Members banned from this thread: Cypress, evince, domer76, archives, Nomad, Micawber, Jade Dragon and guno


Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Climate Scientist Judith Curry: The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    73,080
    Thanks
    29,135
    Thanked 19,320 Times in 15,225 Posts
    Groans
    19,694
    Groaned 3,572 Times in 3,394 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default Climate Scientist Judith Curry: The latest travesty in ‘consensus enforcement’

    She says that this paper is the worst she's ever seen, and Nature should be truly ashamed for publishing it. You know it's bullshit as soon as you see a reference to DeSmogBlog, the goto blog for idiots like Dopey Doris, Arsecheese and a host of others.


    This ranks as the worst paper I have ever seen published in a reputable journal. The major methodological problems and dubious assumptions:
    .
    Category error to sort into contrarians and climate scientists, with contrarians including scientists, journalists and politicians.

    Apart from the category error, the two groups are incorrectly specified, with some climate scientists incorrectly designated as contrarians.

    Cherry picking the citation data of top 386 cited scientists to delete Curry, Pielke Jr, Tol, among others (p 12 of Supplemental Information)

    Acceptance of the partisan, activist, non-scientist group DeSmog as a legitimate basis for categorizing scientists as ‘contrarian’

    Assumption that scientific expertise on the causes of climate change relates directly to the number of scientific citations.

    Assumption that it would be beneficial for the public debate on climate change for the ‘unheard’ but highly cited climate scientists to enter into the media fray.

    Assumption that scientists have special authority in policy debates on climate change

    The real travesty is this press release issued by UC Merced:
    .
    “It’s time to stop giving these people visibility, which can be easily spun into false authority,” Professor Alex Petersen said. “By tracking the digital traces of specific individuals in vast troves of publicly available media data, we developed methods to hold people and media outlets accountable for their roles in the climate-change-denialism movement, which has given rise to climate change misinformation at scale.”
    .
    Etc.
    .
    Here is the list of ‘contrarians’ identified in the paper [link]
    .
    I am included prominently on the list, presumably arising from the DeSmog hit piece on me.
    From the press release: “Most of the contrarians are not scientists, and the ones who are have very thin credentials. They are not in the same league with top scientists. They aren’t even in the league of the average career climate scientist.” “giving them legitimacy they haven’t earned.” Some of the prominent, currently active climate scientists on the list whose work I have learned from:

    Roy Spencer
    Richard Lindzen
    John Christy
    Roger Pielke Jr
    Roger Pielke Sr
    Richard Tol
    Ross McKitrick
    Nir Shaviv
    Garth Paltridge
    Nicola Scafetta
    Craig Loehle
    Scott Denning
    Nils Axel Morner
    William Cotton
    Vincent Courtillot
    Hendrik Tennekes

    Note that this list of climate science ‘contrarians’ is heavily populated by experts in climate dynamics, i.e. how the climate system actually works.

    The most comical categorization on this list is arguably Scott Denning, who strongly supports the IPCC Consensus, and gave a talk to this effect at an early Heartland Conference. Ironically, Scott Denning tweeted this article, apparently before he realized he was on the list of contrarians.

    The list also includes others (academic or not) with expertise on at at least one aspect of climate science (broadly defined), from whom I have learned something from either their publications or blog posts or other public presentations:

    Sebastian Luning
    Michael Kelly
    Bjorn Lomborg
    Christopher Essex
    Alex Epstein
    Fritz Vahrenholt
    Scott Armstrong
    Willie Soon
    Steve McIntyre
    Anthony Watts
    Patrick Michaels
    Edward Wegman
    Matt Ridley
    Patrick Moore
    David Legates
    Craig Idso
    Chip Knappenberger
    William Happer
    Henrik Svensmark
    Steven Goddard
    Madhav Kandekhar
    Jennifer Marohasy
    William Briggs
    Hal Doiron
    Freeman Dyson
    Iver Giaver
    JoAnn Nova
    https://judithcurry.com/2019/08/14/t...s-enforcement/ you
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Havana Moon For This Post:

    Arminius (08-16-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    73,080
    Thanks
    29,135
    Thanked 19,320 Times in 15,225 Posts
    Groans
    19,694
    Groaned 3,572 Times in 3,394 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    Our gal Judy really nails those bastards!!
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  4. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    2,608
    Thanks
    319
    Thanked 1,206 Times in 839 Posts
    Groans
    7
    Groaned 73 Times in 65 Posts

    Default

    settled science silencing everyone.jpg

    ...and why are their predictions always so hilariously wrong?
    Democrats: We must break our oaths and shred the Constitution so we can disarm only law-abiding Americans to remove only the guns that almost no one is using.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to Arminius For This Post:

    Havana Moon (08-16-2019)

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    73,080
    Thanks
    29,135
    Thanked 19,320 Times in 15,225 Posts
    Groans
    19,694
    Groaned 3,572 Times in 3,394 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Arminius View Post
    settled science silencing everyone.jpg

    ...and why are their predictions always so hilariously wrong?
    They have to scare the bejesus out of the gullible to justify the huge money spent on useless climate research by governments.
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    73,080
    Thanks
    29,135
    Thanked 19,320 Times in 15,225 Posts
    Groans
    19,694
    Groaned 3,572 Times in 3,394 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    McSquawker is truly a headcase, why are there so many loony tunes in California?
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    73,080
    Thanks
    29,135
    Thanked 19,320 Times in 15,225 Posts
    Groans
    19,694
    Groaned 3,572 Times in 3,394 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

  9. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    England
    Posts
    73,080
    Thanks
    29,135
    Thanked 19,320 Times in 15,225 Posts
    Groans
    19,694
    Groaned 3,572 Times in 3,394 Posts
    Blog Entries
    18

    Default

    .

    Latest edition of Nature, how to destroy a hard won reputation at a stroke.

    clip_image002-3.jpg

    http://joannenova.com.au/2019/08/ske...re-gossip-mag/
    Last edited by Havana Moon; 08-18-2019 at 07:44 AM.
    In rejecting their view [Spinoza, Leibnitz and Hegel], as I shall contend that we must, we are committing ourselves to the opinion that “truth” in empirical material has a meaning different from that which it bears in logic and mathematics.”

    Bertrand Russell, “An Inquiry Into Meaning & Truth” (1940)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-12-2019, 07:42 AM
  2. Climate science consensus of ALL climate scientists
    By Micawber in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-31-2019, 08:32 AM
  3. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-31-2018, 09:54 AM
  4. JUdith Curry's (un)motivated reasoning on climate matters
    By Havana Moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-01-2018, 09:56 AM
  5. New paper from Dr. Judith Curry could explain ‘the pause’
    By Havana Moon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-11-2013, 03:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •