Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas


Thanks Tree20Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 23rd, 2017, 04:43 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 4,978
Additionally...

Quote:
Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?

A blog post, even if you like it and it is presented in downloadable PDF form, is not a peer-reviewed study.


On 9 July 2017, Breitbart News ran a story written by chart enthusiast James Delingpole, which carried a characteristically provocative and demonstrably false headline:
‘Nearly All’ Recent Global Warming Is Fabricated, Study Finds
In it, Delingpole alleges that a “peer-reviewed” study (first “exclusively” highlighted by the Daily Caller), written by “two scientists and a veteran statistician” found evidence that “much of global warming has been fabricated by climate scientists”:
The peer-reviewed study by two scientists and a veteran statistician looked at the global average temperature datasets (GAST) which are used by climate alarmists to argue that recent years have been “the hottest evah” and that the warming of the last 120 years has been dramatic and unprecedented.

What they found is that these readings are “totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data.” That is, the adjusted data used by alarmist organizations like NASA, NOAA, and the UK Met Office differs so markedly from the original raw data that it cannot be trusted.
A Peer-Reviewed Study?

Breitbart here lowers the bar for what passes as both “peer-reviewed” and a “study”. This report, published on a WordPress blog run by co-author Joseph D’Aleo — a meteorologist who did not complete a PhD, but who prominently advertises his honorary doctorate on the document’s cover page — is not published in a scientific journal.

Additionally, this study is not (as implied by some coverage) an official publication of the Cato Institute, despite the fact that co-author Craig Idso is an adjunct scientist there. “This study was not published by the Cato Institute,” a representative of the libertarian think tank told us.

The claim of peer review, widely reported by numerous outlets, evidently stems from the second page of the report, in which the names of seven scientists (spanning a wide range of fields including aerospace engineering and economics, despite a complete lack of discussion of these topics in the report) appear under the banner “The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report”.

We reached out to these scientists to ask if this page was meant to imply that those listed individuals were the peer-reviewers news reports were speaking of. Only one person, George Wolff — a former Environmental Protection Agency atmospheric scientist who is now chief scientist for a company called Air Improvement Resource, Inc. — responded to our request. In a brief response, he simultaneously suggested that their inclusion on the document meant to imply they were the peer-reviewers, and that this process involved merely reading the study carefully:
My approach to reviewing the report was the same as I have used for the hundreds of journal articles that I have reviewed. I read the report carefully and critically. I gave it a formal peer-review.
Reading a study and saying that you agree with its conclusions is not how peer review works. A formal peer-review is a structured process that by nature requires a third party, usually a journal editor, who oversees an iterative process of critiques and revisions.

Given the fact that this study is not published in a journal but on a WordPress blog run by one of the co-authors, it is difficult to see how Wolff’s careful and critical reading of the document constitutes a formal peer review. In response to multiple requests for clarification on what Wolff meant by “formal peer review”, he indicated that the conversations were between only himself and the lead author, making the suggestion of peer review more philosophical than an argument rooted in objective reality:
I provided critical comments to the lead author. We then discussed them and appropriate changes were made to the report.
...

Continued here:

FACT CHECK: Peer-Reviewed Study Proves All Recent Global Warming Fabricated by Climatologists?
Thanks from Twisted Sister
baloney_detector is offline  
Old July 23rd, 2017, 05:37 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 11,226
Quote:
Originally Posted by baloney_detector View Post
Additionally...



publish or perish
Twisted Sister is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Talk > Americas

Tags
bias, media



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Media Bias Is Dangerous But Outright Bias Gets Many Killed skews13 Current Events 20 September 18th, 2014 02:35 PM
Media Bias vs. Israel roastpork Current Events 6 December 12th, 2013 09:59 AM
Never-ending media bias imaginethat Current Events 12 July 13th, 2013 12:07 PM
Does the Media have a Liberal Bias? Steama1973 Liberalism 33 December 1st, 2006 09:04 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.