- #1
Wagmc
- 27
- 0
post deleted
Last edited:
That is not true.Skyhunter said:E&E is not a peer reviewed journal.
Your citation is against forum rules.
WeatherRusty said:Graig Loehle = Hartland Institute = Politically Biased.
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.com/expert.cfm?expertId=389"
Skyhunter said:They are listed as a trade journal, not a science journal.
E&E is not a refereed science journal.
These people? That's a smear in my opinion. Take Loehle's political inclinations into account in building skepticism if you like, but the way to refute this is on the basis of the contents of the paper.WeatherRusty said:I must maintain proper etiquette, so I will merely suggest that you do some research into what the Hartland Institute is all about. Anyone affiliated with them has allowed political leanings to strongly influence their decision making. The front these people put up in the guise of legitimacy is very effective. As scientifically minded people, don't allow yourselves to fall for it.
The Heartland Institute is a nonprofit research and education organization to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. If you are associated with it you merely support these positions. None of which has to do with a science discussion.WeatherRusty said:I must maintain proper etiquette, so I will merely suggest that you do some research into what the Hartland Institute is all about. Anyone affiliated with them has allowed political leanings to strongly influence their decision making. The front these people put up in the guise of legitimacy is very effective. As scientifically minded people, don't allow yourselves to fall for it.
EBSCO lists it as an Academic Journal and Peer-Reviewed.Skyhunter said:It is not listed in the ISI database and SCOPUS lists it as a trade publication.
Um no...Skyhunter said:It is not listed with ISI Web of Knowledge. That is the standard for science journals.
EBSCO is a private company and can do whatever they want.
If a journal is not in the Science Citation Index it is not a refereed journal.
But you can argue the point with the mods here.
So have you reported the offending reference so the moderators can act on it?Skyhunter said:I had a thread locked here for using E&E as a source.
Argue with the moderators if you want. The editor of E&E has stated that she has a political agenda and will publish what others won't.
Exxon is a publicly traded company. Which is irrelevant to a subjective listing.Skyhunter said:FYI Thomson Reuters Corporation is a publicly traded company. EBSCO is privately held.
According to whom? You? Who determines what is "standard"?Skyhunter said:SCI has been the standard for half a decade.
That is because you need to do better research than Wikipedia. EVERY journal has a political agenda, there is no such thing has a non-biased source. What gets published or not in a journal is based on the whims of the editors. Too many people are idealistic and naive.Skyhunter said:I had a thread locked here for using E&E as a source.
Argue with the moderators if you want. The editor of E&E has stated that she has a political agenda and will publish what others won't.
Even Roger Pielke regrets publishing in the journal back in the 90's because of how it has devolved.
E&E is a legitimate peer reviewed journalWeatherRusty said:It does on a forum heavily monitored for quality content based on legitimate peer reviewed science.
So? If I am a member of the NRA doe that mean my science is now funded by them? Obviously not. So unless you can prove the science was funded by them you have nothing. The Heartland institute considering him an expert does not make him even associated with them.WeatherRusty said:Heartland Institute
$561,500 Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects. ExxonMobil donated $119,000 in 2005, its biggest gift to Heartland since 1998.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf"
The moderators here set the standard, and they do a lot of work keeping this forum out of the noise.Poptech said:...According to whom? You? Who determines what is "standard"?
So it does not matter if a paper is published in a peer-reviewed academic journal then but rather if the moderators approve of it. That is not a standard.mheslep said:The moderators here set the standard, and they do a lot of work keeping this forum out of the noise.
Poptech said:E&E is a legitimate peer reviewed journalSo? If I am a member of the NRA doe that mean my science is now funded by them? Obviously not. So unless you can prove the science was funded by them you have nothing. The Heartland institute considering him an expert does not make him even associated with them.
Wait I just realized you used Sourcewatch (which is edited like Wikipedia) to determine that Craig Loehle was "associated" with the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute lists scientists it "considers" experts not ones that work for it.
Lesson #1 do not rely on Sourcewatch or Wikipedia as primary sources.
That is the association fallacy.WeatherRusty said:I will never trust the science of a researcher clearly associated with ...
WeatherRusty said:...the science of climate change...
WeatherRusty said:...
"This model and the empirical evidence for recent cooling thus provide a challenge to climate model accuracy."
Andre said:If you don't trust the science of a researcher, challenge the science, not the researcher. If the science is done correctly, better evalutate why you did not trusted him in the first place?
Skyhunter said:Why bother. I am here to learn, and only have so much time to devote to reading, digesting, and discussing climate change science.
WeatherRusty said:Here is access to the source data...have at it.
The new study focuses on recent cooling trends that contradict the projections made by climate models.
Climate models are computer simulations that use mathematical equations to predict future climate conditions based on various factors such as greenhouse gas emissions, solar activity, and ocean currents.
The study suggests that there has been a recent cooling trend that is not consistent with the projections made by climate models. This cooling trend has been observed in certain regions and time periods.
This study challenges the accuracy of climate models and raises questions about our understanding of climate change. It highlights the complexity of the Earth's climate system and the need for further research to better understand its behavior.
If the findings of this study are confirmed, it could have significant implications for climate change policies and strategies. It may also lead to further research and improvements in climate modeling techniques.