Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Climate Scientist Judith Curry thread

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default Climate Scientist Judith Curry thread

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-enforcement’&

    ^^^

    No science in it.

    Just criticism of real science, as always....

    Loser.

  2. The Following User Groans At Micawber For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (08-16-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    52,291
    Thanks
    77,752
    Thanked 23,568 Times in 17,849 Posts
    Groans
    38,677
    Groaned 3,238 Times in 3,042 Posts
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default

    Per Havana:

    "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

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Earl For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (08-16-2019)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    34,576
    Thanks
    5,715
    Thanked 15,145 Times in 10,539 Posts
    Groans
    100
    Groaned 2,987 Times in 2,752 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Earls response is not science. The science paper is peer reviewed published climate science. You lose. 😎

  6. The Following User Groans At Micawber For This Awful Post:

    cancel2 2022 (08-17-2019)

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    In my house
    Posts
    21,174
    Thanks
    3,418
    Thanked 7,931 Times in 5,908 Posts
    Groans
    9
    Groaned 444 Times in 424 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Earls response is not science. The science paper is peer reviewed published climate science. You lose. 😎
    Mann claimed peer review as well. But if you dont provide your data, it fails that definition.
    "Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything." Joseph Stalin
    The USA has lost WWIV to China with no other weapons but China Virus and some cash to buy democrats.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Celticguy For This Post:

    cancel2 2022 (08-17-2019)

  9. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Micawber View Post
    Earls response is not science. The science paper is peer reviewed published climate science. You lose. 😎
    You're a lunatic, how anybody can defend that garbage is truly beyond me. You lost any credibility you may have gained in the past, little though that was.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 02-23-2020, 11:41 PM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 02-12-2019, 08:42 AM
  3. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-31-2018, 10:54 AM
  4. JUdith Curry's (un)motivated reasoning on climate matters
    By cancel2 2022 in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01-01-2018, 10:56 AM
  5. New paper from Dr. Judith Curry could explain ‘the pause’
    By cancel2 2022 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
  •