Comments on: Skeptical about 450 “peer reviewed” papers skeptical of global warming http://carbonfixated.com/skeptical-about-450-peer-reviewed-papers-skeptical-of-global-warming/ Photosynthesising in a CO2-enriched world Wed, 12 May 2010 22:37:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Poptech http://carbonfixated.com/skeptical-about-450-peer-reviewed-papers-skeptical-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-2002 Poptech Fri, 16 Apr 2010 04:31:35 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/skeptical-about-450-peer-reviewed-papers-skeptical-of-global-warming/#comment-2002 <a href="http://www.populartechnology.net/2010/04/correcting-misinformation-about-journal.html" rel="nofollow">Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment</a> Correcting misinformation about the journal Energy & Environment

]]> By: Tony Zito http://carbonfixated.com/skeptical-about-450-peer-reviewed-papers-skeptical-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-132 Tony Zito Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:36:09 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/skeptical-about-450-peer-reviewed-papers-skeptical-of-global-warming/#comment-132 /good grief! I hope that EBSCO will reconsider classifying E&E as an academic journal. I cannot imagine an honest and reputable journal publishing this nearly psychotic passage: “Analyses of planets, the Moon, the solar wind, solar flares, the solar photosphere, and ordinary meteorites show that our Sun is actually the violent, ill mannered remains of a supernova that once ejected all of the heavier elements on Earth and in the solar system and now selectively moves lightweight elements into a veneer of H and He that covers the Sun’s energetic neutron core [18]. This brings the IPCC conclusions into question and, more importantly, the draconian solutions that some policymakers advocate.” This is damning, wouldn't you say, Poptech? If you are trying to argue for or against something, you don't want to be associated with E&E. Just a little friendly advice. /good grief! I hope that EBSCO will reconsider classifying E&E as an academic journal. I cannot imagine an honest and reputable journal publishing this nearly psychotic passage:

“Analyses of planets, the Moon, the solar wind, solar flares, the solar photosphere, and ordinary meteorites show that our Sun is actually the violent, ill mannered remains of a supernova that once ejected all of the heavier elements on Earth and in the solar system and now selectively moves lightweight elements into a veneer of H and He that covers the Sun’s energetic neutron core [18]. This brings the IPCC conclusions into question and, more importantly, the draconian solutions that some policymakers advocate.”

This is damning, wouldn’t you say, Poptech? If you are trying to argue for or against something, you don’t want to be associated with E&E. Just a little friendly advice.

]]> By: CAM http://carbonfixated.com/skeptical-about-450-peer-reviewed-papers-skeptical-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-62 CAM Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:06:58 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/skeptical-about-450-peer-reviewed-papers-skeptical-of-global-warming/#comment-62 Poptech: Why don't you explain the point of the list. Maybe these questions will help: What do you think your list shows or achieves? What criteria were used in its compilation (which databases, with which search terms)? Why did you compile it? How do you decide if a paper is "skeptical" or not? What is the threshold? Poptech: Why don’t you explain the point of the list.
Maybe these questions will help:
What do you think your list shows or achieves?
What criteria were used in its compilation (which databases, with which search terms)?
Why did you compile it?
How do you decide if a paper is “skeptical” or not? What is the threshold?

]]> By: Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies « Greenfyre’s http://carbonfixated.com/skeptical-about-450-peer-reviewed-papers-skeptical-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-61 Poptart’s 450 climate change Denier lies « Greenfyre’s Wed, 18 Nov 2009 06:01:51 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/skeptical-about-450-peer-reviewed-papers-skeptical-of-global-warming/#comment-61 [...] if those are unconvincing, Carbon Fixated draws our attention to this gem EARTH’S HEAT SOURCE – THE SUN by Oliver K. Manuel E&E [...] [...] if those are unconvincing, Carbon Fixated draws our attention to this gem EARTH’S HEAT SOURCE – THE SUN by Oliver K. Manuel E&E [...]

]]> By: Poptech http://carbonfixated.com/skeptical-about-450-peer-reviewed-papers-skeptical-of-global-warming/comment-page-1/#comment-60 Poptech Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:13:33 +0000 http://carbonfixated.com/skeptical-about-450-peer-reviewed-papers-skeptical-of-global-warming/#comment-60 "Journal Citation Reports" is a commercial product of the Thomson Reuters corporation and uses a subjective ranking system. "Impact Factor" is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity, Show Me The Data http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/179/6/1091 (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 http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/180/2/254 (The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 180, Number 2, pp. 254-255, January 2008) - Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill The Scopus listing is wrong since E&E has nothing to do with any specific "trade" such as say "chemical engineering" ect... EBSCO correctly lists it as an academic journal. http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf The Manuel papers are clearly a radical new theory but they do not represent the common skeptical position, however the papers are skeptical of AGW. E&E is not a sub-standard or vanity journal, it is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal. Actually the UK has just determined that it is a religion, Climate change belief given same legal status as religion (The Daily Telegraph, UK) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html This is interesting "criteria", "the authors of the study finding a statistically significant change in both a biological/physical parameter and the measured temperature; and a statistical correlation between the temperature and the change in the biological/physical parameter" They cherry picked 44 papers out of 2500, knowing full well that ones meeting this "criteria" would show the "change" they were looking for. Thanks for helping make my point! If the list of 450 papers was so irrelevant then you would not feel the need to post on it. “Journal Citation Reports” is a commercial product of the Thomson Reuters corporation and uses a subjective ranking system.

“Impact Factor” is a subjective determination of popularity not scientific validity,

Show Me The Data
http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/179/6/1091
(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
http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/180/2/254
(The Journal of Cell Biology, Volume 180, Number 2, pp. 254-255, January 2008)
- Mike Rossner, Heather Van Epps, Emma Hill

The Scopus listing is wrong since E&E has nothing to do with any specific “trade” such as say “chemical engineering” ect…

EBSCO correctly lists it as an academic journal.
http://www.ebscohost.com/titleLists/eih-coverage.pdf

The Manuel papers are clearly a radical new theory but they do not represent the common skeptical position, however the papers are skeptical of AGW.

E&E is not a sub-standard or vanity journal, it is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary academic journal.

Actually the UK has just determined that it is a religion,

Climate change belief given same legal status as religion (The Daily Telegraph, UK)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6494213/Climate-change-belief-given-same-legal-status-as-religion.html

This is interesting “criteria”,

“the authors of the study finding a statistically significant change in both a biological/physical parameter and the measured temperature; and a statistical correlation between the temperature and the change in the biological/physical parameter”

They cherry picked 44 papers out of 2500, knowing full well that ones meeting this “criteria” would show the “change” they were looking for. Thanks for helping make my point!

If the list of 450 papers was so irrelevant then you would not feel the need to post on it.

]]>