PDA

View Full Version : Scientific Expertise Lacking Among 'Doubters' of Climate Change, Says New Analysis



The Night Owl
07-02-2010, 12:27 PM
Bad news for deniers...


Scientific Expertise Lacking Among 'Doubters' of Climate Change, Says New Analysis

ScienceDaily (June 27, 2010) — The small number of scientists who are unconvinced that human beings have contributed significantly to climate change have far less expertise and prominence in climate research compared with scientists who are convinced, according to a study led by Stanford researchers.

In a quantitative assessment -- the first of its kind to address this issue -- the team analyzed the number of research papers published by more than 900 climate researchers and the number of times their work was cited by other scientists.

"These are standard academic metrics used when universities are making hiring or tenure decisions," said William Anderegg, lead author of a paper published in the online Early Edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week.

Expertise was evaluated by the number of papers on climate research written by each individual, with a minimum of 20 required to be included in the analysis. Climate researchers who are convinced of human-caused climate change had on average about twice as many publications as the unconvinced, said Anderegg, a doctoral candidate in biology.

...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100625185428.htm

djones520
07-02-2010, 12:31 PM
Couldn't find more of a hack job of an article huh? :rolleyes:

FlaGator
07-02-2010, 12:34 PM
Bwahahahahahahahahahahah!

The Night Owl
07-02-2010, 12:34 PM
Couldn't find more of a hack job of an article huh? :rolleyes:

Feel free to clue me in on what you think the article lacks.

djones520
07-02-2010, 12:41 PM
Impartiality?

Expertise is not driven by how much time you spent hammering out articles. :rolleyes:

The Night Owl
07-02-2010, 12:45 PM
Impartiality?

Expertise is not driven by how much time you spent hammering out articles. :rolleyes:

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

djones520
07-02-2010, 12:46 PM
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

That's because you're an idiot.

The Night Owl
07-02-2010, 01:15 PM
That's because you're an idiot.

I didn't expect you to take the news from Science Daily well so I won't hold your denier rage against you.

Nubs
07-02-2010, 02:41 PM
Expertise was evaluated by the number of papers on climate research written by each individual, with a minimum of 20 required to be included in the analysis. Climate researchers who are convinced of human-caused climate change had on average about twice as many publications as the unconvinced, said Anderegg, a doctoral candidate in biology.


So expertise is validated by the quantity of papers wriiten on the topic??? This says nothing of the quality of the paper. Do you know how profs get tenure? If you want tenure, you write and publish papers. If you write many papers against global warming, you are not going to get them published. No publication, no tenure. This is why selective peer review is so damaging to the Scientific Method.

All you need is some basic statistics to rationally determine Global Warming is BS, no one needs to be a climatologist to see the data has been waterboarded.

Articulate_Ape
07-02-2010, 03:47 PM
Feel free to clue me in on what you think the article lacks.

A study by scientists whose livelihoods are reliant on AGW being believed does a study about scientists who are skeptical of the theory and conclude that those skeptics are weak in expertise because other scientists whose livelihoods are reliant on AGW being believed don't cite said skeptics in papers they get published in journals edited by other scientists whose livelihoods are reliant on AGW being believed.

I'd say the article lacks scientists who don't make their boat payments by toeing the AGW line. It's like a group of pornographers producing a study that shows that people opposed to pornography should be ignored because they haven't been mentioned in any of the stories in Penthouse Forum.

If you don't see the conflict of interest being exercised in that article, then I have a bridge you might be interested in.

The Night Owl
07-02-2010, 05:35 PM
So expertise is validated by the quantity of papers wriiten on the topic??? This says nothing of the quality of the paper. Do you know how profs get tenure? If you want tenure, you write and publish papers. If you write many papers against global warming, you are not going to get them published. No publication, no tenure. This is why selective peer review is so damaging to the Scientific Method.

All you need is some basic statistics to rationally determine Global Warming is BS, no one needs to be a climatologist to see the data has been waterboarded.

What the Science Daily article is suggesting, albeit awkwardly, is that the Stanford study looked at the quantity of papers published to determine expertise. The number of published papers a scientist has under his or her belt may be meaningless to you but I can assure you that it is not meaningless to the scientific community and those of us who have respect for it.

Articulate_Ape
07-02-2010, 06:00 PM
What the Science Daily article is suggesting, albeit awkwardly, is that the Stanford study looked at the quantity of papers published to determine expertise. The number of published papers a scientist has under his or her belt may be meaningless to you but I can assure you that it is not meaningless to the scientific community and those of us who have respect for it.

I think that the scientific community should worry about being respected by the general consumers of their information than they should be concerned about respect from there fellow scientists and their sheep. They have let the former erode in their clambering for the latter.

I love science, but I have honestly begun to question certain assumptions that I never used to; and that is entirely because of the politicization that climatology, at least, has decided to accept as a bedfellow. In the case of AGW I think that the foxes are guarding the hen house. I understand WHY they are taking this course, I just think it is SAD that they are taking this course because in the long run it's going to do great harm to the credibility of science as a whole, and THAT is a tragedy.

When empirical evidence irrefutably debunks AGW, and it will, the "sex poodle's" grand Ponzi scheme will come crashing down and the collateral damage might take a very long time to repair.

warpig
07-02-2010, 06:01 PM
When the objective is greater control, greater regulation and greater tax income then the federal government is NOT a disinterested party in the debate. When federal grants and subsidies can be directed to favor one outcome, then there CAN BE NO OBJECTIVITY. When the 350 year traditions of the English Scientific Method can be abandoned for the ‘good of the cause’, then there is little hope for truth in the future.

http://sppiblog.org/news/it%E2%80%99s-clouds-illusions-that-i-recall

Zathras
07-02-2010, 07:34 PM
What the Science Daily article is suggesting, albeit awkwardly, is that the Stanford study looked at the quantity of papers published to determine expertise. The number of published papers a scientist has under his or her belt may be meaningless to you but I can assure you that it is not meaningless to the scientific community and those of us who have respect for it.

Sorry, just because someone published a lot of papers on a subject doesn't mean the info contained within is more valid than someone who has published less if the info is flawed to begin with.

Using your logic, I make 2 tuna sandwiches, one foot long and one on Wonderbread. I prepair the tuna the same way except for one thing, the tuna I use for the foot long sandwich is spoiled. Using your logic, the foot long tuna sandwich is better because there is more of it.

Sonnabend
07-02-2010, 07:49 PM
One man can write one article and be dead on, another can write a hundred and they are all full of bullshit

How often you say something does not equate WHAT you say.

Nubs
07-02-2010, 08:01 PM
What the Science Daily article is suggesting, albeit awkwardly, is that the Stanford study looked at the quantity of papers published to determine expertise. The number of published papers a scientist has under his or her belt may be meaningless to you but I can assure you that it is not meaningless to the scientific community and those of us who have respect for it.

Science Daily forms a conclusion based upon the hypothesis that more published articles equates to proven fact. That is democratic science. There is nothing valid about democratic science.

Sonnabend
07-02-2010, 08:05 PM
Science Daily forms a conclusion based upon the hypothesis that more published articles equates to proven fact.

...and is therefore completely wrong.

Big Guy
07-02-2010, 08:13 PM
RUN Night Owl, RUN,........they found out your just as stupidly annoying as Wee Wee and Wilbur.

You can't win this one, the truth is on their (My) side.

The more you try to argue your point the more your stupid will show. :D