Slashdot Mirror

So former cartoonist, activist blogger John Cook's paper is akin to "evolutionary theory" in your analogy...??

To review, in their paper, they described their method as: "Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters."

All three substantive features of their method are false. Raters were not blind to authors (or any of the other info.) Raters were not independent. Raters were not anonymized. - http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...

The above is easily verifiable.

Yeah, how dare I say something that contradicts a US government agency, eh?

Maybe you should ask NASA why they would endorse such a terrible study. It should be blatantly obvious to anyone who took a high school science course:

To review, in their paper, they described their method as: "Abstracts were randomly distributed via a web-based system to raters with only the title and abstract visible. All other information such as author names and affiliations, journal and publishing date were hidden. Each abstract was categorized by two independent, anonymized raters."

All three substantive features of their method are false. Raters were not blind to authors (or any of the other info.) Raters were not independent. Raters were not anonymized.

They falsely described their methods. That is a very, very serious thing. There is no science without an accurate description of methods, and this paper, like all papers, was published on the assumption that they followed the methods they described.

Normally the way science works, that's the end. Nothing else needs to be done by anyone. There are no results to evaluate if they didn't follow their methods. Why? Because valid results critically depended on those methods, and when people don't follow their stated methods, we don't know what they did and thus can't rely on the results. Climate science, or its journals, can't be an exception to this basic norm and epistemic requirement of valid science. Why would they be an exception? (This has nothing to do with the truth of AGW or the reality of a consensus -- this is about a fraudulent and invalid study.) (from http://www.joseduarte.com/blog... )

And of course Richard Tol is not to be trusted, even though he apparently agrees with the *result* and is criticizing the method...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...

How dare he disagree with the experts in the US government!

I agree that it is strange NASA is publicly endorsing this utter garbage.

"When a scientific paper falsely describes its methods, it must be retracted. They falsely described their methods, several times on several issues. The methods they described are critical to a subjective human rater study – not using those methods invalidates this study, even if they didn't falsely claim those methods. The ratings were not independent at any stage, nor were they blind. Lots of irrelevant social science psychology, survey, and engineering papers were included. The design was invalid in multiple ways, deeply and structurally, and created a systematic inflating bias. There is nothing to lean on here. We will know nothing about the consensus from this study. That's what it means to say that it's deeply invalid. The numbers they gave us have no meaning at this point, cannot be evaluated. Fraudulent and invalid papers have no standing – there's no data here to evaluate. If ERL/IOP (or the authors) do not retract, they'd probably want to supply us with a new definition of fraud that would exclude false descriptions of methods, and a new theory of subjective rating validity that does not require blindness or independence." (from http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...)

The above doesn't bother you in any way?

Would it bother you if a skeptical study falsely described its methods? I bet it would.

Yes, and that should raise a serious red flag. Because anyone can see for themselves that the Cook paper is utter garbage. It's blatant. And yet NASA supports this horrendous paper because it reaches the 'correct' conclusion. (and is useful for 'raising awareness'?)

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...

And yet this one guy with a grudge totally succeeds in ripping it to shreds. But you wouldn't know. You are already looking for reasons to ignore him.

How about Jose Duarte?

"The Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper included a bunch of psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public as scientific endorsement of anthropogenic climate change."

http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...

It's tragicomedy to see people line up to support horrendously bad studies simply because they reach the 'correct' conclusions. This sort of uncritical acceptance of anything which supports your 'side' while rejecting anything critical, no matter how well thought out, is actually helping climate deniers gain support and momentum.

This is not a serious work. There's too many authors from the Cook et al 2013 study which came up with the bogus 97% consensus claim in the first place.

To outline what was wrong with the 2013 paper, the primary author, John Cook, who incidentally is also the primary author of this current work, already had started working out the propaganda uses of the research before he started the 2013 study, the raters (of which eight of the nine coauthors of that 2013 work are coauthors on this paper) discussed papers and authors in what was supposed to be a double-blind study, there was plenty of bias exhibited by the raters in internal discussions, and a bunch of misclassified and/or ignored papers. A couple of key discussions of these problems can be found here and here.

Bottom line is that the Cook 2013 study was so bad, biased, and predisposed to use as pro-climate change propaganda, that it should have never been published. I consider it outright fraud. Now, he and his fellow coauthors get to contaminate another such survey? That's very foolish.

Ultimately, the problem here is that this is an argument from authority fallacy, written by a primary author, John Cook who has already demonstrated that he is too biased to do credible scientific work.

If that's true, Jane/Lonny Eachus should be able to understand why I'm challenging his baseless accusations of fraud

AFTER BEING ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES, YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SINGLE EXAMPLE OF A "BASELESS" ACCUSATION OF FRAUD!

Just like when you claimed I accused "friends of yours" of fraud... before Cook et al. was even out. WHO??? You don't have any examples. I call bullshit. Not one example, after plenty of time to dig through your (rather enormous, it seems) records of my statements.

dishonesty, and incompetence in mainstream climate science. After all, I believe people should know the truth.

Yes. And we have lots of examples of dishonesty and incompetence. Well-documented, as as often as not peer-reviewed. Would you care to try to refute them? Even if you manage to refute any which are on that page, I have files full of more for you to try.

You still have yet to show me guilty of actual dishonesty myself.

You and I both know those weren't the scientists you were originally referring to when you claimed that your hero "Steve Goddard has indeed uncovered some fraud in the data manipulations."

Ridiculous. I know no such thing, since I don't know who you are referring to. You refuse (or are unable) to provide any examples.

Every time you try to pull these ridiculous childish tantrums with no real evidence, you further cement my impression that you're emotionally a grade-schooler, in PhD clothing.

... Do you claim that the Cook et al. paper was NOT a fraud? Simple question. Yes or no? ...

Yes.

Hahaha. I think that's really hilarious. So you dispute the findings of this paper? And you intend to refute a specialist in scientific validity?

I will be fascinated to see your published refutation.

Until then, you can keep getting stuffed. You still haven't identified those "friends" of yours you claimed (and still seem to claim) I accused of "fraud". As for the rest: dishonesty, lies, etc... it has been amply demonstrated and I need no defense.

I did not claim all the scientists are dishonest. But some of them have been proved to be. I did not claim they're all lying. But some of them have been proved to be. I did not claim they're all frauds. But some of them have been proved to be.

Beyond reasonable doubt. And those are the ones I refer to. I include Cook et al. 2013 in that group. And there isn't a soul on Earth to whom I will apologize for that, since it's the demonstrated truth.

Jane/Lonny Eachus also calls "alarmism" a hoax, but Jane could probably explain why that's totally different and out of context and blah blah blah...

Won't work. You claimed those PRIOR Twitter statements were accusations of fraud: you provided them in response to my question to you about specifically where I had claimed some "scientist" had committed fraud.

So even if I had made that accusation elsewhere, you still made a false public accusation. You should really watch that, because I also have evidence that you have done so, more than once, in a manner that was pretty obviously malicious. I also have evidence of ... well, I'll leave that aside for now. But apparently you don't learn. So just keep sticking your foot in your mouth. If you want to keep implicating yourself, I guess that's your business. I am definitely not giving you permission; it's just that I don't have a good way to stop you at this time.

Link 1 specifically mentions "BS Alarmism". Not just any old alarmism. You have a problem with that? No mention of fraud.

Link 2: No mention of "fraud" anywhere. Also, the mention that WAS made was about "rabid" alarmism. Are you an advocate of "rabid" alarmism?

Link 3: Repeat of Link 2.

Link 4: Haha. More than 3 years ago. The comment is citing someone else's accusation of fraud (in this case, Alex Rawls). For which, by the way, there is quite a bit of good evidence. Also, "looks like" is not an accusation.

Link 5: Accusation of lying is not an accusation of fraud. But again: there's lots of evidence that it's true. Why should anyone apologize for making statements that are based on strong evidence? You claim to do it all the time.

Link 6: The Cook et al. paper IS a fraud. Nobody should apologize for saying so. There is solid proof that they did not even use the methods they claimed they did in the paper. That's fraud. If you're going to try to berate me -- or anyone else -- for calling Cook et al. a fraud, I'm just going to sit here and laugh at you. And so will lots of others.

Link 7: Mention that people had been defrauded. They had, as evidenced by Cook et al. However, in that specific tweet there is no mention of any scientist. To whom did that tweet refer? Your objection is supposed to be about accusing scientists of fraud. So who specifically was being accused in that Tweet?

And presumably all these other times that Jane/Lonny Eachus repeated accusations of fraud, he never agreed with them.

No presumption is necessary, because I may or may not have agreed with tweets that quoted of others. If I didn't specifically say I agreed to some tweet, you have no genuine reason to assume that I did.

I give you the example of Tom Nelson, who often retweets what climate alarmists say, without comment of his own. Do you think he is endorsing what they are saying?

All and all, you've come up short. You don't show ME actually accusing any SCIENTIST of fraud, unless you count Cook and Nuccitelli as "scientists" who matter in the debate. And even if you did, there is no way in hell I would retract any statement I may have made about fraud in regard to the Cook et al. 2013 "97%" paper. It's fraudulent garbage, and a reasonable, unbiased person who reads about their ACTUAL methods, say here for example, or maybe here, is not likely to come to a different conclusion. Present company possibly excepted, but then I don't consider you to be either reasonable or unbiased.

Truth is absolute defense. The only "scientists" I ever recall saying MYSELF were "frauds", were those behind the Cook and Nuccitelli 2013 paper, and that's because the paper is a fraud. There is proof they didn't use the methodologies they claimed they did in the paper. That's fraud

You are reading the 2007 "summary for policy makers" (I'm sure you'll be surprised to discover that the summaries are often at odds with the reports themselves).

Here's a link to the latest report (pdf): https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

I put that last bit in bold so you can see they are indeed talking about "the sum total of all anthropogenic factors".

It's clear you've never read the consensus report (couldn't even find it!) yet you have the gall to say I'm an ass? Why can't we just have a normal conversation about this?

Most of the predicted heating comes from climate sensitivity estimates, not CO2 directly. And the climate sensitivity estimates keep getting lower. Example: http://link.springer.com/artic...

So do the impacts from aerosols. Example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

In other words, the latest research suggests even less warming than what the "muted" IPCC report predicts.

Actually, it's [skepticalscience.com] quite good. They provide clear, well written and referenced explanations based on actual scientific research.

Obviously you have not done your research here either, although I can understand why a person might think that at first glance. They were behind that "97% agree" study that was quoted by Obama. Unfortunately it a was really really bad study. I like to think that even people who disagree will call out really really bad science when they see it, but apparently not. Integrity of science be damned.

Here is one of many scathing indictments of their "work": http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...