Greta Thunberg to the UN

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, theresaL said:

not when you discredit anything not meeting your criteria.

 

temperature did change in MWP. It was cold, it got warmer then it got colder again, now it's warmer again.

I nominate you for climatologist of the year for 2019.  You just summed up climate change for the last million years in one easy to understand sentence.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 hour ago, Rosalind F said:

Well, a lot of very highly cited and high profile journals such as PNAS, Nature, and Science still publish him. I believe in peer review. Of course, sometimes publications even in high profile journals turn out to be a fraud. But journals are meticulous, and they will retract papers -  even very old papers - if these papers turn out to be a fraud. 

Have they pulled Michael Mann's stuff yet?  If not, they should.  It was proven that his software shows a continuous warming trend, regardless of the temps one inputs as data.

[Rosalind F 178]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

I have a fair amount of dealings with Journalists and have yet to meet a meticulous one, came to the conclusion if they got it 75% right I could live with it.

Articles in scientific journals are written by researchers, not journalists (the research articles at least). Upon submission, articles are one-way or double-blinded peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by an Editorial Board. There is a multi-level control of data integrity.

 

If the journal is notified of potential fraud, the data in the article is reviewed in detail, and finally, if data manipulation is confirmed, the article is retracted. To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Michael Mann's publications were not retracted. 

[TBoneTX 44,791]

7 hours ago, Rosalind F said:

articles are one-way or double-blinded peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by an Editorial Board. There is a multi-level control of data integrity.

Optimally.  However, in reality, it's difficult to pry reviews from reviewers and even more difficult to find any who read articles critically in depth.  Some will approve articles for publication on the simple basis of liking the title or thinking that the general topic is interesting, the content aside.

[Dashinka 24,150]

10 hours ago, Rosalind F said:

Articles in scientific journals are written by researchers, not journalists (the research articles at least). Upon submission, articles are one-way or double-blinded peer-reviewed and accepted for publication by an Editorial Board. There is a multi-level control of data integrity.

 

If the journal is notified of potential fraud, the data in the article is reviewed in detail, and finally, if data manipulation is confirmed, the article is retracted. To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Michael Mann's publications were not retracted. 

So what happened to this in the case of Michael Mann?  He will not share his data, or the details of the model used to come to his conclusions?  To me it sounds like "pal" review rather than "peer" review.

[Boiler 44,954]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/academic-journal-accepts-feminist-mein-kampf

 

Three self-styled liberal scholars were given the academic green light for a rewritten version of Adolf Hiter’s Mein Kampf by a leading feminist journal.

“We rewrote a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism and this journal has accepted it,” James Lindsay said in a YouTube video revealing a year-long project he worked on with other self-described left-wing academics, Peter Boghassian and Helen Pluckrose.

The trio submitted 20 papers with absurdities and “morally fashionable political ideas” to significant peer-reviewed academic journals exposing a corrupt political agenda in fields such as women’s and gender studies, race studies, ####### studies and cultural studies, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The summary of the feminist version of Mein Kampf reads: “Feminism which foregrounds individual choice, responsibility, female agency, and strength can be countered by a feminism which unifies in solidarity around the victimhood of the most marginalized women in society.”

[Dashinka 24,150]

8 minutes ago, Boiler said:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/academic-journal-accepts-feminist-mein-kampf

 

Three self-styled liberal scholars were given the academic green light for a rewritten version of Adolf Hiter’s Mein Kampf by a leading feminist journal.

“We rewrote a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism and this journal has accepted it,” James Lindsay said in a YouTube video revealing a year-long project he worked on with other self-described left-wing academics, Peter Boghassian and Helen Pluckrose.

The trio submitted 20 papers with absurdities and “morally fashionable political ideas” to significant peer-reviewed academic journals exposing a corrupt political agenda in fields such as women’s and gender studies, race studies, ####### studies and cultural studies, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The summary of the feminist version of Mein Kampf reads: “Feminism which foregrounds individual choice, responsibility, female agency, and strength can be countered by a feminism which unifies in solidarity around the victimhood of the most marginalized women in society.”

You left off the best part.

 

"The paper was accepted after being peer-reviewed by Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work, which analyzes gender inequality."

[Dashinka 24,150]

17 minutes ago, Boiler said:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/academic-journal-accepts-feminist-mein-kampf

 

Three self-styled liberal scholars were given the academic green light for a rewritten version of Adolf Hiter’s Mein Kampf by a leading feminist journal.

“We rewrote a section of Mein Kampf as intersectional feminism and this journal has accepted it,” James Lindsay said in a YouTube video revealing a year-long project he worked on with other self-described left-wing academics, Peter Boghassian and Helen Pluckrose.

The trio submitted 20 papers with absurdities and “morally fashionable political ideas” to significant peer-reviewed academic journals exposing a corrupt political agenda in fields such as women’s and gender studies, race studies, ####### studies and cultural studies, the Wall Street Journal reported.

The summary of the feminist version of Mein Kampf reads: “Feminism which foregrounds individual choice, responsibility, female agency, and strength can be countered by a feminism which unifies in solidarity around the victimhood of the most marginalized women in society.”

You jogged my memory.

 

 

[Dashinka 24,150]

Boy, don't run afoul of the truly devoted.

 

UW Prof. Cliff Mass called racist for opposing carbon tax initiative

https://mynorthwest.com/1538309/dori-cliff-mass-uw-racist-carbon/

 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

[Rosalind F 178]

Seriously?  Comparing a social studies journal with impact factor of barely 1 to a Science main journal with impact factor of over 40?! LOL

[Dashinka 24,150]

2 minutes ago, Rosalind F said:

Seriously?  Comparing a social studies journal with impact factor of barely 1 to a Science main journal with impact factor of over 40?! LOL

Are you saying the peer review is better with those science journals?

[Rosalind F 178]

5 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Are you saying the peer review is better with those science journals?

Well, I have NOTHING against soft sciences... But we all know what real sciences are, right?  

JK.

But yes, in general, peer review and editorial board review will get more thorough with higher impact journals - and it is where Dr. Mann is published. I am not saying that 100% of publications in Science, Nature, Cell, etc. contain 100% complete and absolute Truth. I am not saying that there is no "politics" whatsoever in publishing in such high profile journals. But, generally speaking, editorial boards of high profile journals are very, very careful with content and will not hesitate to take down anything suspicious. 

[Dashinka 24,150]

2 minutes ago, Rosalind F said:

Well, I have NOTHING against soft sciences... But we all know what real sciences are, right?  

JK.

But yes, in general, peer review and editorial board review will get more thorough with higher impact journals - and it is where Dr. Mann is published. I am not saying that 100% of publications in Science, Nature, Cell, etc. contain 100% complete and absolute Truth. I am not saying that there is no "politics" whatsoever in publishing in such high profile journals. But, generally speaking, editorial boards of high profile journals are very, very careful with content and will not hesitate to take down anything suspicious. 

But Impact Factor is only a measure of how many times articles contained in a journal are cited.  This can be a bit self-serving particularly in a relatively close community of climatologists unless of course your name is Cliff Mass.

[Boiler 44,954]

Oops