HOLY CRAP!! IPCC violates all 8 criteria for following scientific method!!

[skookerasbil]

And get this...........only 1% of science journals articles follow the scientific method.

In other words........."climate science" is a fraud s0ns!!


J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.'”


J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method - Breitbart




Of course, the alarmist k00ks will kneejerk on the source of the article.........a typical stunt pulled by snowflakes these days. Highly ghey btw..........

But check the link and see the 8 criteria........climate change science doesn't give a shit about them.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

RWNJs never ever look to see who funds these lies.

 

[Old Rocks]

As the evidence mounts for all to see, the attacks on the scientists get more ridiculous. I am sure the rwnj's think the the Fake British Lord is the last word in scientific method. LOL

 

[skookerasbil]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

RWNJs never ever look to see who funds these lies.

facts don't matter to progressives s0ns..........never will. Trump is smashing "climate science" because he can......its what the people want!!. The people are sick and tired of the fraud of climate science.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

They don't needs to test their theories, they have consensus

 

[skookerasbil]

As the evidence mounts for all to see, the attacks on the scientists get more ridiculous. I am sure the rwnj's think the the Fake British Lord is the last word in scientific method. LOL

Really?

Then why is the science not mattering in the real world?

I hear a lot about the right wing nut jobs these days..........but funny to me........in the area of climate science, the losing amongst the alarmists could not be any more prolific!!


You folks live in your own little reality.........nothing could be more clear these days!! 20 years of throwing bombs hasn't made a dick bit of difference.

 

[Muhammed]

The IPCC is a political organization. It has nothing to do with science.

 

[skookerasbil]

so folks, next time you hear an alarmist speaking about "real" science, just remember..........these scientists practicing "real" science don't give a fuck about the scientific method.

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/cucumber_1.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

The IPCC is a political organization. It has nothing to do with science.

Hey Muhammed........love your "location" bro.......

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How foolish must one be, to grant any scientific credibility to the side that believes that Bruce Jenner is a woman?

 

[saveliberty]

This look like lies to you?

 

[cnm]

Ah, Koch suckers.

Cool.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

And get this...........only 1% of science journals articles follow the scientific method.

In other words........."climate science" is a fraud s0ns!!


J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.'”


J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method - Breitbart




Of course, the alarmist k00ks will kneejerk on the source of the article.........a typical stunt pulled by snowflakes these days. Highly ghey btw..........

But check the link and see the 8 criteria........climate change science doesn't give a shit about them.

I knew this was the case from the beginning. Even if one is not familiar with the scientific method, anthropogenic climate change does not pass the smell check. But it makes some people feel good I guess. I really have no idea why otherwise intelligent and reasonable humans would be all in on man-made climate change, it's truly baffling.

 

[cnm]

So, J Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing.

He's certainly found a bunch of rubes to sell to.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Says the one that wants to ban all science and thinks the method is a tool of satan...Fuck you skooks.

 

[cnm]

Even if one is not familiar with the scientific method, anthropogenic climate change does not pass the smell check.

So what's the reason for this observed climb in temperature?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

 

[ScienceRocks]

Even if one is not familiar with the scientific method, anthropogenic climate change does not pass the smell check.

So what's the reason for this observed climb in temperature?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

Every data set shows it! The conservatives have nothing but spin!

They'll probably say it is because of satan.

 

[westwall]

And get this...........only 1% of science journals articles follow the scientific method.

In other words........."climate science" is a fraud s0ns!!


J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method

Fewer than 1 percent of papers published in scientific journals follow the scientific method, according to research by Wharton School professor and forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong

According to Armstrong, forecasts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) violate all eight criteria.

“Why is this all happening? Nobody asks them!” said Armstrong, who says that people who submit papers to journals are not required to follow the scientific method. “You send something to a journal and they don’t tell you what you have to do. They don’t say ‘here’s what science is, here’s how to do it.'”


J Scott Armstrong: Fewer Than 1 Percent Of Papers in Scientific Journals Follow Scientific Method - Breitbart




Of course, the alarmist k00ks will kneejerk on the source of the article.........a typical stunt pulled by snowflakes these days. Highly ghey btw..........

But check the link and see the 8 criteria........climate change science doesn't give a shit about them.

Yeah, anyone with a brain knew that.

 

[westwall]

Even if one is not familiar with the scientific method, anthropogenic climate change does not pass the smell check.

So what's the reason for this observed climb in temperature?

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: Analysis Graphs and Plots

It's called "fiction" for a reason.

 

[MisterBeale]

Jesus H. Fucking Christ.

RWNJs never ever look to see who funds these lies.

I looked into this. I could find nothing untoward that would de-legitimatize these findings. If you can, please post it.

INFORMS PubsOnline

INFORMS PubsOnline

International Journal of Forecasting - Wikipedia

Elsevier - Wikipedia
Criticism and controversies
See also: Reed Elsevier § Controversy
In addition to issues indicated in this section, Elsevier's parent company (Reed Elsevier) has been criticised for its links to the weapons industry.

Pricing
In recent years, the subscription rates charged by the company for its journals have been criticized; some very large journals (with more than 5,000 articles) charge subscription prices as high as £9,634, far above average,[23] and many British universities pay more than a million pounds to Elsevier annually.[24] The company has been criticized not only by advocates of a switch to the open-access publication model, but also by universities whose library budgets make it difficult for them to afford current journal prices. For example, a resolution by Stanford University's senate singled out Elsevier's journals as being "disproportionately expensive compared to their educational and research value", which librarians should consider dropping, and encouraged its faculty "not to contribute articles or editorial or review efforts to publishers and journals that engage in exploitive or exorbitant pricing".[25] Similar guidelines and criticism of Elsevier's pricing policies have been passed by the University of California, Harvard University, and Duke University.[26] In July 2015, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands (VSNU) announced a plan to start boycotting Elsevier, which refused to negotiate on any Open Access policy for Dutch universities.[27] In December 2016, Nature Publishing Group reported that academics in Germany, Peru and Taiwan are to lose access to Elsevier journals as negotiations had broken down with the publisher.[28] A complaint about Elsevier/RELX was made to the Competition and Markets Authority in December 2016 by three UK based Academics.[29]

Resignation of editorial boards
In November 1999 the entire editorial board (50 persons) of the Journal of Logic Programming (founded in 1984 by Alan Robinson) collectively resigned after 16 months of unsuccessful negotiations with Elsevier Press about the price of library subscriptions.[30] The personnel created a new journal, Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, with Cambridge University Press at a much lower price,[30] while Elsevier continued publication with a new editorial board and a slightly different name (the Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming).

In 2002, dissatisfaction at Elsevier's pricing policies caused the European Economic Association to terminate an agreement with Elsevier designating Elsevier's European Economic Review as the official journal of the association. The EEA launched a new journal, the Journal of the European Economic Association.[31]

In 2003, the entire editorial board of the Journal of Algorithms resigned to start ACM Transactions on Algorithms with a different, lower-priced, not-for-profit publisher,[32] at the suggestion of Journal of Algorithms founder Donald Knuth.[33] The Journal of Algorithms continued under Elsevier with a new editorial board until October 2009, when it was discontinued.[34]

The same happened in 2005 to the International Journal of Solids and Structures, whose editors resigned to start the Journal of Mechanics of Materials and Structures. However, a new editorial board was quickly established and the journal continues in apparently unaltered form with editors D.A. Hills (Oxford University) and Stelios Kyriakides (University of Texas at Austin).[35][36]

In August 2006, the entire editorial board of the distinguished mathematical journal Topology handed in their resignation, again because of stalled negotiations with Elsevier to lower the subscription price.[37] This board then launched the new Journal of Topology at a far lower price, under the auspices of the London Mathematical Society.[38] After this mass resignation, Topology remained in circulation under a new editorial board until 2009, when the last issue was published.[39][40]

The French École Normale Supérieure has stopped having Elsevier publish the journal Annales Scientifiques de l'École Normale Supérieure[41] (as of 2008).[42]

The elevated pricing of field journals in economics, most of which are published by Elsevier, was one of the motivations that moved the American Economic Association to launch the American Economic Journal in 2009.[43]

In May 2015, Stephen Leeder was removed from his role as editor of the Medical Journal of Australia after its publisher decided to outsource the journal's production to Elsevier. As a consequence, all but one of the journal's editorial advisory committee members co-signed a letter of resignation.[44]

In October 2015, the entire editorial staff of the general linguistics journal Lingua resigned in protest of Elsevier's unwillingness to agree to their terms of Fair Open Access. Editor in Chief Johan Rooryck also announced that the Lingua staff would establish a new journal, Glossa.[45]

Action against academics posting their own articles online
Digimarc, a company representing Elsevier, recently[when?] told the University of Calgary to remove articles published by faculty authors on university web pages; although such self-archiving of academic articles may be legal under the fair dealing provisions in Canadian copyright law, the university complied. Harvard University and the University of California, Irvine also received takedown notices for self-archived academic articles, a first for Harvard, according to Peter Suber.[46][47][48]

Months after its acquisition of Academia.edu rival Mendeley, Elsevier sent thousands of takedown notices to Academia.edu, a practice that has since ceased following widespread complaint by academics, according to Academia.edu founder and chief executive Richard Price.[49][50]

After Elsevier acquired the repository SSRN in May 2016 academics started complaining that some of their work has been removed without notice. The action was explained as a technical error.[51]

Lobbying efforts against open access
Elsevier have been known to be involved in lobbying against open access. These have included the likes of:-

• The Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPPA)[52][53]
• The Research Works Act[54][55][56][57][58][59][60]
• PRISM.[61][62][63] In the case of PRISM, the Association of American Publishers hired Eric Dezenhall, "The Pit Bull Of Public Relations"[64]
• Horizon2020[65][66][67][68]
• Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)[69][70][71]

Chaos, Solitons & Fractals
There was speculation[72] that the editor-in-chief of Elsevier journal Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Mohamed El Naschie, misused his power to publish his own work without appropriate peer review. The journal had published 322 papers with El Naschie as author since 1993. The last issue of December 2008 featured five of his papers.[73] The controversy was covered extensively in blogs.[74][75] The publisher announced in January 2009 that El Naschie had retired as editor-in-chief.[76] As of November 2011 the co-Editors-in-Chief of the journal were Maurice Courbage and Paolo Grigolini.[77] In June 2011 El Naschie sued the journal Nature for libel, claiming that his reputation had been damaged by their November 2008 article about his retirement, which included statements that Nature had been unable to verify his claimed affiliations with certain international institutions.[78] The suit came to trial in November 2011 and was dismissed in July 2012, with the judge ruling that the article was "substantially true", contained "honest comment" and was "the product of responsible journalism". The judgement noted that El Naschie, who represented himself in court, had failed to provide any documentary evidence that his papers had been peer-reviewed.[79] Judge Victoria Sharp also found "reasonable and serious grounds" for suspecting that El Naschie used a range of false names to defend his editorial practice in communications with Nature, and described this behavior as "curious" and "bizarre".[80]

Sponsored journals
Main article: Australasian Journal of Bone & Joint Medicine
At a 2009 court case in Australia where Merck & Co. was being sued by a user of Vioxx, the plaintiff alleged that Merck had paid Elsevier to publish the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, which had the appearance of being a peer-reviewed academic journal but in fact contained only articles favourable to Merck drugs.[81][82][83][84] Merck described the journal as a "complimentary publication," denied claims that articles within it were ghost written by Merck, and stated that the articles were all reprinted from peer-reviewed medical journals.[85] In May 2009, Elsevier Health Sciences CEO Hansen released a statement regarding Australia-based sponsored journals, conceding that they were "sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures." The statement acknowledged that it "was an unacceptable practice."[86] The Scientist reported that, according to an Elsevier spokesperson, six sponsored publications "were put out by their Australia office and bore the Excerpta Medica imprint from 2000 to 2005," namely the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine (Australas. J. Bone Joint Med.), the Australasian Journal of General Practice (Australas. J. Gen. Pract.), the Australasian Journal of Neurology (Australas. J. Neurol.), the Australasian Journal of Cardiology (Australas. J. Cardiol.), the Australasian Journal of Clinical Pharmacy (Australas. J. Clin. Pharm.), and the Australasian Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine (Australas. J. Cardiovasc. Med.).[87] Excerpta Medica was a "strategic medical communications agency" run by Elsevier, according to the imprint's web page.[88] In October 2010, Excerpta Medica was acquired by Adelphi Worldwide.[89]

Shill review offer
According to the BBC, "the firm [Elsevier] offered a £17.25 Amazon voucher to academics who contributed to the textbook Clinical Psychology if they would go on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble (a large US books retailer) and give it five stars." Elsevier said that "encouraging interested parties to post book reviews isn't outside the norm in scholarly publishing, nor is it wrong to offer to nominally compensate people for their time. But in all instances the request should be unbiased, with no incentives for a positive review, and that's where this particular e-mail went too far", and that it was a mistake by a marketing employee.[90]

Who's Afraid of Peer Review
Main article: Who's Afraid of Peer Review?
One of Elsevier's journals was caught in the sting set-up by John Bohannon, published in Science, called Who's Afraid of Peer Review?[91] The journal Drug Invention Today accepted an obviously bogus paper made-up by Bohannon that should have been rejected by any good peer review system.[92] Instead, Drug Invention Today was among many open access journals that accepted the fake paper for publication. As of 2014, this journal had been transferred to a different publisher.[93]

Selling open access articles
In 2014 Elsevier was found to be selling some articles which should have been open access, but had been put behind a paywall.[94] A related case occurred in 2015, when Elsevier charged for downloading an open access article from a journal published by John Wiley & Sons. However, it was not clear whether Elsevier was in violation of the license under which the article was made available on their website.[95]

Blocking text mining research
In November 2015 Elsevier blocked a scientist from performing text mining research at scale on Elsevier papers, even though his institution already pays for access to Elsevier journal content.[96][97] Elsevier allows text mining via their corresponding API, but not by the screenscraping method the scientist used.[98]

Sci-Hub and LibGen Lawsuit controversy
In 2015 Elsevier filed a lawsuit against the sites Sci-Hub and LibGen, which make available copyright protected articles for free. Elsevier also claimed illegal access to institutional accounts.[99][100] A group of researchers, writers, and artists wrote an open letter in support of Sci-Hub and LibGen.[101]

Boycotts
"The Cost of Knowledge" boycott
Main article: The Cost of Knowledge
In 2003 various university librarians began coordinating with each other to complain about Elsevier's "big deal" journal bundling packages, in which the company offered a group of journal subscriptions to libraries at a certain rate, but in which librarians claimed there was no economical option to subscribe to only the popular journals at a rate comparable to the bundled rate.[102] Librarians continued to discuss the implications of the pricing schemes, many feeling pressured into buying the Elsevier packages without other options.[103]

On 21 January 2012, mathematician Timothy Gowers publicly announced he would boycott Elsevier, noting that others in the field have been doing so privately. The three reasons for the boycott are high subscription prices for individual journals, bundling subscriptions to journals of different value and importance, and Elsevier's support for SOPA, PIPA, and the Research Works Act.[104][105][106]

Following this, a petition advocating non-cooperation with Elsevier (that is, not submitting papers to Elsevier journals, not refereeing articles in Elsevier journals, and not participating in journal editorial boards), appeared on the site "The Cost of Knowledge". By February 2012 this petition had been signed by over 5,000 academics.,[104][105] growing to over 13,000 by January 2013.[107]

Elsevier disputed the claims, arguing that their prices are below the industry average, and stating that bundling is only one of several different options available to buy access to Elsevier journals.[104] The company also claimed that its profit margins are "simply a consequence of the firm's efficient operation".[106]

On 27 February 2012, Elsevier issued a statement on its website that declared that it has withdrawn support from the Research Works Act.[108] Although the Cost of Knowledge movement was not mentioned, the statement indicated the hope that the move would "help create a less heated and more productive climate" for ongoing discussions with research funders. Hours after Elsevier's statement, the sponsors of the bill, US House Representatives Darrell Issa and Carolyn Maloney, issued a joint statement saying that they would not push the bill in Congress.[109]

Germany
Germany's DEAL project which includes over 60 major research institutions, including Göttingen University, has announced that all of its members are cancelling their contracts with Elsevier, effective January 1, 2017. The boycott is in response to Elsevier's refusal to adopt "transparent business models" to "make publications more openly accessible".[110][111][112] Horst Hippler, spokesperson for the DEAL consortium states that "taxpayers have a right to read what they are paying for" and that "publishers must understand that the route to open-access publishing at an affordable price is irreversible".[112]

Netherlands
In 2015 a consortium of all of Netherland's 14 universities threatened to boycott Elsevier if it could not agree that articles by Dutch authors would be made open access and settled with the compromise of 30% of its Dutch papers becoming open access by 2018. Gerard Meijer, president of Radboud University in Nijmegen and lead negotiator on the Dutch side notes that "it's not the 100% that I hoped for".[112][113][114][115]

Taiwan
In Taiwan more than 75% of universities, including the country’s top 11 institutions, have joined a collective boycott against Elsevier. On 7 December, the Taiwanese consortium, CONCERT, which represents more than 140 institutions, announced it would not renew its contract with Elsevier.[112][116][117]