2011-04-01 05:27:02No Tricks Zone... 30 contradictory peer reviewed papers
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

No Tricks Zone is a denier blog in Germany (English language) where Dana and I were stirring up trouble a while back.  One of their regulars previously had put up a list of contradictory issues about climate change.  I blasted him because almost all of it was just from news articles.  Now he's taken it a step further and pulled together 30 peer reviewed papers that are contradictory.

There might be a really fun response article to write in this.  (The NTZ crowd is really pretty lame, IMHO.  I think Dana will agree.)

2011-04-01 06:03:03
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.192.114

Commented on the so-called Amazon rainforest contradiction. 

2011-04-01 07:50:53
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

This is going to be fun.  It's going to be like a mini-John Abraham move.  I think I can leverage this into a fun SkS post.

Thanks for the comment, Rob.  You can see what that guy Jimbo is doing.  He's not even reading.  He's searching titles and seeing if he can dig up something contradictory-sounding in the abstract.  

Very lowbrow.  Almost to the point of being neanderthal.

2011-04-01 08:01:03lame
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Lame is an understatement.  The NTZ crowd is a bunch of dopes.  Like you said Rob, same thing they did before with the articles.  They find headlines which seem contradictory, then pat themselves on the back.  I chose one example at random, read them and explained why they weren't really contradictions.  They guy posting the list said "okay, do that for all the rest".  Like it's my job to point out why every pair of titles he can find isn't really a contradiction.  With that comment he proved he wasn't even reading the stories or papers themselves, nor was anyone else at NTZ.  They're morons.  Textbook confirmation bias.

2011-04-01 08:49:11
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Monty Python's "Twit of the Year" sketch comes to mind. 

2011-04-01 08:55:20
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

It makes it all the better that Joe D'Aleo made a comment there.

Dana, if you posted there it looks like they've already deleted it.

2011-04-01 09:06:20nope
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

No, when they (temporarily) banned me from the site for doing nothing more than complaining when they personally attacked me, I said I was done with NTZ, and I meant it.  I'm not going back there.  In my mind they're scum, not even worth responding to.  If you want to do a post on their 30 papers, you'll have to do it sans cyborg :-)

2011-04-01 09:44:46
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Not a problem.  I fully understand.  I won't ever go back to JoNova's site for exactly the same reason.

2011-04-01 16:17:20
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.210

Every subject in science has papers for and against. Science works at the edge of known and unknown. Every time we proceed a bit to the unknown, some studies see differently there than others and they get opposite results. Then we see why they get opposite results. We find that out and improve our knowledge and methodology, study the subject again to make sure all see it same way and then the subject becomes known.

Finding contradictory papers in a meaningless excercise. Pretty much all my paperlists have them. It's not about single papers - it's the whole that counts.

2011-04-01 18:17:58
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.123.131

A related point is that people write papers in order to promote their ideas, and so they title them as provocatively as possible so that someone will want to read them. That implies that you cannot judge the meaning of a paper from its title; at least you have to read the abstract.