Two Interesting Headlines related to Global Warming

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Poptech

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Professional fact checkers already have done their homework on this topic.
Politifact
"out of 1,372 climate researchers surveyed, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing the climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change. It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

---

"...the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers..."

---

Quote

---

Anderegg et al. (1) state that 97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field “support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] ACC … the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers” (1). The contribution illustrates the predominating paradigm in climate research today. However, whereas expert credibility and prominence may dominate the opinion of what is true, it can never alter truth itself.

Young et al. (2) argue that publications in highly cited journals are relatively prone to be incorrect, and a young frustrated researcher wrote the following: “Very little creativity can be expected from scientists living in an atmosphere where you cannot ‘waste’ time on thinking about the science you are doing, but must rather spend time thinking where to get the next grant money from. In the research grant game, and thereby the papers game, you can't displease your colleagues.” The addressee was Storetvedt, who has openly challenged the established theory of continental drift. Storetvedt (3) argues that “the history of science demonstrates that the acceptance of proposals … implying that a ‘world view’ everyone has embraced should be given up—has always been met by massive resistance” (p. 397 in ref. 3). Classical research, moreover, shows that people are willing to accept obvious untruths in the presence of strong group pressure (4). A climate researcher has to decide which paradigm to pursue; will he get the same number of grants, publications, or citations by embracing the minority view among his peers? I believe not.

I do not claim that the ACC hypothesis is incorrect, but history has shown that predominating paradigms can be proven wrong. Thor Heyerdahl—the Kon-Tiki Man—was strongly opposed for his controversial theories, but sailing on a wooden raft from Peru to Polynesia in 1947, he showed that it was possible for the pre-Incan people to have colonized the South Pacific islands. Helge and Anne Stine Ingstad were also strongly criticized for their belief that the Vikings reached the American continent, but in 1960, they documented a Norse settlement at Newfoundland dating back to the 11th century. The works by Heyerdahl and the Ingstads were endorsed by Time to be among the most influential scientific achievements in the past century (5). Could it be that some of the researchers questioning the ACC hypothesis will be endorsed as the greatest scientists of the 21st century?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: alanleroy
I am deflecting nothing. I'm giving you a relatively easy way to approach this scientifically.

Let's say "The Web of Science Database does not have a 'peer reviewed filter'....and further let's say that's the only criteria the author used to find these articles from a scientific database. So what? What does that really mean? Did you prove that the articles were in fact not peer reviewed articles? Of course not. You only raise objections about the methods.

The survey could still be right or mostly right or wrong or mostly wrong, right?. I'm shocked that you haven't taken that next step to in fact prove him right or wrong in over a year... since you dispute his methodology and obviously have the tools to look at the data yourself.

What I did suggest is this is a rare case where you can actually prove or disprove a researcher's conclusions since there are a relatively small (2259) and definitely finite number of data points. Those articles can either be sampled or all checked and verified. That is if you are really interested in finding the Truth....which I suspect you are not and probably neither was the original author. I bet Snidely could even tell you exactly how many articles would have to be sampled to prove or disprove your hypothesis with an acceptable level of confidence. But your real hypothesis is something along the lines of "What do I have to do to discredit this person or paper", not "What is the Truth"...Isn't it? That's obviously how some of your opponents work here too....so you're in good company.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: alanleroy
I already said to just assume that the Web of Science has no 'Peer Reviewed' filter. What part of that didn't you understand?

As to Powell's Methodology...You are the one questioning that. Maybe he limited his search to Journals that only publish peer reviewed articles. Maybe he determined that 99% of the articles on Web of Science are Peer Reviewed. Maybe he just made that part up. Did you try just asking him how he did it?...

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: forkushV

Quote

---

Originally posted by: Poptech

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Professional fact checkers already have done their homework on this topic.
Politifact
"out of 1,372 climate researchers surveyed, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing the climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change. It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

---

"...the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers..."

---

I couldn't have said it better myself! Of course that's sort of what I've been saying all along.

Poptech, a little advice: Read before you copy-and-paste.

---

Quote

---

Anderegg et al. (1) state that 97–98% of climate researchers most actively publishing in the field “support the tenets of [anthropogenic climate change] ACC … the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of convinced researchers” (1). The contribution illustrates the predominating paradigm in climate research today. However, whereas expert credibility and prominence may dominate the opinion of what is true, it can never alter truth itself.

Young et al. (2) argue that publications in highly cited journals are relatively prone to be incorrect, and a young frustrated researcher wrote the following: “Very little creativity can be expected from scientists living in an atmosphere where you cannot ‘waste’ time on thinking about the science you are doing, but must rather spend time thinking where to get the next grant money from. In the research grant game, and thereby the papers game, you can't displease your colleagues.” The addressee was Storetvedt, who has openly challenged the established theory of continental drift. Storetvedt (3) argues that “the history of science demonstrates that the acceptance of proposals … implying that a ‘world view’ everyone has embraced should be given up—has always been met by massive resistance” (p. 397 in ref. 3). Classical research, moreover, shows that people are willing to accept obvious untruths in the presence of strong group pressure (4). A climate researcher has to decide which paradigm to pursue; will he get the same number of grants, publications, or citations by embracing the minority view among his peers? I believe not.

I do not claim that the ACC hypothesis is incorrect, but history has shown that predominating paradigms can be proven wrong. Thor Heyerdahl—the Kon-Tiki Man—was strongly opposed for his controversial theories, but sailing on a wooden raft from Peru to Polynesia in 1947, he showed that it was possible for the pre-Incan people to have colonized the South Pacific islands. Helge and Anne Stine Ingstad were also strongly criticized for their belief that the Vikings reached the American continent, but in 1960, they documented a Norse settlement at Newfoundland dating back to the 11th century. The works by Heyerdahl and the Ingstads were endorsed by Time to be among the most influential scientific achievements in the past century (5). Could it be that some of the researchers questioning the ACC hypothesis will be endorsed as the greatest scientists of the 21st century?

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: alanleroy
Ok..Let's just back up a minute partner. You are the one who claims to be an expert in these matters. You are the one with a web site dedicated to 'debunking'. You are the one questioning Powell's methods. If you tell me Web of Science has no Peer Review Filter I have no reason to doubt that, nor have I raised that as an issue. THAT'S WHY I SAID JUST ASSUME THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE SUCH A FILTER. DID YOU HEAR THAT THIS TIME?...

---