Well poisoning? Nope, just a prediction based on your repeated past behaviour, one which is amply borne out by this post of yours.
If you are ignorant of the difference between the number of papers, and the number of citations that those papers have received, why are you commenting on citations at all? My work on climate is listed on Google Scholar as having been cited in ten other scientific papers. What’s your count up to?
All along I have been talking about the scientists and their quotes. That’s why I asked for “lies out of the 700 list” rather than “Inhofe’s lies”. I regret that Kimstu misunderstood that. I’m not asking him to do anything with Google. I’m just pointing out that the “consensus” is not a consensus, that it is built on sand, and that I’m far from alone in that opinion. He can do with that what he wishes, it’s not a requirement that he do a damn thing.
In any case, other than poetic descriptions of dancing and butterflies, do you have anything substantive to add? Because there certainly was nothing of substance in those last paragraphs. Yes, I said dishonesty is not lying, but I also said I was quite happy to count it as lying if it made you happy … but just as in the story of the scorpion, you weren’t satisfied with that either.
You are not a professional scientist. The quoted portion is patently untrue. First of all, your placement of the (10) following the word publications instead of citations implies 10 publications. Not 3 publications with 10 total citations.
Your “most-cited” publication is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. It is not published in a reputable journal. Hell, it is not even published in a journal of science. Energy & Environment is a social science journal which has taken a skeptical view of climate change and whose editor has noted on the subject "When asked about the publication of these papers Boehmer-Christiansen replied, “I’m following my political agenda – a bit, anyway. But isn’t that the right of the editor?”
You published a non-peer reviewed “Viewpoint”. Of the 6 citations, 2 are direct criticisms and the only peer-reviewed paper strongly disagrees with your “findings”. In fact, the author of said in a RealClimate blog comment:
Your second “publication” is a response to the criticism of your editorial and its sole citation was in, again, a paper by Hunter finding fault with your methods. Seeing as it was also in E&E, I presume there was no peer-revision.
Your third and final publication is a brief communication in Nature. Was this peer-reviewed (honest question)? In said brief communication, you accuse O’Reilly et al of either splicing together two different sets or data or outright fabricating the data. They demonstrate this to be false. They also demonstrate that, despite your claims, the warming is independently verifiable with the same data and that other comparable regional data supports the same claims.
This communication is cited in a single peer-reviewed paper, in the introduction to a paper on a completely unrelated topic (dealing with incomplete data sets).
So let me ask you, why do you trumpet your “publications” and “citations” when they are not peer-reviewed? What is your fear of peer-review in journals without bias where the editor does not explicitly state that her goal is to follow a political agenda. If your conclusions and analysis follow the data correctly, you should have no problem publishing in respected journals with legitimate peer review (which, obviously, includes Nature; however, I do not know their policy for Brief Communications).
Instead, you post on blogs and misinterpret data and make invalid conclusions in order to discredit old predictions that turned out to be correct: Sample
While the Hadley CRU people are required legally to give you their data (and I hope you get it, if you are legally entitled to do so), I can understand their disinclination to release their data out to the internet where it will be unfairly attacked, misinterpreted, and massaged in an unfair and unscientific attack on their research. What is your relevant experience in the field? I would expect data to be released to their peers as a part of publication. You are not a peer.
What are your credentials? In the pit thread you claim to both be a climate scientist and a mathmatician, yet it appears that you are neither.
The Wegman Report proves what, perzackly? That climate scientists of the AGW stripe are clannish and mutually supportive? Hell, linguists are clannish and mutually supportive, as are psychologists, archeologists, and practitioners of homeopathic medicine. This just in - birds of a feather flock together, film at eleven.
And we are, of course, happily reassured that its is published by that paragon of scientific integrity, Climate Audit. Was it, by chance, re-published by any actual journals of science, rather than…well, a blog site? And if we were to poke into Climate Audit’s reputation, we would find that they are unanimously praised as the very essence of nonbiased honesty, would we? They embody all the qualities of ethical purity, they are the touchstone by which other, lesser entities measure themselves?
Certainly, they are praiseworthy for their democracy, they are not enslaved to that elitist standard of insisting that only works by accredited scholars are deemed worthy, a Ph.D. or lack thereof not being an issue. This is a bold step in scientific scholarship. No doubt the others will stampede in the rush to emulate.
But here, and elsewhere, you have totally copped to that consensus, acknowledging your viewpoint as “outnumbered”, yes? I’m quite sure there is a shade of meaning visible only to yourself to explain how this is not a “consensus”.
And “built on sand”? Your meaning is obscure. You seem to want to tiptoe up to the line of suggesting that the AGW research is all bogus and dishonest, but being unwilling to step over, you enlist inference and innuendo to do the heavy lifting. Are you hoping to suggest that the non-consensus consensus is built upon lies, but are unwilling to say so baldly?
It should be noted that nowhere in my search for details about Google Scholar did I come across any mention of a peer review process there, either. While they are condensing the scientific citations index, they are not an open process, nor, it seems, are they quite as comprehensive as ISI.
Plus, they still list E&E along with real journals, so there’s clearly no trusting them.
Folks, using Google Scholar to estimate citation frequency is like using Google results regarding the frequency of hits on a topic as evidence in a debate.
Y’know what I found most impressive about that list? The majority of the people hadn’t signed any document supporting either cause. Given how important the issue is, I find it hard to believe that they weren’t asked to sign onto any of the various documents. IMO, that puts a big hole in the “consensus” argument.
Why? Scientific consensus is almost never achieved by petition or survey, but by the convergence of empirical inquiry to a point of common agreement or consensus. These petitions are for lay people to wave around and to sway idiot elected representatives who are not capable of grasping evidence other than popular vote.
The true scientific consensus on AGW is the volume of empirical evidence, and if you index it grossly by number of studies one way or the other, it’s more damning than any popular endorsement.
Here’s a shocker - number of petition signatures of scientists supporting Plate Tectonics rather than Earth Expansion? Zero. Yet I feel confident in saying there is scientific consensus on Plate Tectonics.
How is it that I can have such confidence? It’s not like there aren’t people who think PT is bunk. You can find them on any creationist website, or any new-age-Orion-woo site. Some of them are probably even scientists of some stripe or other. So what makes PT, or evolution, different from AGW when it comes to claiming consensus?
You miss the import of “I find it hard to believe that they weren’t asked to sign onto any of the various documents.” Nobody is passing around petitions asking for an endorsement of plate tectonics; if someone did, I’d bet that >80% of geologists, etc. would happily sign on (with most of the rest being those who lost the request in the mail, etc).
These people are all highly credible scientists in a field that has created great public controversy. I find it quite implausible to think that David Tilman, Stewart Chapin III, and Jean Jouzel (just taking the top 3 non-signatory names on the list) and all the rest were never asked to sign on to any of the nine different petitions the website listed. These are major figures in the field … do you seriously think that nobody bothered to ask them? Now it could be that some of them are people who refuse to sign petitions on principle or somesuch. For all I know David Tilman is the world’s biggest AGW believer.
I’m just saying that I’d be willing to bet that nearly all of those top 500 were asked to sign on, many probably multiple times, and that 73% have declined. That seems an awfully high number if the science is truly as settled as some claim it is. Evolution is another controversial issue … I suspect more than 37% of scientists would be willing to sign onto a letter claiming that evolution was a settled issue.
Why? Why should scientists care to sign a petition? They’re scientists, not activists or politicians. Your observation serves to undermine the oft-repeated suggestion that scientific consensus has come about due to a conspiracy or common agenda among scientists. What you’ve noted here is that scientists are not especially likely to be agenda driven enough to even sign onto a petition.
I am neither a professional scientist, nor do I pretend to be one on the internet. I am a PhD student in a hard science, so I will be a professional scientist in some setting in the near future. That being said, I would not sign the petition.
I am not a AGW skeptic. The vast bulk of the scientific literature supports AGW and I would welcome any sound paper that could pass peer review into the scientific literature.
I would not sign it for several reasons:
I’m a scientist, not a policymaker. Just because I believe the bulk of evidence supports AGW does not mean it’s my job to tell the goverment how to act. Public policy and the scientific process should remain as separate as church and state.
It is a potential bias. A scientific project should be entered into with the goal of solving a problem, not proving something. My job is to ask the right questions and use the right tools to answer them. My job from the outset is not to “prove” anything. If you can describe your work as “I am trying to prove that ____”, then you’re potentially leading yourself down the wrong path.
The appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. The work stands for itself, regardless of who the creator of that work is. I don’t want to end up in some list put together in Congress as a believer or skeptic in anything.
So, furt, I think there are many good reasons for not signing any petition. “Consensus” in this sense does not mean everyone forming an organization, signing a petition, or anything of the like; it means that the vast bulk of the peer-reviewed publications in respected journals support the overall model.
…or perhaps they consider the statements already issued by their relevant professional institutions sufficient. If they (a majority, as you say) felt things weren’t decided, then *the institutions they are part of *(Tilman, for instance, to use your example, being quite big in the National Academy of Sciences and American Association for the Advancement of Science) would not have issuedstatementssupporting the consensus, without at least some dissenting voices.
When these institutions start withdrawing their support for consensus, then people can start crying about a split in the scientists. Not before.