dud amunition, it is up to you.
Prev 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908 1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916 1917 Next
