Looks like they misrepresented the argument before criticizing it. The strong parts of Heller's argument (if true) are that the measuring devices that were NOT adjusted show no warming, and that all adjustments were in same direction.
-
-
Very likely, at least for review with any remote Impact Factor. That being said AFAIK it would also be difficult bc Heller argument is a scientific reply rather than an article material and as such need a published article producing that curve he contests to be addressed to.
-
And now that I think of it, this curves comes from reputable institution, but are not publised as articles in peer reviewed journal, to the best of my knowledge (need to be checked though). Which allows them to avoid public replies. OC they can say "IPCC takes it, it's golden pr"
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
There seems to be some truth to that. Below Judith Curry discusses how going upstream affected her career. This is not the way it should work. Below an interview with Judith Curry by Tom Woods:https://youtu.be/WnOxcDPlG48?t=2010 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is a list of all of Judith Curry's papers, it is pretty impressive. I haven't counted how many post-2010 (when her skepticism became active) actually are critical of aspects of AGW:https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=rC8rY4EAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Oh they will, it’s these journals. https://beallslist.weebly.com
-
Maybe you can help. I tried quickly to find out what were the peer reviewed articles that produced the temperature rise graph worldwide but only found articles using it. Do you know of any or was it just institution produced graph that didn’t go through the publication process?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Re: "Except journals won’t publish contrarian content on climate." Why do u make stuff up, with no concern for evidence? Or are you seriously aware of the (later debunked) publications from Roy Spencer, John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Nicola Scafetta, Craig Idso, etc.?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
OK, to test whether or not skeptics are not published, I looked up Richard Lindzen in Google Scholar and found quite a few critical journal articles by him:https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=kKs8h0kAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Google Scholar is pretty sweet. Another example proAGW is Dana Nuccitelli. This is an easy way to quickly find many papers by a scientist. I forgot about this feature until you made your claim. The more citations, the better, sometimes.https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=wSxDCzsAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They do. And nuetral/agnostic papers. However, 1) Media only writes up the most “dramatic” papers, 2) Authors that colors “within lines” of paper findings don’t get quoted, those that expound outside lines do. Unclear if mere greed/self interest drive these behaviors, or faith.
-
Also other considerations: - publications are rated in term of influence by Impact Factor. Even MS know that and will only relay the (very) high IF articles. No skeptic allowed here. - there's a formalism for scientific paper that isn't very critic friendly. It goes like this:
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.