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

[Poptech]

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”.

Strawman argument, that is irrelevant to the claim that volume of citations means a paper has scientific merit.

Do those papers have scientific merit because they are highly cited?

 

[Poptech]

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.

I am confusing no such thing. The claim being made here is that high volume of citations equals scientific merit.

Are you claiming those retracted papers have scientific merit?

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.

Strawman argument, I am not trying to prove any such thing.

 

[Poptech]

Hello Lynn,

The real question is why this paper was counted as a citation of NIPCC in the first place.

This discussion paper has been under review for the journal Earth System Dynamics (ESD). The revised manuscript was not accepted.

On occasion, I’ve seen preprints cited in academic work, but I’ve never seen anyone claiming credit for being cited in a preprint, let alone for a paper that was rejected after review.

I see you are new to Google Scholar. Preprints are cited for the IPCC reports too.

Google Scholar is a dynamic search engine of scholarly works not a database of peer-reviewed content.

 

[josie_L]

I personally believe that Science is and can be infected with ideology, as like all things in life are, so no matter, if Science is self-correcting, the scientists themselves may prove to be otherwise.

Just think of the Climate gate fiasco.

 

[Poptech]

It seems it may have been published (I’ll check, since I know Rasmus), but I am going thru the list of the 123 in spare time, and so far I’ve found:

-many unpublished or just non-peer reviewed blog articles.
-many in non-sci jnls,
-many about CC denial (not about establishing GW or its impacts or mitigation solutions).
-many books or book chapters (which prima facie I don’t count unless I know they were peer reviewed and reputable); anyone can publish a book with bogus facts, etc, as long as the publisher thinks it can make money, and then there are the vanity presses).
-some in sci jnls that seemed to be about meta issues, such as scientific methods, and not to address CC sci, impacts, or solutions.

Even the ones in sci journals that appear scientific and addressing CC will need to be checked for how they use the NIPCC…perhaps to say it is hogwash.

The IPCC report’s Google Scholar citations are misleading because they include:

• Books
• Conference Papers
• Dissertations
• Editorials
• Letters to the Editor
• Non-Science Papers
• Pre-Prints
• Skeptic Papers
• Theses

 

[dvdjs]

Strawman argument, that is irrelevant to the claim that volume of citations means a paper has scientific merit.

Do those papers have scientific merit because they are highly cited?

Actually it is your question that is irrelevant.
Scientists know the score. You are just playing games.

 

[Poptech]

Actually it is your question that is irrelevant.
Scientists know the score. You are just playing games.

I will take your evasion of the question as conceding that scientific merit cannot be determined based on volume of citations.

 

[dvdjs]

I will take your evasion of the question as conceding that scientific merit cannot be determined based on volume of citations.

I had made my position clear many posts ago.
The only thing I evade is your pretensions.
You are not a scientist. You do not know how scientists think. You do not know scientists assess other scientists and their science. Nonetheles, I wish you well and hope that this stuff that you do at least helps you pay the bills.

 

[Poptech]

I had made my position clear many posts ago.
The only thing I evade is your pretensions.

Please quote where you made your position clear that volume of citations does not determine scientific merit.

You are not a scientist. You do not know how scientists think. You do not know scientists assess other scientists and their science. Nonetheles, I wish you well and hope that this stuff that you do at least helps you pay the bills.

You are not a scientist. You do not know how scientists think. You do not know scientists assess other scientists and their science.

Why do you feel the need to personally attack me? Did you lose the argument that fast?

 

[dvdjs]

You are not a scientist. You do not know how scientists think. You do not know scientists assess other scientists and their science.

Why do you feel the need to personally attack me?

This is not an attack. Scientists are few in number. I am sure that you have many wonderful qualities including skill in debate. But your arguments on this point of citations of the reports is far afield of the way scientists think.

 

[Poptech]

This is not an attack.

This was:

I …hope that this stuff that you do at least helps you pay the bills.

Scientists are few in number. I am sure that you have many wonderful qualities including skill in debate. But your arguments on this point of citations of the reports is far afield of the way scientists think.

Strawman argument, I made no statement in relation to “the way scientists think.”

 

[Holly3278]

This is not surprising. I wish that more people would quit denying the science behind climate change and accept it as the reality that it is.

 

[dvdjs]

This was

Not at all. What you gotta do you gotta do.

I made no statement in relation to “the way scientists think.”

Of course you didn’t. And that is more or less the point. You are taking about the merit of a scientific work with no relation to the way scientists think.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This is not an attack. Scientists are few in number. I am sure that you have many wonderful qualities including skill in debate. But your arguments on this point of citations of the reports is far afield of the way scientists think.

The way scientists think!? That’s just an odd statement. Scientists are not so easily grouped. They can be extremely inconsistent and irrational, motivated by politics religion, ideology, and yes, even superstition as much as the rest of the world.

That you think it’s a special group that others can relate to or don’t belong to the club is playing into one stereotype of science and scientists. The prideful worship of ones own knowledge. And the egoism that science seems to attract in people.

One of the best scientists I’ve ever known wouldn’t hire someone if they were a tiger in the Chinese zodiac. Also, refused to let any menstrating woman near any experiments…
Brilliant. But also not brilliant…

 

[Poptech]

Not at all. What you gotta do you gotta do.

So you admit to posting libel.

Of course you didn’t. And that is more or less the point. You are taking about the merit of a scientific work with no relation to the way scientists think.

Incorrect, I am talking about the false claim that scientific “merit” can be determined based on volume of citations.

“In science citations are an objective measure of merit.” - frobert

This claim is shown to be false by these examples:

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)

Therefore citations can only be used as a determination of popularity not scientific validity.

 

[dvdjs]

So you admit to posting libel.

What on earth are you talking about?

I am talking about the false claim that scientific “merit” can be determined based on volume of citations.

And your comments are specious. This “claim” has been qualified. At the same time, it is clear to scientists and academics more generally that citations, properly informed by other data, are a valuable indicator of scientific merit. That is such indicators are important in formative and summative performance reviews of scientists. Something you might know if you were in business.

 

[dvdjs]

This claim is shown to be false by these examples:

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)

Therefore citations can only be used as a determination of popularity not scientific validity.

Already discussed in prior posts…

 

[philipl]

“A third of the world now faces deadly heatwaves as result of climate change: Study shows risks have climbed steadily since 1980, and the number of people in danger will grow to 48% by 2100 even if emissions are drastically reduced” at theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/19/a-third-of-the-world-now-faces-deadly-heatwaves-as-result-of-climate-change

We can bame china for this

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The way scientists think!? That’s just an odd statement. Scientists are not so easily grouped. They can be extremely inconsistent and irrational, motivated by politics religion, ideology, and yes, even superstition as much as the rest of the world.

That you think it’s a special group that others can relate to or don’t belong to the club is playing into one stereotype of science and scientists. The prideful worship of ones own knowledge. And the egoism that science seems to attract in people.

One of the best scientists I’ve ever known wouldn’t hire someone if they were a tiger in the Chinese zodiac. Also, refused to let any menstrating woman near any experiments…
Brilliant. But also not brilliant…

If your argument is meant to show that scientists cannot be trusted as a source of scientific truth, tell me what better source you have for scientific truth, other than scientists. They may be flawed as a group, but they are less flawed than any other source of scientific truth.

 

[dvdjs]

If your argument is meant to show that scientists cannot be trusted as a source of scientific truth, tell me what better source you have for scientific truth, other than scientists. They may be flawed as a group, but they are less flawed than any other source of scientific truth.