No. It is not a requote. That's the first time that passage has been presented. And it refutes your claim comprehensively.
Not only is that ridiculous, but it is even MORE silly to judge science on the grounds of protesters - which IS your primary direction.
No one is judging science. The protesters are being judged. The conclusion is that the less they know the more they protest.
Yes, and I'm standing behind the FACT that judging science by counting protesters is about the most STUPID approach imaginable.
No, it does not. You've posted from what, five different sources? And what are those sources? Are they run by actual scientists in the field? How well regarded are they by other climatologists? Has their information been peer reviewed?
Resourceful Earth Day: Fred Smith on Julian Simon Guest Blogger ..as we approach their due date for disaster, the planet is in increasingly good shape. . . .
Finding 8 papers that need to be retracted says NOTHING about democracy or consensus. It simply shows that 8/millions of papers can have errors worth retraction.
Papers are retracted for various reasons. There can be inadequate controls/bad design. There can be outright fabrication of data. There can be "p hacking" - process errors. You have to look at the decision of those judging a particular paper to know why it got retracted. Sometimes, it is the author who calls for retraction. The real point here is that almost 0 papers get retracted. Divide the retractions by the total papers!
What is your point? There has been no objection raised about any of the eight papers you don't like. As for retractions generally, we have quite a bit of data. Retraction Watch Database User Guide Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix A: Fields Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix B: Reasons Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix C: Article Types Retraction Watch Database User Guide Appendix D: Changes
They data you DO NOT have is the important aspect of judging reliability. And, that is how many papers are retracted divided by the total number of papers.
Retractions are rare. So what? And you still haven't said why you think the eight papers should be retracted.
I have no idea why those papers were retracted, so I've never suggested anything about that. The point is that you claim you are supporting science by reporting a tiny number of retractions found and performed by others. And, you have not explained how that supports science.
I think you are confused. The eight papers are those I cited and linked in support of my skeptical view of the AGW hypothesis. You posted that they should be retracted and I asked why. You still have not answered. As for how reporting retractions supports science, I'll just cite the Center for Scientific Integrity. The mission of the Center for Scientific Integrity, the parent organization of Retraction Watch, is to promote transparency and integrity in science and scientific publishing, and to disseminate best practices and increase efficiency in science.
