That is false. If you ask Lott for his database he will provide it. He has had that policy for decades. It’s even stated in his books along with the discussions he has had with gun control people who evaluated his database. In More Guns Less Crime the appendix and footnotes are filled with the raw data backing his conclusions, and he has provided that database to numerous critics. You would know that if you kept up with the literature and not the hype.
There is some fraud but most of it is not outright falsification but selecting data to back the thesis. I work in a very technical field, the math is difficult and simulations are used a lot. People publish some new idea and back it up with simulation results knowing that in the flood of papers it’s highly unlikely someone will deeply examine their paper to the point of building a sophisticated simulation to test it. It’s a numbers game. Professors need to publish lots of papers. It’s definitely quantity over quality.
Yep! It is about as valid as Sydney Powell’s Kraken https://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12700222/nra-social-scientist-claims-debunked Not even Katie Couric would include him in a doco https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott https://www.mediamatters.org/john-l...cher-john-lott-falls-apart-when-you-press-him https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/John_Lott
Katie Couric is a gun ban fanatic, of course she won't include Lott, she only includes people who agree with her. Despite Vox being a far left mouthpiece, I read the article. Its one sided and in many areas its just simply wrong. For one it pushes the arguement that gun control will decrease suicide, thats not true as was seen in Australia. In 1996 when Australia banned many firearms the prediction was that suicide would decrease because there were fewer guns. That did not happen. The Australian suicide rate was slowly falling before the ban, and the trend line continued. Guns were not the main means of suicide before the ban (about 20% of suicides were with a gun) or after the ban. After the ban, the use of guns in suicide decreased but the use of hanging etc increased. The fundamental flaw is that people do not see a gun and then decide to commit suicide, they decide to commit suicide and then select the method. The decision to commit suicide is the result of a long period - often many years - of persona problems. Its not spur of the moment. Wikipedia is worthless, I won't even look at it. Even its creator (Larry Sanger) has abandoned it because its so politicized and biased. Sanger has written "nobody should trust wikipedia" because of its left leaning bias. Media matters? LOL that must be a joke, MM is so completely discredited nobody but the most severely brainwashed on the left use it. Most lefty politicians dont even use it anymore. Sourcewatch? Another joke?
Of course not, her reporting is highly biased and very carefully staged. That alone actually does no favors at all for your argument. Remember, you are talking about somebody that came under fire a few years ago when she edited the comments of a Supreme Court Justice because she thought that the comments would be unfavorable to most of her viewers.
At most, unless discussing hard historical data (say the year somebody was born or died), then it should never be used other than as a source for references. Early on I myself was a constant article creator there. However, editing wars and seeing my edits removed and purposefully posting incorrect information was simply too much and I pretty much left it. However, I will frequently use it to locate sources for information. Most who use it as a reference really have no idea how to actually do research. They think just bringing that up is all the research they ever need, and can not be bothered with actually looking at source documents or even trying to vette their sources.
Sunlight is the cure for research misconduct. Research misconduct in fish ecology and what it means for those who dare to challenge experts Posted on August 10, 2022 | Comments Offon Research misconduct in fish ecology and what it means for those who dare to challenge experts This has nothing to do with polar bears but everything to do with the scientific shenanigans that blight virtually all the fields that purport to support the human-caused climate change rhetoric, including polar bear research. The parallels of this example (published in Science Magazine yesterday) with my experience challenging the polar bear cabal is obvious, as it is with Dr. Peter Ridd’s battles with colleagues over the state of Great Barrier Reef corals, recently shown to be in spectacularly good condition. Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., who’s had more than his fair share of trouble challenging climate change rhetoric, tweeted about this development yesterday but today he’s published a comprehensive essay explaining the whole sordid story, called ‘Fish and Foul: Three lessons from a massive research misconduct case in marine science‘. It’s well worth a read all the way through but I’ve provided a few excerpts below. Continue reading →
D.1. Estimates of the global emissions outcome of current nationally stated mitigation ambitions as submitted under the Paris Agreement would lead to global greenhouse gas emissions in 2030 of 52–58 GtCO2eq yr−1 (medium confidence). Pathways reflecting these ambitions would not limit global warming to 1.5°C, even if supplemented by very challenging increases in the scale and ambition of emissions reductions after 2030 (high confidence). Avoiding overshoot and reliance on future large-scale deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) can only be achieved if global CO2 emissions start to decline well before 2030 (high confidence). {1.2, 2.3, 3.3, 3.4, 4.2, 4.4, Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 4} D.1.1. Pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot show clear emission reductions by 2030 (high confidence). All but one show a decline in global greenhouse gas emissions to below 35 GtCO2eq yr−1 in 2030, and half of available pathways fall within the 25–30 GtCO2eq yr−1 range (interquartile range), a 40–50% reduction from 2010 levels (high confidence). Pathways reflecting current nationally stated mitigation ambition until 2030 are broadly consistent with cost-effective pathways that result in a global warming of about 3°C by 2100, with warming continuing afterwards (medium confidence). {2.3.3, 2.3.5, Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 4, 5.5.3.2} D.1.2. Overshoot trajectories result in higher impacts and associated challenges compared to pathways that limit global warming to 1.5°C with no or limited overshoot (high confidence). Reversing warming after an overshoot of 0.2°C or larger during this century would require upscaling and deployment of CDR at rates and volumes that might not be achievable given considerable implementation challenges (medium confidence). {1.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.3.5, 2.5.1, 3.3, 4.3.7, Cross-Chapter Box 8 in Chapter 3, Cross-Chapter Box 11 in Chapter 4} D.1.3. The lower the emissions in 2030, the lower the challenge in limiting global warming to 1.5°C after 2030 with no or limited overshoot (high confidence). The challenges from delayed actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions include the risk of cost escalation, lock-in in carbon-emitting infrastructure, stranded assets, and reduced flexibility in future response options in the medium to long term (high confidence). These may increase uneven distributional impacts between countries at different stages of development (medium confidence). {2.3.5, 4.4.5, 5.4.2} D.2. The avoided climate change impacts on sustainable development, eradication of poverty and reducing inequalities would be greater if global warming were limited to 1.5°C rather than 2°C, if mitigation and adaptation synergies are maximized while trade-offs are minimized (high confidence). {1.1, 1.4, 2.5, 3.3, 3.4, 5.2, Table 5.1} D.2.1. Climate change impacts and responses are closely linked to sustainable development which balances social well-being, economic prosperity and environmental protection. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), adopted in 2015, provide an established framework for assessing the links between global warming of 1.5°C or 2°C and development goals that include poverty eradication, reducing inequalities, and climate action. (high confidence) {Cross-Chapter Box 4 in Chapter 1, 1.4, 5.1} D.2.2. The consideration of ethics and equity can help address the uneven distribution of adverse impacts associated with 1.5°C and higher levels of global warming, as well as those from mitigation and adaptation, particularly for poor and disadvantaged populations, in all societies (high confidence). {1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.4.3, 2.5.3, 3.4.10, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3. 5.4, Cross-Chapter Box 4 in Chapter 1, Cross-Chapter Boxes 6 and 8 in Chapter 3, and Cross-Chapter Box 12 in Chapter 5} D.2.3. Mitigation and adaptation consistent with limiting global warming to 1.5°C are underpinned by enabling conditions, assessed in this Report across the geophysical, environmental-ecological, technological, economic, socio-cultural and institutional dimensions of feasibility. Strengthened multilevel governance, institutional capacity, policy instruments, technological innovation and transfer and mobilization of finance, and changes in human behaviour and lifestyles are enabling conditions that enhance the feasibility of mitigation and adaptation options for 1.5°C-consistent systems transitions. (high confidence) {1.4, Cross-Chapter Box 3 in Chapter 1, 2.5.1, 4.4, 4.5, 5.6} https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/spm/
If I recommended sources I would be considered biased. Do you trust government sources like the EPA or NASA? Or do you trust a blog like whatsupwiththat? What sources do you consider legitimate?
I trust sources that confirm my biases. What is the point of being biased if you don't use it? I have carefully cultivated my biases to provide a reliable guide to living.
It seems rather churlish to suggest that credible sources exist and then refuse to tell us how you know.
So, you are saying they .....NASA, NOAA, and the EPA are reputable sources? And if so, why are you contrary to them?
They produce useful data, for example the UAH global temperature reports (NOAA partnership). Where we part company is the unwarranted assumptions and model projections they draw from that data.
Yes. I believe I am. My views closely follow those of Professor Nir Shaviv and Professor Henrik Svensmark, whose arguments are most persuasive to me.
Can someone help me? I was reading one of these threads earlier in the summer and someone had mentioned that NOAA had predicted something like 28 hurricanes this year. Can anyone point me to the thread where that was being discussed?
Busted. Exclusive: Hindawi and Wiley to retract over 500 papers linked to peer review rings After months of investigation that identified networks of reviewers and editors manipulating the peer review process, Hindawi plans to retract 511 papers across 16 journals, Retraction Watch has learned. The retractions, which the publisher and its parent company, Wiley, will announce tomorrow in a blog post, will be issued in the next month, and more may come as its investigation continues. They are not yet making the list available. Hindawi’s research integrity team found several signs of manipulated peer reviews for the affected papers, including reviews that contained duplicated text, a few individuals who did a lot of reviews, reviewers who turned in their reviews extremely quickly, and misuse of databases that publishers use to vet potential reviewers. Continue reading
