My point is what I stated not your strawman argument. I am quite sure you would enjoy debating your strawman argument since apparently it is not possible to debate what I actually said no matter how many times I explicitly repeat it. My failure to change what I actually said to match your made up argument is not failing to follow basic conversation but my ability not to fall for strawman arguments. My statement was that yes many papers on the climate likely get published each month but few explicitly endorse AGW theory. Without explicit endorsement it is impossible to say that a paper endorses the theory. I agree that they may use slightly different wording but the paper must mention anthropogenic global warming in some way. Otherwise it is just a paper on the climate and cannot be used as endorsement of AGW theory. What is obvious is that those who believe all these (insert magic number) papers exist endorsing AGW theory have never actually looked for them.
I would recommend looking up the definition of the word “explicit” and the phrase “strawman argument”. This should allow you to better follow the actual conversation.
a) Both I and Revenant Threshold pointed out that there are fewer papers endorsing AGW than you seem to think. You have failed to grasp this even though we’ve said it three or four different ways now, and even though it adds to your argument that you think you’re making.
b) Why do you think that anyone thinks that there is some magic number of papers that should exist if AGW is popularly endorsed? You’re the only person in the whole thread who seems to think this. Why do you think 101 is low? Why do you think I or anyone else should find it low? If I told you that an auto repair company had 8 orders for bumpers last week, does this tell you anything about bumpers? No. Maybe it’s high, maybe it’s low. I have no idea. I don’t know how big the company is, I don’t know how many things they ordered at all. There are thousands of parts on a car. I suspect that most of them are more things like screws and bolts. I would expect 99% of all orders to be for something other than a bumper. But, I also know nothing about auto repair. Maybe if only 1% of orders were for bumpers, that would be low.
With the information you’ve provided, you’ve failed to impart any useful information. What percentage of papers on AGW endorsed it? What percentage argued against it? Why do you think that a high percentage of papers should be written expressly about the topic of AGW? What evidence do you have to support that opinion? Why are you amazed that 101 is the number of papers on Google Scholar?
Huh? I thought you and him were arguing that there are more papers endorsing AGW than I believe?
It is a common misconception that there are tens of thousands of peer-reviewed papers explicitly endorsing AGW theory as I demonstrated to Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party.
That was for the last six months. It is was in direct response to Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party’s challenge when I rejected his comment,
The 101 Google Scholar results for the last six months that I presented was to prove that his statement about 750 papers endorsing AGW getting published each month was false.
I was responding to Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party and since then you two have jumped in apparently without reading the context of which I was using the 101 results. Instead you create a new strawman argument about me expecting you to find that number low or that I find the number low? I made neither statement. I do find the number which averages out to 16-17 a month much lower than the claim of 750 a month as was implied.
Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party attempted to make the 750 paper list I presented look insignificant by simply stating misinformation about that many papers endorsing AGW being published each month. His comment has been proven wrong.
All irrelevant to my point. Best case scenario is they all endorse AGW theory in which case Capt. Ridley’s Shooting Party is proven wrong regardless. Strawman: I made no statement that a high percentage of paper should be written expressly about AGW. Strawman: I was not amazed by the Google Scholar results.
Actually, I’d say it was, de facto, the more relevant standard. It is the one a lot of institutions use for considering standing. And it’s a great basis for comparison. For instance, a fringe journal (40-some libraries? Fortean Times is in more…) would stand out by being in some lists and not others.
Her job with Scientific Alliance and that body’s links to the GCMI are all matters of public record.
Tried to, at any rate. Not buying it - nor your attempt to dismiss von Storch as huffy.
No, it would not. Here’s an example; i’m a supporter of the soccer team Arsenal. I can indicate my explicit support for that team by saying “Up the Gunners!” because that’s another name for the same thing.
Likewise, a study looking at a facet of the theory - as, honestly, I would tend to imagine would be the case for most climate studies - could explicitly endorse that facet, and so the whole, without reference by name to that whole theory. And as i’ve said, you’re forgetting papers not in English. And even then, using a single method, Google Scholar, to look up papers isn’t a good enough sample to see the entirety of papers on the topic.
Hey, i’ll even help you out. Looking up just AGW would also bring up papers that would mention it in order to disagree with it.
I find that surprising. It seems as though, in order to come up with a reasonable, fairly comprehensive look at how many papers are AGW skeptical, you’ve put in quite a bit of work and time. In order to back up your point, you’ve spent a lot of effort in finding those papers. Whereas in order to find AGW-pro papers, you seem to feel that a simple Google Scholar search is an adequate method to come up with a comprehensive understanding.
That doesn’t really strike me as being particularly balanced of you. If a Google Scholar search is acceptable, alone, to sum up one side, why is it not for the side you espouse?
If you read the article, you’ll see that they mentioned these drawbacks. They did validate the top climate researchers. They also only include authors in their study with 20 or more publications which will automatically remove non-climate researchers spouting off on climate research. They also tried a cut-off of 10 and got the same results. Most importantly, Google scholar results were similar to ISI Web of Science which will only give you articles (or meeting abstracts). In fact, made the number of skeptic articles even lower because a lot of them are not in scientific journals.
All together, the problems you mention would only support your contention that there is no consensus because it doesn’t filter out the bullshit as much. Nonetheless, it doesn’t change the results because there are very few real skeptic researchers and many of them are pretty old so they don’t publish cutting edge climate research anymore.
Also, the author’s results are by no means controversial. Meta results such as these have been generated and published in scientific journals for at least a decade now (some are cited in this paper).
There is a huge or at least substantial consensus. Sure, all the scientists could end up being wrong but this notion that there only a few rogue climate researchers who agree with AGW is complete and utter nonsense.
If you aren’t aware that there is a hierarchy in journals, you don’t know much about publishing. I’d be far more interested in a count of “skeptical” articles in top rank publications than just a count. As I said, I don’t know this area, so I don’t know which publications are good, so my comment is on peer-review in general.
I’m also not saying there is anything wrong with second tier journals. New faculty need a place to practice. You just have to give papers there a bit less credence than ones in Science or Nature.
Yes but there are very few terms to show explicit endorsement of AGW theory.
Not for explicit endorsement that would require mentioning support of the theory in some way.
Papers not in English are translated by various publishers Google Scholar indexes such as some of the global but European based publishers. Google Scholar is the most comprehensive online resource available to attempt to determine this. No resource is 100% inclusive but Google Scholar may be the best.
This helps my case.
Strawman: I never claimed my method for finding pro-AGW papers was comprehensive only good enough to disprove the claim that 750 pro-AGW papers are published each month. I am not the one making that claim, yet I am the only one providing any evidence for or against it. Until you have provided evidence to support this claim it is unfounded.
Only in certain situations such as determining full publication lists without the word “climate” not for when they included it.
They only validated the top 4 publications for their citation analysis not for validation of the total amount of results for the search word “climate” for all 1372 authors.
This is subjective nonsense and they failed to provide evidence that their subjective criteria did not unfairly remove skeptics from consideration. If they got the same results with 10 they should have used 10 but this is still nonsense and does not demonstrate expertise. Volume or papers published or volume of citations does not demonstrate expertise.
ISI does not index all peer-reviewed journals and uses a subjective inclusion process.
The results are worthless because they were not validated and thus no conclusions can be drawn from the study. The age of any scientist is irrelevant.
Of course they are controversial, rather meaningless for the reasons I described.
There is no consensus and this paper does not demonstrate one. It demonstrates Google Scholar illiteracy.
This “hierarchy” is subjective. There are certain more popular journals but papers published in them are no more valid than other journals. I am sure you would be interested in subjective criteria instead of objective ones were the criteria for inclusion is simply a paper being in a peer-reviewed journal. Whether a publication is “good” or not is subjective nonsense. I can provide evidence that every journal listed is peer-reviewed. Science is science and has nothing to do with where it is published.
I have no doubt at all that every paper listed is peer reviewed. However, I have written hundreds of reviews, and read well over a thousand as a program chair and an editor, and I assure you that not all reviews are created equal. On one hand there are long and thoughtful reviews, showing a deep knowledge of a field and a lot of attention to the paper under review. On the other, well know professors write “interesting,” especially if a paper is in their subfield, a subfield they are trying to build up. I’ve seen reviews that are flat out wrong, and I’ve even instructed authors to ignore review #3, who did not get it. The most fun you have as an author is to get two reviews which directly contradict each other, which lets you do what you damn well please.
As for hierarchy, sure there is nothing written saying journal X is better than journal Y, but everyone knows the hierarchy. My daughter is in grad school, and her group just had a letter accepted in the Journal of the AMA where she was second author - and the whole group went out to celebrate. They’ve had plenty of other things accepted. There are some journals in her field (not medicine, actually) where having a few papers published is more or less a guarantee of a good job.
I’m curious about your background in academic publishing. I’ve been doing it for 35 years, in nearly every position there is (not editor-in-chief of a journal yet) and I know how it really works.
I am well aware that not all reviews are equal but this is not a discussion on the merits or problems of peer-review and these sorts of arguments cannot be settled in dealing with peer-reviewed papers unless all reviewer comments were available which will not happen.
I am also aware that in the academic world publishing in certain journals is more “prestigious” and I am sure helps with obtaining academic jobs. All of this fails to be impressive when dealing with scientific truth.
I have never claimed to have any personal background in academic publishing as it is largely irrelevant to my field (computer science) but my father has been extensively published. So I am well aware of the process.
Which is why it is even more surprising to see your ideologically driven response to unfounded charges. If you have no interest in being objective why provide credentials to be used as an appeal to authority?