cancel2 2022 (08-16-2019)
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...-enforcement’&
^^^
No science in it.
Just criticism of real science, as always....
Loser.
cancel2 2022 (08-16-2019)
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
cancel2 2022 (08-16-2019)
Earls response is not science. The science paper is peer reviewed published climate science. You lose. 😎
cancel2 2022 (08-17-2019)
"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.
cancel2 2022 (08-17-2019)
Bookmarks