Poptech Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Your link doesn't work I assume you intended this link: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/John_Cook_Skeptical_Science.pdf That is the same link. John Cook, John Cook the cartoonist ...I almost forgot, "John Cook: A cartoonist working from home in Brisbane, Australia," (SEV) "I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science If I was him I would be a bit embarrassed about his approach to the topics, but then since he has sought publication through the SPPI, where Monckton is chief policy adviser the style of rhetoric over substance is perhaps inevitable. Policy is not Science, SPPI Chief Science Adviser: Willie H. Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 The real numbers give a different impression, The "97%" is only 75 scientists or 2.4% of the 3146 who participated in the survey. Another bogus paper, Google Scholar at the Academy (National Post, Canada) Only if you are Google Scholar Illiterate, PNAS reviewers and author's William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word "climate" with an author's name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, papers simply in PDF format but were never published, duplicate listings, citations and all sorts of other erroneous results. There is no "peer-reviewed journal only" search option in Google Scholar. Not to mention using those search techniques will get results from authors with the same name but who are completely different people. For instance even when using the author's name in quotes or advanced search operators such as "author:", Google Scholar will still show results from authors with only the same last name. Thus authors with common names will get inflated results. Take for instance using author "Phil Jones" (the infamous former CRU director of climategate fame) with the search word "climate", you get almost 5000 results! They only checked the top 4 papers for their "citation analysis" not for the total amount of results using the search word "climate" for all 1372 authors. Thus none of their numbers were verified. All that paper proves is that the authors were Google Scholar illiterate. Your commentator doesn't appear to have read the paper. Why is he going on about Al Gore coming up in Google scholar? This is how the list was selected: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/06/07/1003187107.DCSupplemental/pnas.201003187SI.pdf If you are going to quote a contrary argument you should at least check it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 That is the same link. John Cook the cartoonist ...I almost forgot, Policy is not Science, SPPI Chief Science Adviser: Willie H. Soon, Ph.D. Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Willie Soon.... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy ..... keep digging that hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptech Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Your commentator doesn't appear to have read the paper. Why is he going on about Al Gore coming up in Google scholar? Oh he read it and so did I. You failed to miss his obvious point which I reiterated, that Google Scholar does not have a peer-reviewed only search feature. He was merely using Al Gore as an example. To show you the uselessness of their study lets search Google Scholar how they did using the infamous Dr. Jones from the CRU, author: P-Jones climate 6,580 Results!!!!, So did Dr. Jones publish this many papers? Willie Soon.... You do realize that wikipedia is not a valid source for anything? There is nothing wrong with Dr. Soon, he is employed at Harvard University. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Current thinking by whom? Friis-Chritensen has not retracted his views. I asked you again, provide a quote where he states that his paper is wrong. There is no consensus today. You have not provided a single quote from him! You have Eigil Friis-Christensen confused with Jón Egill Kristjánsson. It is you that have your Chritensen's mixed up. Friis-Christensen now accepts that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear "divergence" between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sun-sets-on-sceptics-case-against-climate-change-1839875.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptech Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 If you discussed it 6 months ago why did you not remove it then and only remove it when I randomly selected it to check it out? Like I said it was not worth defending anymore and unnecessary as a reference. When I started the list I did not have any peer-reviewed papers on Kilimanjaro and needed a scientific reference, it is not needed anymore. It was at one time a placeholder. Yes I am confused as to how an article and the scientists that are behind the study don't see their work as a criticism of the global warming consensus but you do? Strawman, no claim was made that it criticized AGW let alone an imaginary consensus. How many of the other articles are by scientists that support the consensus view? A handful that support the IPCC position as there is no consensus. This is irrelevant as their papers support skepticism of the environmental or economic effects of AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptech Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 It is you that have your Chritensen's mixed up. No I don't. Like I said I read that article, Now please provide an actual quote from him stating that his paper was wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Oh he read it and so did I. You failed to miss his obvious point which I reiterated, that Google Scholar does not have a peer-reviewed only search feature. He was merely using Al Gore as an example. To show you the uselessness of their study lets search Google Scholar how they did using the infamous Dr. Jones from the CRU, author: P-Jones climate 6,580 Results!!!!, So did Dr. Jones publish this many papers? Phil Jones has been exonerated. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2010/jul/07/russell-inquiry-i-was-wrong You mean like he missed the obvious point? Also I don't think the criticism at all credible if you read what the article says they are not just typing names in to google scholar. You do realize that wikipedia is not a valid source for anything? There is nothing wrong with Dr. Soon, he is employed at Harvard University. Yes because anyone can get precipitation and temperature mixed up, global and local can't they? and cause half the editorial team at the journal that published it to resign in disgust at the manipulation of the peer review process to get an attack on Michael Mann published. I am well aware of Wikipedia's limitations. I chose the source because it was easy and referenced the articles I was hoping it would reference. Skim reading it I can't see any obvious flaws in what it says. It is certainly a lot more credible than anything that Soon is involved with after that debacle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Why don't you tell us, if you know the answer? I could make a calculated guess. The CIA factbook says 6.6 billion. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_scientist_are_there_in_the_world Doran's study suggests 77% of them are likely to support anthropomorphic climate change, which works out at at just over 5 billion. Is that helpful to you? Well done, wiki, you've answered a question. It wasn't the one that was asked, but you've answered one anyway... Don't you people have a computer model telling you how many are likely to support it over the next 20 years as well Are you scared to quote a figure? Do you think that some of us on here could refute an actual figure? Come on humour me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 No I don't. Like I said I read that article, Now please provide an actual quote from him stating that his paper was wrong. Current thinking by whom? Friis-Chritensen has not retracted his views. I asked you again, provide a quote where he states that his paper is wrong. There is no consensus today. You have not provided a single quote from him! You have Eigil Friis-Christensen confused with Jón Egill Kristjánsson. It is clear as day: Friis-Christensen now accepts that any correlation between sunspots and global warming that he may have identified in the 1991 study has since broken down. There is, he said, a clear "divergence" between the sunspots and global temperatures after 1986, which shows that the present warming period cannot be explained by solar activity alone. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/sun-sets-on-sceptics-case-against-climate-change-1839875.html Are you saying the Independent has misquoted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.