Climate Catastrophe

[pjclarke]

Every single defence you make is "ad hominem"

Au contraire, I believe a paper that has undergone peer review to be more reliable than one that hasn't, especially when it is consistent with the rest of the literature.

As opposed to an unreviewed outlier study, riddled with schoolboy errors. YMMV.

Anyhow here's Obama's social media explanation of his latest climate measures. Enjoy!

https://twitter.com/WhiteHouse/statu...90347691274240

[BlasterBates]

What it shows is that the Loehle reconstruction is so flawed as to be worthless. It was put together by a consultant to the timber industry, uses just 12 sites, some with very sparse data, plus the other problems identified in the linked article and was never submitted to a serious journal. By contrast the Past Global Changes (PAGES 2K) project had 78 researchers from 24 countries, who over 7 years produced a study published by Nature Geoscience based on 511 climate archives from around the world.

Here's their result



From Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick | ThinkProgress

If the paper is fundamentally flawed it will have been retracted, funny though I couldn't find anything.

Can you post the link?

[DodgyAgent]

"Peer review" as in supported by any number of scientists attached to the climate change gravy train. How is that for a bit of ad hominem?

You never managed to argue this one logically ..:: Welcome to Nualgi ::..

[pjclarke]

If the paper is fundamentally flawed it will have been retracted, funny though I couldn't find anything.

Can you post the link?

It was never published in a recognised journal. HTH.

[BlasterBates]

It was never published in a recognised journal. HTH.

Not recognised by who?

You?

Noddy or perhaps Big Ears?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_%26_Environment

Energy and Environment is a peer reviewed scientific journal.

What you mean is "I don't recognise Energy and Environment".

[pjclarke]

Energy and Environment is a joke journal. Its is actually unclear if it is peer reviewed, maybe in theory but in practice it will publish any old tat, up to and including a paper claiming that the sun is a huge ball bearing. And this, which does not look to have been even proof-read, much less reviewed. And no, they weren't retracted, despite being scientific bulltulip.

Did you actually read the wiki entry?

According to a 2011 article in The Guardian, Gavin Schmidt and Roger A. Pielke, Jr. said that E&E has had low standards of peer review and little impact. In addition, Ralph Keeling criticized a paper in the journal which claimed that CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in 1825, 1857 and 1942, writing in a letter to the editor, "Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?"A 2005 article in Environmental Science & Technology stated that "scientific claims made in Energy & Environment have little credibility among scientists.

It is carried by a huge 25 libraries worldwide, it is not included in Journal Citation Reports, or ISI Web of Knowledge. Scopus does not class it as peer-reviewed. The Editor, an emeritus reader in Geography at the University of Hull, admitted in a letter to Michael Mann that

I do not claim that I or my reviewers can arbitrate on the 'scientific' truth of publications that the IPCC selects as most relevant,

.

It may be peer reviewed in theory but as Gavin Schmidt of NASA observed it has 'effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor’s political line'. E&E threatened a libel action for that charge, but folded when Schmidt stood by his words, later adding:

"I would personally not credit any article that was published there with any useful contribution to the science," he told the Guardian. "Saying a paper was published in E&E has become akin to immediately discrediting it." He also describes the journal as a "backwater" of poorly presented and incoherent contributions that "anyone who has done any science can see are fundamentally flawed from the get-go."

I agree. Its a train wreck.

[darmstadt]

36 Celsius at 19:00 this evening, that's a sign of something (apart from sweaty bollocks!)

[BlasterBates]

Energy and Environment is a joke journal. Its is actually unclear if it is peer reviewed, maybe in theory but in practice it will publish any old tat, up to and including a paper claiming that the sun is a huge ball bearing. And this, which does not look to have been even proof-read, much less reviewed. And no, they weren't retracted, despite being scientific bulltulip.

Did you actually read the wiki entry?



It is carried by a huge 25 libraries worldwide, it is not included in Journal Citation Reports, or ISI Web of Knowledge. Scopus does not class it as peer-reviewed. The Editor, an emeritus reader in Geography at the University of Hull, admitted in a letter to Michael Mann that

.

It may be peer reviewed in theory but as Gavin Schmidt of NASA observed it has 'effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor’s political line'. E&E threatened a libel action for that charge, but folded when Schmidt stood by his words, later adding:



I agree. Its a train wreck.

Another temperature reconstruction that looks very similar to Loehle's:

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbj...2000-years.pdf

In a different peer reviewed scientific journal.

What you clearly see in the reconstruction is a natural climate cycle over 1000 years.

[pjclarke]

Another temperature reconstruction that looks very similar to Loehle's:

http://agbjarn.blog.is/users/fa/agbj...2000-years.pdf

In a different peer reviewed scientific journal.

What you clearly see in the reconstruction is a natural climate cycle over 1000 years.

Very similar?



Source : https://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/09/28/vindication/

[EternalOptimist]

If it was about climate, and CO2, Gore, the activists, PJ would act in a certain way. If it were about power, control , authoritarianism, they would act in a second way.

The way they act.. they don't care about the climate. They want power and control