Funds Insider - Opening the door to funds

Welcome to the Citywire Funds Insider Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error
Climate Change - The Agenda
+ Reply to discussion
Options
Jimmy Page
Posted: 19 July 2023 19:16:48(UTC)
#229

Joined: 11/11/2017(UTC)
Posts: 1,686

Thanks: 6527 times
Was thanked: 3960 time(s) in 1251 post(s)
Science exposing itself well before covid.
https://www.theguardian....mails-flaws-peer-review

https://www.netzerowatch...er-withdrawn-by-nature/
"Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity. Because of these weaker implications, the Nature editors asked for a Retraction, which we accept."
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
3 users thanked Jimmy Page for this post.
wydffart on 19/07/2023(UTC), ANDREW FOSTER on 19/07/2023(UTC), Guest on 20/07/2023(UTC)
Jimmy Page
Posted: 19 July 2023 19:37:08(UTC)
#230

Joined: 11/11/2017(UTC)
Posts: 1,686

Thanks: 6527 times
Was thanked: 3960 time(s) in 1251 post(s)
A balanced view of the process from 2006. Before the hockey stick episode and well before covid.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih...mc/articles/PMC1420798/
"Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals"
Back to top Quote
2 users thanked Jimmy Page for this post.
Guest on 20/07/2023(UTC), NoMoreKickingCans on 20/07/2023(UTC)
Tug Boat
Posted: 19 July 2023 19:40:55(UTC)
#226

Joined: 16/12/2014(UTC)
Posts: 2,023
Jimmy Page;273778 wrote:
Tug Boat;273775 wrote:
I submitted two papers for peer review before publishing.

It’s not your mates down the pub that examine them. You also have to submit the data.

Do not dis this process. You get a thorough going over.

My papers were trivial really, novel ways of assaying metals.

If you have never done it STFU.

I spent a career doing just that. I know exactly how it works thanks, so FO.
And my specialism was never political during my time. Indeed, it currently remains as apolitical as meteorology and epidemiology used to be. Niche and boring in fact.

My specialism is though still profoundly protective of its reputation for probity and is aghast at the way these others have pandered to the hysteria, half-truths and naked manipulation of data.


My comment wasn’t a comment about what you said rather than what was said further up. I’m very protective about the peer review process. It works.

The crap what I read “200 scientists endorse this from 150 countries “ which people believe unsettles me.
Back to top Quote
Jimmy Page
Posted: 19 July 2023 20:00:56(UTC)
#228

Joined: 11/11/2017(UTC)
Posts: 1,686

Thanks: 6527 times
Was thanked: 3960 time(s) in 1251 post(s)
Tug Boat;273796 wrote:
Jimmy Page;273778 wrote:
Tug Boat;273775 wrote:
I submitted two papers for peer review before publishing.

It’s not your mates down the pub that examine them. You also have to submit the data.

Do not dis this process. You get a thorough going over.

My papers were trivial really, novel ways of assaying metals.

If you have never done it STFU.

I spent a career doing just that. I know exactly how it works thanks, so FO.
And my specialism was never political during my time. Indeed, it currently remains as apolitical as meteorology and epidemiology used to be. Niche and boring in fact.

My specialism is though still profoundly protective of its reputation for probity and is aghast at the way these others have pandered to the hysteria, half-truths and naked manipulation of data.


My comment wasn’t a comment about what you said rather than what was said further up. I’m very protective about the peer review process. It works.

The crap what I read “200 scientists endorse this from 150 countries “ which people believe unsettles me.

Fair enough.
However, so was I protective (well, a supporter) during my professional life. Since then, (correlation not causation!), it has shown itself wide open to abuse, manipulation and even parody.
Was it always so? Was I naive? Dunno.
As a system, it requires good faith, and that is demonstrably sometimes lacking. And sometimes, a whole profession seems to get itself in so deeply it becomes easier to just accept 'our truth'. A cheap and demaning substitute for fact.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
3 users thanked Jimmy Page for this post.
ANDREW FOSTER on 19/07/2023(UTC), Guest on 20/07/2023(UTC), NoMoreKickingCans on 20/07/2023(UTC)
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 19 July 2023 20:31:30(UTC)
#227

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,131

Thanks: 11379 times
Was thanked: 18255 time(s) in 5988 post(s)
Tug Boat;273796 wrote:


My comment wasn’t a comment about what you said rather than what was said further up. I’m very protective about the peer review process. It works.



Despite the various examples cited above where it was found to be flawed/failed...? It clearly doesn't always "work".

That's not sounding like a tenable position.

Back to top Quote
2 users thanked ANDREW FOSTER for this post.
Guest on 20/07/2023(UTC), NoMoreKickingCans on 20/07/2023(UTC)
Jimmy Page
Posted: 20 July 2023 19:33:28(UTC)
#231

Joined: 11/11/2017(UTC)
Posts: 1,686

Thanks: 6527 times
Was thanked: 3960 time(s) in 1251 post(s)
The ESA's 'Land Surface Temperature project.
https://climate.esa.int/...face-temperature/about/

Alongside NASAs project, it promises to not just plot current/ future surface temperatures, but to also provide retrospective data for the last 20 years.

All based on modelling of satellite data.

"Land Surface Temperature is an important variable within the Earth climate system. It describes processes such as the exchange of energy and water between the land surface and atmosphere, and influences the rate and timing of plant growth.

Accurately understanding Land Surface Temperature at the global and regional level helps to evaluate land surface–atmosphere exchange processes in models and, when combined with other physical properties such as vegetation and soil moisture, provides a valuable metric of surface state."

It also gives Sky/ BBC temperatures appreciably higher than boring old air temp from a mercury thermometer, in a well- placed Stevenson's screen, 1.6m above ground.
Plus garishly coloured graphics of course.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
2 users thanked Jimmy Page for this post.
NoMoreKickingCans on 20/07/2023(UTC), Guest on 21/07/2023(UTC)
NoMoreKickingCans
Posted: 20 July 2023 19:44:17(UTC)
#220

Joined: 26/02/2012(UTC)
Posts: 4,470

Thanks: 4548 times
Was thanked: 8771 time(s) in 3091 post(s)
ANDREW FOSTER;273772 wrote:
Jimmy Page;273769 wrote:
One other point.
The manipulation from the media as they try to fill their 24 hour rolling output is clear. The infantilisation, the bright colours, the breathless reporting of catastrophe from the very heart of the furnace, the sad face as "Elena from Athens' says it has never been this bad before and 'is increasing exponentially', is just what media does.
Why though, is sober 'science' playing the same game? Isn't there a scientist anywhere that has rservations about the impact of 'catastrophisation' on the facts? Or are they just enjoying the ride?


Scientists know that the next round of funding comes from catastrohphisation.

No one gets funding for a paper that says 'everything is fine'...

The more extreme the news, the more headlines, the more research needed.

Saying the opposite narrative gets you hated because it potentially cuts off the revenue stream for others. So mob rule takes over. Everyone cites each others papers to create the story.


The point about ground Vs air temperature is a good one.


Very well and succinctly said by both of you.
Back to top Quote
3 users thanked NoMoreKickingCans for this post.
Jimmy Page on 20/07/2023(UTC), Jonathan Friend on 20/07/2023(UTC), Guest on 21/07/2023(UTC)
Jimmy Page
Posted: 20 July 2023 22:34:47(UTC)
#232

Joined: 11/11/2017(UTC)
Posts: 1,686

Thanks: 6527 times
Was thanked: 3960 time(s) in 1251 post(s)
BBC simultaneously giving Palermo temperature as 37C and 47C.
https://twitter.com/robi...tus/1681625398856040448
Not a peep from any guardians of meteorological probity. 'The science' must be happy.
Back to top Quote
 |  Edit by user
3 users thanked Jimmy Page for this post.
Jonathan Friend on 20/07/2023(UTC), Guest on 21/07/2023(UTC), ANDREW FOSTER on 22/07/2023(UTC)
Jonathan Friend
Posted: 20 July 2023 22:50:06(UTC)
#233

Joined: 19/09/2022(UTC)
Posts: 1,282

Thanks: 1229 times
Was thanked: 3047 time(s) in 957 post(s)
Jimmy Page;273890 wrote:
'The science' must be happy.


🤣

I like that. The Science is like a deity, the holy one, that people worship.

But it is a false god!

Even the real science is only ever a tool that can inform our decision making. We must ultimately decide for ourselves what the correct course of action is.

Note that the sheeple are trapped at stage 1.
Back to top Quote
3 users thanked Jonathan Friend for this post.
Guest on 21/07/2023(UTC), ANDREW FOSTER on 22/07/2023(UTC), Jimmy Page on 23/07/2023(UTC)
ANDREW FOSTER
Posted: 21 July 2023 21:56:15(UTC)
#234

Joined: 23/07/2019(UTC)
Posts: 8,131

Thanks: 11379 times
Was thanked: 18255 time(s) in 5988 post(s)

Trust the scientists and the data...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66251751

Back to top Quote
3 users thanked ANDREW FOSTER for this post.
Jimmy Page on 21/07/2023(UTC), Tyrion Lannister on 21/07/2023(UTC), Guest on 22/07/2023(UTC)
64 Pages«Previous page2122232425Next page»
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets