Scott Sando Posted October 29, 2010 Author Share Posted October 29, 2010 Impact Factor is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity, "Whether in performance-based funding allocations, postdoctoral qualifications, appointments, or reviewing funding proposals, increasing importance has been given to numerical indicators such as the H-index and the impact factor. The focus has not been on what research someone has done but rather how many papers have been published and where. This puts extreme pressure upon researchers to publish as much as possible and sometimes leads to cases of scientific misconduct in which incorrect statements are provided concerning the status of a publication. This is not in the interest of science" - German Research Foundation President European Association of Science Editors statement on inappropriate use of impact factors (PDF) (EASE) The Number That's Devouring Science (PDF) (The Chronicle of Higher Education) Nefarious Numbers (PDF) (arXiv:1010.0278) - Douglas N. Arnold, Kristine K. Fowler Show Me The Data (The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 179, Number 6, pp. 1091-1092, December 2007) - Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill Irreproducible results: a response to Thomson Scientific (The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 180, Number 2, pp. 254-255, January 2008) - Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill The Impact Factor Game (PLoS Medicine, Volume 3, Issue 6, June 2006) - The PLoS Medicine Editors Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research (PDF) (BMJ, Volume 314, pp. 498–502, February 1997) - Per O. Seglen There is no problems with it's review standards as it follow standard academic peer-review. That is not the purpose of the list, "Purpose: To provide a resource for peer-reviewed papers that support skepticism of AGW or the negative environmental or economic effects of AGW and to prove that these papers exist contrary to widely held beliefs," The report you are looking for has already been written, Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs) (NIPCC) Sterling work old boy. The people who believe in man made global warming are a best nieve, and at worst criminally insane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Ah, yes, make sure the argument is about meta-issues.. that is again a standard denialist tactic. The report you are looking for has already been written, Let's see.. - Strawman argument that GCMs are an essential part of the AGW case (false), followed by a general emphasis on uncertainty in GCMs. Surprisingly, no output graphs of diagrams that would help the reader judge the impact of this uncertanity. - Attacks on the 'hockey stick' based, of course, on the priginal paper and not the updates. - Lots and lots of waffle about the MWP. No concrete data or analysis supplied. - A section on glaciers which is completely bizzare.. (and avoids much of the evidence), a kind of 'There most be one growing somewhere, oh, no, better look at about the only glacier in Africa and talk about that'. - The section on Arctic sea ice is also funny, given the complete reliance on references from 2003 and earlier. Curious how a 2009 'report' completely fails to mention the sharp decline since 2001. - And it continues. This is not a scientific report. It is propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poptech Posted October 29, 2010 Share Posted October 29, 2010 Ah, yes, make sure the argument is about meta-issues.. that is again a standard denialist tactic. Covering every aspect of the debate is called being thorough. Thank you for confirming to us that you are an alarmist propagandist by your choice of using the word "denialist". - Strawman argument that GCMs are an essential part of the AGW case (false), followed by a general emphasis on uncertainty in GCMs. Surprisingly, no output graphs of diagrams that would help the reader judge the impact of this uncertanity. They are, if they were not they would not be prominent in the IPCC report. Anyone computer literate (you apparently are not) can clearly see that the GCMs are not certain. No surprise you would believe otherwise as you are not a computer scientist like myself. - Attacks on the 'hockey stick' based, of course, on the priginal paper and not the updates. The Hockey Stick has been thoroughly discredit, including the updates. The report addresses MBH98, MBH99, Mann er al. 2003, the NAS 2006 report and Wahl and Ammann 2007. Everything has been addressed in relation to the Hockey Stick and all of it thoroughly discredited. If you think differently you have no idea what you are talking about and clearly have never followed the issue. - Lots and lots of waffle about the MWP. No concrete data or analysis supplied. This is nonsense, they provide 200 peer-reviewed research papers produced by more than 660 individual scientists to support the existence of the MWP. - A section on glaciers which is completely bizzare.. (and avoids much of the evidence), a kind of 'There most be one growing somewhere, oh, no, better look at about the only glacier in Africa and talk about that'. The 17 page chapter on Glaciers covers every continent. The report discusses Kilimanjaro because it is widely used as propaganda to support AGW theory. - The section on Arctic sea ice is also funny, given the complete reliance on references from 2003 and earlier. Curious how a 2009 'report' completely fails to mention the sharp decline since 2001. They reference a report from 2006 and the IPCC 2007 report. - And it continues. This is not a scientific report. It is propaganda. Everything in the report is sourced to the scientific literature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Sando Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt? Asks SPPI Science and Public Policy Institute Recent Submissions 'The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) continues raising serious concerns for policy makers and the public as to whether the “adjustments” that government-funded employees continue making to raw surface and ocean temperature data sets can be trusted. In a new collaborative paper, Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?, Dr. Dave Evans has gathered substantial evidence that corruption has become endemic within government-sponsored climate units. Dr. Evans finds that, “The Western Climate Establishment has allowed egregious mistakes, major errors and obvious biases to accumulate — each factor on its own might be hard to pin down, but the pattern is undeniable.” Evans asks, “How many excuses does it take?” Continues Dr. Evans, “These photos speak for themselves. The corruption of climate science has become so blatant, so obvious, that even non-scientists can no longer throw their hands in the air, and say ‘I don’t know’. You don’t need a PhD to know it is cheating to place thermometers near artificial heat sources and call it ‘global warming’.” Key findings of the paper include: * Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, asphalt, and even fermenting vats of warm sludge. * Officials hide the modern ARGO data which shows the world’s oceans are cooling. * They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%. * Officials frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming. But almost never mention the full story: that the planet started the current global warming trend before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2. * Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme designed to imitate the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating? * Their adjustments blatantly transform the original raw data from thermometers, often creating rising trends. They also selectively ignore thousands of other thermometers. * Researchers repeatedly go out of their way to hide their records, and dodge FOIs. * The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western financial establishment, are all skeptical. As are scientists from other branches of science, as well as many older or retired climate scientists (who have nothing to lose by speaking their minds). Concludes Dr. Evans, “Once one or two major news outlets start printing these photos of official thermometers near artificial heating sources, and points out the deception, the rush will be on for our elected representatives to abandon the Global Warming Crusade. No one would want to be seen to be taken in by half-truths and shameless deception. Who wants to look gullible because they didn’t ask the obvious burning questions? Those who support conclusions based on corrupt behaviour will be seen as negligent for not having considered the serious evidence here. Observes SPPI President, Robert Ferguson, “For years, non-government scientists and researchers have expressed the urgent need to have the validity of government temperature adjustments audited. Dr. Evans’ findings exhibit ongoing revelations surrounding the shoddy, often enigmatic science and data handling practices at government funded institutions like the CRU, GISS, NOAA and the IPCC. A growing body of such findings only enhances the urgency for unbiased Congressional oversight investigations. The policy implications are far too dire to allow government scientists to persist in stonewalling a full investigative audit into their surface and ocean temperature data handling practices and computer programs.” Dr David Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, modelling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering.' The full report can be read here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/western_climate_establishment_corrupt.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Sando Posted November 9, 2010 Author Share Posted November 9, 2010 Busted! 12 Photos of the Global Warming Bunko Scam, Which You'll Never, Ever See in Legacy Media 'David Evans points us to truly shocking collection of photographs he's assembled (PDF) depicting the fraudulent nature of the warming fraud perpetrated by many in the Western science establishment. These photos highlight the locations of official climate thermometers, which -- if they're not missing altogether -- are intentionally placed near air conditioners or getting blasts from jet engines. You won't believe your eyes.' My link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scunnered Posted November 9, 2010 Share Posted November 9, 2010 'The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) continues raising serious concerns for policy makers and the public as to whether the “adjustments” that government-funded employees continue making to raw surface and ocean temperature data sets can be trusted.' Who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.