A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Poptech said:
Does Wakefield’s paper have merit because of its high citation count?
Click to expand...
Your implied point, that the citation count does not determine merit, is misleading. The claim is probabilistic, not deterministic. Wakefield’s paper is a rare exception. Statistically, citations do correlate positively with merit.
 
Poptech said:
See now you want to do a detailed analysis but when it is the IPCC report everyone should just take their citation count at face value because it supports your ideology.
Click to expand...
Strawman argument. I don’t think dvdjs suggested that IPCC reports should be immune to the same scrutiny and NIPCC reports.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Your implied point, that the citation count does not determine merit, is misleading. The claim is probabilistic, not deterministic. Wakefield’s paper is a rare exception. Statistically, citations do correlate positively with merit.
Click to expand...
Does Wakefield’s paper have merit because of its high citation count?
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Wakefield’s paper is a rare exception.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect:

2550+ times cited - RETRACTED: Wakefield et al. (1998)

2450+ times cited - RETRACTED: Fukuhara et al. (2005)

1600+ times cited - RETRACTED: Reyes et al. (2001)

1450+ times cited - RETRACTED: Voinnet et al. (2003)

1300+ times cited - RETRACTED: Nakao et al. (2003)

1250+ times cited - RETRACTED: Brigneti et al. (1998)

1200+ times cited - RETRACTED: Rubio et al. (2005)

1100+ times cited - RETRACTED: Jobb et al. (2004)
 
Poptech said:
The NIPCC reports have over 4000 peer-reviewed references with over 3500 not cited by the IPCC.

NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (PDF) (993 pgs)
NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts (PDF) (1062 pgs)
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for the link above of works that cite the NIPCC, climatechangereconsidered.org/academic-references-to-climate-change-reconsidered/, a really great source and “must” for those studying CC agnotology (CC skepticism and denial), which as a social scientist is one of the areas I cover. A good head start on the survey of the literature on CC denial.

One of the sources that cited the NIPCC sounded familiar by a known climate scientist so I looked it up:

Benestad, R. E., H. O. Hygen, R. van Dorland, J. Cook, D. Nuccitelli, “Agnotology: Learning from Mistakes,” Earth Systems Dynamics, 2013, Vol. 4, pp. 451-505.

“Abstract. Replication is an important part of science, and by repeating past analyses, we show that a number of papers in the scientific literature contain severe methodological flaws which can easily be identified through simple tests and demonstrations. In many cases, shortcomings are related to a lack of robustness, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather an artifact of a particular experimental set-up. Some examples presented here have ignored data that do not fit the conclusions, and in several other cases, inappropriate statistical methods have been adopted or conclusions have been based on misconceived physics. These papers may serve as educational case studies for why certain analytical approaches sometimes are unsuitable in providing reliable answers. They also highlight the merit of replication. A lack of common replication has repercussions for the quality of the scientific literature, and may be a reason why some controversial questions remain unanswered even when ignorance could be reduced. Agnotology is the study of such ignorance. A free and open-source software is provided for demonstration purposes…”

“Bedford (2010) argued that “agnotology” (the study of how and why we do not know things) presents a potentially useful tool to explore topics where knowledge is or has been contested by different people. The term “agnotology” was for the first time coined in Proctor and Schiebinger (2008), which provided a collection of essays addressing the question “why we do not know what we do not know?”. Their message was that ignorance is a result of both cultural and political struggles as well as an absence of knowledge. The counterpart to agnotology is epistemology, for which science is an important basis…”
So anyone studying CC denial would be advised to refer to NIPCC and works that cite the NIPCC, because it seems many of the sources that cite the NIPCC are studies of CC denial, which is a booming field of itself.

There was also an article that cited the NIPCC coauthored by Naomi Oreskes, who also writes about CC denial, her famous book being MERCHANTS OF DOUBT: HOW A HANDFUL OF SCIENTISTS OBSCURED THE TRUTH ON ISSUES FROM TOBACCO SMOKE TO GLOBAL WARMING
 
lynnvinc said:
Thanks so much for the link above of works that cite the NIPCC, climatechangereconsidered.org/academic-references-to-climate-change-reconsidered/, a really great source and “must” for those studying CC agnotology (CC skepticism and denial), which as a social scientist is one of the areas I cover. A good head start on the survey of the literature on CC denial.
Click to expand...
Who does not believe the climate changes?
lynnvinc said:
One of the sources that cited the NIPCC sounded familiar by a known climate scientist so I looked it up: Benestad, R. E., H. O. Hygen, R. van Dorland, J. Cook, D. Nuccitelli, “Agnotology: Learning from Mistakes,” Earth Systems Dynamics, 2013, Vol. 4, pp. 451-505.
Click to expand...
This paper has been extensively refuted:
  • Craig Loehle*
  • J.-E. Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum, Harald Yndestad*
  • Ross McKitrick*
  • Nicola Scafetta*
 
Poptech said:
…This paper has been extensively refuted:
  • Craig Loehle*
  • J.-E. Solheim, Kjell Stordahl, Ole Humlum, Harald Yndestad*
  • Ross McKitrick*
  • Nicola Scafetta*
Click to expand...
Dah! It’s not a climate science article and in no way refuting it refutes CC.

It’s an article about CC denial that uses bogus non-research, ideas, well-refuted claims, and deception so as to deceive the public (like many here at CAF) into thinking CC is not happening, is not human-caused, and/or is in no way harmful.

For such social science articles (and it’s good to see climate scientists dabbling in social sciences, or the social science study of knowledge (in this case anti-knowledge), it is very easy to give “refuting” opinions, point out where they didn’t dot the “i” or cross the “t.”

The famous anthropologist Clifford Geertz pointed out that while the physical sciences advance and progress, the social sciences do not, that what improves in the social sciences is the precision with which we vex each other.
And you just proved my point that many of those citing the NIPCC are not in the field of climate science but in some meta-fields, like the social science study of CC denial.

Numbers of citations do not really matter as much as their content.
 
Poptech said:
…The NIPCC reports have also received extensive recognition in the scientific community:

The NIPCC reports have been cited in the scholarly literature over 120 times
…
Click to expand...
This is going to be a fun project in my spare time…

Going thru the list of 123 cites if the NIPCC, came across 4 in a highly suspect and disreputable journal, Energy & Environment, which as DeSmog points out…
Energy & Environment has been accused of abusing the peer-review process, and has drawn sharp criticism for its publication of sub-standard articles. Michael Mann questioned the journal’s integrity in publishing a disputed studyinClimate Researchco-authored by Willie Soon(who has received funding from the oil and coal industries) and*Sallie Baliunas. [4], [5]
Click to expand...
According to Boehmer-Christiansen, she publishes papers counter to widely acknowledge climate science because, she contends, the skeptic position is often stifled in other outlets: “I’m following my political agenda — a bit, anyway,” she said. “But isn’t that the right of the editor?” [6], [24]
Click to expand...
Hans von Storch, director of the Institute for Coastal Research at the GKSS Research Center (Germany), describes the journal as “attractive for skeptic papers.” He adds that “They know they can come through and that interested people make sure the paper enters the political realm.”
Click to expand...
See desmogblog.com/energy-and-environment
 
Poptech said:
…The NIPCC reports have also received extensive recognition in the scientific community:

The NIPCC reports have been cited in the scholarly literature over 120 times…
Click to expand...
Another 2 studying CC denial (making that 4 so far):
  1. Dunlap, Riley E., and Peter J. Jacques, “Climate Change Denial Books and Conservative Think Tanks,” American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 57, No. 6, June 2013, pp. 699-731.
  2. Dunlap, Riley E., and Aaron M. McCright. “14 Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies.” Routledge handbook of climate change and society (2010): 240.
 
Poptech said:
This is incorrect,
Click to expand...
What was incorrect. The NIPCC paper is an opinion paper with the purpose of distracting the public from issues of climate change that the world faces.
The NIPCC reports have also received extensive recognition in the scientific community:
Click to expand...
The NIPCC reports have been cited in the scholarly literature over 120 times
Click to expand...
The NIPCC lists:122 citations from Google Scholar from December 2011 to November 2016. Compared to what to you believe that122 citations is extensive?

Actually it was 165x if you add the interim report. Now add the 2521x that the IPCC was cited and we get a combined total of 2686 citations. To get percentages divide 165/2686 = 6%. 2156/2686 = 94%. NIPCC: 6% vs IPCC 94%. How do you account for a 16:1 difference? If you have a better **objective measurement of scientific merit **than citations please let us know.
What do you think an editorial is? The media is not the scientific community.
Click to expand...
Thank you. That was my point.
I take it you are new to using Google Scholar.
Click to expand...
I made a mistake that was corrected. You failed to address my correction.
This is incorrect, it is not an “opinion paper” but a scholarly work that is fully cited and sourced.
Click to expand...
Citing 4000 references does not make a paper a scholarly work.The scientific community makes that judgement. If it is scholarly work as you believe why has it been largely ignored by the scientific community? Provide a coherent explanation will be a start to taking you seriously. Here is the question again: ** If the NIPCC report is a scholarly work as you believe why has it been largely ignored by the scientific community?**
 
lynnvinc said:
This is going to be a fun project in my spare time…

Going thru the list of 123 cites if the NIPCC, came across 4 in a highly suspect and disreputable journal, Energy & Environment, which as DeSmog points out…

See desmogblog.com/energy-and-environment
Click to expand...
Some additional info on E & R

According to a 2011 article in The Guardian, Gavin Schmidt and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. said that E&E has had low standards of peer review and little impact.[8] In addition, Ralph Keeling criticized a paper in the journal which claimed that CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in 1825, 1857 and 1942, writing in a letter to the editor, “Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?”[8][9] A 2005 article in Environmental Science & Technology stated that “scientific claims made in Energy & Environment have little credibility among scientists.”[10] Boehmer-Christiansen acknowledged that the journal’s “impact rating has remained too low for many ambitious young researchers to use it”, but blamed this on “the negative attitudes of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)/Climatic Research Unit people.”

References:
8. Barley, Shanta (February 25, 2011). “Real Climate faces libel suit”. The Guardian. Retrieved 11 June 2011.
9. Keeling, Ralph (September 2007). “Comment on “180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods” by ernst-georg beck”. Energy & Environment. 18 (5): 635–641. doi:10.1260/0958-305x.18.5.635.
10, Thacker, Paul D. (31 August 2005). “Skeptics get a journal” (PDF). Environ. Sci. Technol. American Chemical Society. Retrieved 26 February 2014.
 
Poptech said:
This is incorrect:

2550+ times cited - RETRACTED: Wakefield et al. (1998)

2450+ times cited - RETRACTED: Fukuhara et al. (2005)

1600+ times cited - RETRACTED: Reyes et al. (2001)

1450+ times cited - RETRACTED: Voinnet et al. (2003)

1300+ times cited - RETRACTED: Nakao et al. (2003)

1250+ times cited - RETRACTED: Brigneti et al. (1998)

1200+ times cited - RETRACTED: Rubio et al. (2005)

1100+ times cited - RETRACTED: Jobb et al. (2004)
Click to expand...
So let’s estimate the frequency. What you have given makes for a single digit numerator.
Now how about the denominator. For a start: consider how many peer-reviewed scientific papers are there been since, say 1998 - your earliest reference? Over 20 million. Of course, not all of these are very highly cited. If even as few as one in a hundred are however, then we are talking about <0.05%.

It might be illuminating to consider CIOMS classification of adverse drug reactions: 1/1000 to 1/10,000 is called “rare”.
 
friardchips said:
They also said that there was a hole in the ozone layer which turned out to be false.

We’ve also had major ice ages - who was to blame then? The icebergs? Penguins? Pre-historic dino-guins? What were these wing-ed birds up to?! Because, there weren’t any humans to blame! But then, the climate of the earth got hotter, afterwards - so what happened to make it hotter? Was it because cavemen had solar-powered hair-dryers that were causing global temperatures to soar skyward. Anything is possible.

You say that the problem is “global”. However, a lot of the earth is the Antarctic, and other such areas that are rather hard to measure temperature-wise, over time. And certainly, two-hundred years ago, people who tried to reach such areas - on the globe - died, when trying to do so. I think such explorers were more concerned about the fact that they were freezing to death rather than worrying about whether so far along in history a certain politician with a lot of power would go to great extents to doom-say half of the world’s population into giving him a huge amount of money.

I have read a book about the whole ‘climate change’ fad, which has outlasted its sell-by-date - the fad, not the book. It’s full of useful information, called FACTS. And it also points out useful information concerning those FACTS, which point to the ‘Climate Change’ agenda being nothing more than on-the-surface brain-washing.

It is within the jurisdiction of Popes to speak infallibly concerning Scripture, faith and morals - Genesis speaks of us being masters over the earth, and so, kind of protectors - but no Pope can tell us what to believe, politically. They cannot speak infallibly over something that is not infallible. So, with respect to the Popes, I respectfully disagree with the political Climate Change, agenda. However, if they had read what I had read, I am sure they would respectfully agree - with me.

That is rather off the mark. These people are paid. And not only a little bit of money. It is a very lucrative industry, making people believe in something that is not really there.

The earth is in God’s hands. That is good enough knowledge for me. As long as we are responsible for the earth and make sure we put pressure on companies to behave environmentally efficiently, then there is nothing more we can do. The rest is doom-saying. And we are told not to worry about times and seasons (it’s in Scripture).

This has nothing to do with agenda-based political machinations.

People have been looking after the environment before the IPCC came along.

The deep sigh of relief I breath is that there are scientists who don’t just fall in with the IPCC who do actually speak using logical facts and not superficial data (even though they get slated for it). IOW, that there are other scientists, other than the ones roped into this little nest-egg.

The IPCC change their statistics more often than I circulate what I have for dinner during the week.

Also, the only images I have been presented with, when the IPCC is placed before me, are images that have evidently been photo-shopped. I know the difference between real images that have not been worked on and ones that have been PSed.

Vivaldi enjoyed the Seasons and so do I! And will continue to do so!
Click to expand...
:clapping:
 
Poptech said:
This is incorrect:

2550+ times cited - RETRACTED: Wakefield et al. (1998)

2450+ times cited - RETRACTED: Fukuhara et al. (2005)

1600+ times cited - RETRACTED: Reyes et al. (2001)

1450+ times cited - RETRACTED: Voinnet et al. (2003)

1300+ times cited - RETRACTED: Nakao et al. (2003)

1250+ times cited - RETRACTED: Brigneti et al. (1998)

1200+ times cited - RETRACTED: Rubio et al. (2005)

1100+ times cited - RETRACTED: Jobb et al. (2004)
Click to expand...
You are confusing scientific merit with perfect validity and jumping to a fallacious conclusion known as a “Nirvana fallacy” The redacted studies had merit as measured by the high number of citations and those citations were the most likely cause of falsifying the hypotheses of the studies and replacing them with better science. It appears that you are trying to prove that when science corrects itself it’s a bad thing. I’ll let you in on a little secret, but don’t tell anyone, the greatest achievement of science is that it is self-correcting.

Why science is self-correcting
There’s no point in scientific misconduct; it is always found
 
frobert said:
You are confusing scientific merit with perfect validity and jumping to a fallacious conclusion known as a “Nirvana fallacy” The redacted studies had merit as measured by the high number of citations and those citations were the most likely cause of falsifying the hypotheses of the studies and replacing them with better science. It appears that you are trying to prove that when science corrects itself it’s a bad thing. I’ll let you in on a little secret, but don’t tell anyone, the greatest achievement of science is that it is self-correcting.

Why science is self-correcting
There’s no point in scientific misconduct; it is always found
Click to expand...
Yes, but is that misconduct being relayed to the MSM? That’s a rhetorical question as I already have the answer to that one.
 
josie_L said:
Yes, but is that misconduct being relayed to the MSM? That’s a rhetorical question as I already have the answer to that one.
Click to expand...
The retractions are public.
Whether or not they are deemed newsworthy is another matter.
 
friardchips said:
They also said that there was a hole in the ozone layer which turned out to be false.

We’ve also had major ice ages - who was to blame then? The icebergs? Penguins? Pre-historic dino-guins? What were these wing-ed birds up to?! Because, there weren’t any humans to blame! But then, the climate of the earth got hotter, afterwards - so what happened to make it hotter? Was it because cavemen had solar-powered hair-dryers that were causing global temperatures to soar skyward. Anything is possible.

You say that the problem is “global”. However, a lot of the earth is the Antarctic, and other such areas that are rather hard to measure temperature-wise, over time. And certainly, two-hundred years ago, people who tried to reach such areas - on the globe - died, when trying to do so. I think such explorers were more concerned about the fact that they were freezing to death rather than worrying about whether so far along in history a certain politician with a lot of power would go to great extents to doom-say half of the world’s population into giving him a huge amount of money.

I have read a book about the whole ‘climate change’ fad, which has outlasted its sell-by-date - the fad, not the book. It’s full of useful information, called FACTS. And it also points out useful information concerning those FACTS, which point to the ‘Climate Change’ agenda being nothing more than on-the-surface brain-washing.

It is within the jurisdiction of Popes to speak infallibly concerning Scripture, faith and morals - Genesis speaks of us being masters over the earth, and so, kind of protectors - but no Pope can tell us what to believe, politically. They cannot speak infallibly over something that is not infallible. So, with respect to the Popes, I respectfully disagree with the political Climate Change, agenda. However, if they had read what I had read, I am sure they would respectfully agree - with me.

That is rather off the mark. These people are paid. And not only a little bit of money. It is a very lucrative industry, making people believe in something that is not really there.

The earth is in God’s hands. That is good enough knowledge for me. As long as we are responsible for the earth and make sure we put pressure on companies to behave environmentally efficiently, then there is nothing more we can do. The rest is doom-saying. And we are told not to worry about times and seasons (it’s in Scripture).

This has nothing to do with agenda-based political machinations.

People have been looking after the environment before the IPCC came along.

The deep sigh of relief I breath is that there are scientists who don’t just fall in with the IPCC who do actually speak using logical facts and not superficial data (even though they get slated for it). IOW, that there are other scientists, other than the ones roped into this little nest-egg.

The IPCC change their statistics more often than I circulate what I have for dinner during the week.

Also, the only images I have been presented with, when the IPCC is placed before me, are images that have evidently been photo-shopped. I know the difference between real images that have not been worked on and ones that have been PSed.

Vivaldi enjoyed the Seasons and so do I! And will continue to do so!
Click to expand...
I guess you know everything best. Good for you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top