Wed. Dec 11th, 2019

Visibility and Invisibility

Visitor Submit by Willis Eschenbach

I believed I’d take a extra detailed take a look at the claims of the current paper entitled “Discrepancies in scientific authority and media visibility of local weather change scientists and contrarians.”. The paper is mentioned right here on WUWT. I’m quantity 148 out of 386 on their record of contrarians, based mostly on what number of instances I obtained talked about within the media. However there are some weird oddities of their reckoning of media visibility.

Considered one of their “media mentions” in my record is a success piece on me over at PopTech. The man who wrote it clearly hates me. I gained’t hyperlink to it, it’s ugly and unfaithful. However this counts on their planet as media visibility. (Fools like PopTech don’t appear to understand that after they write such hit items, the reader naturally needs to know what the fuss is about, in order that they go learn my work … however I digress.)

And this, in fact, signifies that their lists are meaningless. Persons are all the time rubbishing local weather skeptics by title, and since they’re counting these as media mentions, their outcomes will probably be wildly skewed.

Additionally, evidently they don’t cite most issues that anybody has really written for the net. I’ve written some 700 posts or so right here on WUWT. Not one is talked about. Nevertheless, they did record three WUWT posts amongst my mentions … in a single as a result of I’m talked about within the feedback. Actually? Solely as soon as was I ever talked about by title within the WUWT feedback???

For the opposite two, there’s a WUWT “Classes” aggregation web page, which doesn’t point out me in any respect, and a “Tag” aggregation web page the place I’m listed because the writer of one of many items linked to on the web page … completely weird. I’ve the identical visibility on actually dozens and dozens of WUWT aggregation pages.

Nevertheless, evidently if somebody is talked about in a remark to a put up, it counts. So for instance, Steve McIntyre wrote a put up referred to as “Willis Eschenbach on GISS Mannequin E“. That seems on Judith Curry’s record of media publications, and she or he’s solely talked about in a remark.

Much more bizarrely, that very same put up obtained onto Steve McIntyre’s record of publications, however not onto my record … go determine.

And it’s stranger than that. On Steve McIntyre’s record, some 22 posts on his personal weblog (out of a whole bunch he’s written) are included, and the remainder usually are not. Say what?

Weirder but. On Judith Curry’s record of media mentions, there are at least 82 citations to the Laguna Seaside Impartial, a neighborhood California newspaper, with headlines like “Volleyball Open Returns” and “Scholar Musical Rolls The Cube”. At the least upon a cursory inspection, not one of many eighty-two mentions Dr. Curry.

Subsequent oddity. Judith Curry will get two mentions for a similar piece in Motive … and never solely that, however she’s not talked about within the Motive article in any respect. Nor would we count on her to be talked about, it’s a chunk about Ron Paul and Charlie Hebdo.

And out of all the posts she’s written for her personal weblog, they record 13 of them on her media mentions and never the others. Why not?

Since I used to be having a lot enjoyable, I believed I’d take a look at Anthony Watt’s “media visibility”. At least seven of the mentions are by Slandering Sue over at hotwhopper … critically, guys, that’s hardly “media visibility”. And the way come I didn’t get any hotwhopper counts, she’s as vile to me as she is to Anthony …

Anthony additionally obtained two mentions over at Local weather Audit … I significantly doubt that that’s as many instances as he’s talked about. Hold on, let me have a look … OK, a Google seek for “web site:climateaudit.org ‘anthony watts’” brings up at least 813 hits …

He additionally will get three and solely three hits over at Judith Curry’s weblog … why solely three? You inform me.

Subsequent, Anthony will get precisely eight hits right here at Watts Up With That … why eight? No concept. Why these eight? Not a clue.

He did, nevertheless, get eleven hits at Amazon Japan, Italy, Netherlands, UK, Australia, Spain, and France for being listed because the lead writer on “Local weather Change: The Information 2017”.

And he obtained twelve hits at DeSmogBlog … no remark.

Then there are 51 hyperlinks to examiner.com, all of which merely bounce you to axs.com … all of the hyperlinks are lifeless.

As you may think, with the hundreds of claimed media hyperlinks for the 386 “contrarians”, I’ve solely had the time (and the abdomen) to have a look at just a few of them … and in that few, the errors and weird decisions are legion.

My conclusion? Like far an excessive amount of local weather “science”, that is awful, sloppy, extraordinarily poor scholarship … no surprise they’re making an attempt to silence their scientific opposition.

In closing, let me observe three tweets from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. concerning the piece of bumpf in query. Within the first one, he objects strongly and fairly to being lumped in with the “contrarians”

In the second, he factors out that the aim of the paper is easy censorship:

And within the remaining one, he tells us what occurred when he protested to Nature in regards to the matter:

You’ve obtained to like the irony … in response to an inexpensive, skilled, legitimate, and 100% true criticism in regards to the research, relatively than cope with the precise subject, they only erase all the Supplementary Data file, which incorporates (contained) a number of issues displaying that they’re completely incompetent.

Good factor I downloaded the Supplementary Data file containing the hyperlinks I referred to above earlier than these newest scientific Stalinists merely disappeared the offending info …

And so we finish with probably the most outré state of affairs of all—they’re to this point into censorship that they’re even censoring themselves … 

Ouroborous can be proud. The remainder of us … not a lot.

Greatest to all,

w.

Like this:

Like Loading…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *