It seems like our complaints (and complaints from hundreds of others) are having an impact, this was just added to the peer Reviewed article Discrepancy in scientific authority and media visibility of climate change scientists and contrarians on the Nature Communications website. This was just posted:
16 August 2019 Editorial Note:
This is an update of an editorial note issued on August 15. Readers are alerted that the editors are aware of a number of criticisms related to this work. These criticisms are being considered by the editors. The Supplementary Information for this Article is currently unavailable due to concerns regarding the identification of individuals. We will publish an update once our investigation is complete.
Even normally reserved climate scientist Dr. Richard Betts is calling for this article to be retracted:
I may very well join Monckton in starting a legal battle over this paper, in the case of Dr. Peter Ridd, we raised over a quarter million dollars in a matters of days, and he won that case.
Right now, I’m pissed off. Hopefully Nature Communications will see the light or the authors will before we take that next step.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Someone should start a GoFundMe page to raise legal funds to pursue a libel suit. I would be in for $100.
“These criticisms are being considered by the editors”
Really??? Considered???
How stupid are these ‘editors’ that they can’t simply read it through and go… WTF? Who approved this junk?
It doesn’t even approach the level that would have only just garnered a pass at my high school year 10 science.
They are “considering” so hard that they tried to disappear the libelous lists.
But the graphs and charts are soooooooooo prettttttty.
1. WUWT should arrange a team of auditors to check the Counts of the mentions in media as Willis
has done for himself.
2. Every individual who was miscounted should write an email to the authors demanding correction
of the DATA, with a copy to the editors.
3. If they fail to correct, then submit a letter ( Matters Arising to the journal) 386 of them.
4. If they fail to publish. Sue them
Mosh –
The ‘study’ is sloppy. It is atrocious in its expression of patent bias. It is a hack job. Nobody really cares about the claims for “counts in media outlets” anyway.
It is immensely clear that the establishment media supports “mainstream climate science” and shuns all dissenting opinions.
It is only due to independent blogs like this one that an alternate viewpoint is even aired.
In addition to being sloppy and an atrocious example of confirmation bias, this paper crosses the boundary lines for slander. You would appear to be in denial of this simple conclusion.
Or are you afraid to state anything which might be frowned upon in certain circles?
In addition to being sloppy and an atrocious example of confirmation bias, this paper crosses the boundary lines for slander. You would appear to be in denial of this simple conclusion.
You mean because “Mosher” said this?
4. If they fail to publish. Sue them
Steven
I’m with Kurt on this. By any criteria it has little merit as a piece of scholarship and to start niggling about the detail gives it a respectability it doesn’t deserve. I trust you can see that.
The thing that worries me though is that I see from other comments you’ve made on it that despite your misgivings in the detail you think it states some truths. I’d be more sceptical of the various propostions if they were properly specified, but that’s the kind of attitude that caused all this to begin with and you may well not agree.
sorry HAS im with me.
my track record on these types of things beats yours.
use their process first.
and watch for process “crimes”as well.
the take down of the lists is prima facia evidence they (edited. mod) up.
Steven
I guess that if you are only good at mucking around in the detail, and are happy doing that, you should stick to it. Dealing to the system that generates this rubbish after all requires a degree of ability to abstract that not everyone has.
I’m with Mosher on this one. While I agree that the slandering of Skeptics is an issue, the Climate Faithful will only see it as ‘Of course the Deniers who are Named and Shamed are upset about it. That just proves they’re guilty.’ Hell, considering how quickly they pulled the supplement info, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was the plan all along. Now they can act all virtuous about following the rules and leaving out the names, safe in the knowledge that everyone who needs it has a copy and can use it whenever they need.
From the Faithful’s prospective, the issues with the data mining that Willis discovered are far more serious. Their whole point with this study was to prove that ‘ contrarians’ get more media coverage then is warranted by their ‘expertise’. But not only were the lists unbalanced and contrived, but it looks like EVEN USEING THEIR LISTS in a replication effort, you won’t get their media coverage figures because the ‘media mentions’ they count include many false positives and examples of others (like Sou or ATTP) THEMSELVES Naming and Shameing Skeptics.
Think about that a minute. Their proof that Skeptics get to much attention is the number of times their friends wrote articles attacking them. And they got much of their list of ‘Contrarians’ they think need Named and Shamed because the get to much attention from Desmog, apparently while counting Desmogs articles Naming and Shameing Skeptics as media mentions that they are getting to many of.
In an odd way I’m really glad they included the lists in their supplemental info, because if they hadn’t we probably would have never realised just how fraudulent this study really is. And they need to be called on it.
~¿~
what’s the difference between these people being slimed and Mann being slimed?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/14/mann-vs-steyn-likely-to-head-to-supreme-court/
One is a journalist in the media and the other is cloaked in the trappings of a scientific journal.
And of course, even Mann knows he wasn’t slimed. He’s been ducking that court case for years because he knows he’s in the wrong.
M Courtney: perhaps you know that the very gutty Steyn has locked Mann into the suit! He countersued for $20M+. If Mann tries to back out now, then Steyn’s suit goes forward anyway. Many of us who know Mark Steyn by reputation actually advised Mann at the outset here on WUWT he didn’t know what he was getting himself into!
Steyn was brought before Canada’s kangaroo court, The Human Rights Tribunal by Canada’s Muslim Council for an article in a news magazine “MacLeans” with most of the press and liberal and left against him. The upshot was aquital, recinding of the federal Hate Speech Statutes and an award for his activism for free speech! (Justin Trudeau predictably reinstated and reinforced the Statute.)
Mann is slime?
Depends on your view of ‘State Pen’ v ‘Penn State’ for the Mr Mann. IMO a comfortable sanatorium is like Penn State, a nether-world where reality rarely invades the imaginings of it’s inmates.
LOL it’s too late to take down the lists. May be useful as a who’s who checklist ☺
The lists are actually CSV (comma separated value) files, straight from Excel or something, so may be handy for reconstructing their method (if there is anything identifiable as a method). Some inconsistency in formatting is evident; integers and 10 significant digits in the same field.
The previous post on this issue was by Lord Moncton and was from his personal and British/European perspective. It is worth noting that UC Merced is an US institution and that many of the libelled individuals are US citizens. Thus this is also an issue of US law.
By my reading of the Nature article, the authors (American) issued threats as well as libellous language (with clear intention to cause harm to the named individuals). Both are actionable under US law.
I am not a lawyer, but I suggest that those who were harmed by this article seek legal redress, including but not limited to monetary compensation for damages. That prospective outcome ought to attract quite a few attorneys.
Should litigation prove the only recourse, I shall surely donate.
Well I was raised in a military family around the rude licentious soldiery and “ticked off” doesn’t do it for me…
Objectively I would say that perverting the forms of science in this way is reminiscent of Stalinist oppression where dissidents had to not only be wrong they had to be mad…
Subjectively when it’s considered what could be done to “fix” the symptoms being exhibited, the apposite assessment was made by a character in Game of Thrones..:
There may be some legal surprises coming. Nature Communications would be nuts not to retract this abysmal paper immediately, in toto.
I’m another who will willingly contribute to any fund to sue the journal/authors – and hopefully get some actual media coverage for the ‘sceptic’ side. Though I won’t be holding my breath that the BBC would report it (i’m British and get very angry with the BBC these days)
Heather, join the realists and just ignore the BBC. I can’t remember the last time I watched the BBC news or any current affairs propaganda output of theirs.
+1 and +1
That such what was once a well-respected and prestigious Journal should sink so low as to publish what was close to an ‘ad hominem’ attack on those who don’t accept the mainstream view of climate change is quite appalling.
Me too. I rarely watch the BBC now. Half of their news is biased and the other half is withheld.
That is what I have been trying to say here, the future of the climate debate belongs in the court rooms of the world. Let go after the media, officials who use their positions to spread the fear, anybody who could be liable. Doesn’t matter if cases are thrown out, just starting a case is a statement and a flood of them would be a statement nobody could ignore.. As you say ” in the case of Dr. Peter Ridd, we raised over a quarter million dollars in a matters of days, and he won that case”. The way to go forward, hold them accountable for what they did in a courtroom.
Anthony!
I would draw your and Lord Monckton’s attention to a paper by Lewindowsky in which he explains the tactic of intentionally making a huge lie … because even if the lie has to be retracted the press and media are only interested in the first initial lie and won’t tell the public about the retraction.
It is about time this repeated and known libel of “climate change denier” was taken to court and exposed for the malicious lie it is.
Spot on Mike. This is exactly their intention. The leftist misinformation engine lives by the old saw that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.
They have taken to the standard practice manufacturing deliberate lies for the propaganda ministry to disseminate. Then when the inevitable “oops never mind” follows, the media goes into silent running mode. Voila the lie is out there an uncontested.
The unassuming public now believes what isn’t true. It is time to sue.
I think they should just sue them…
Sort this put once and for ever and I bet they will never do it again.
I await Greta s comments on this…
if the boat doesnt sink meantime
Im sure her “climate emergency” claims also prove to be totally without PROOF just hearsay and msm blowups
which would also fall over in a court.
I have never heard her recite one single specific fact.
She speaks in generalities and ominous warnings.
She does not want people to think, or understand, or anything like that.
She says exactly what she wants: “I want everyone to panic, so you will feel the fear that I feel every day.”
And apparently she is not reassured by those who surround her, in order to assuage these feelings.
She is encouraged to do whatever she can to reinforce and spread her dreadful emotional state.
Of course, no one has ever panicked because someone deadpanned a plea for them to do so.
And nothing ever got done more effectively by people in any sort of agitated emotional state, that involves the part of the brain that handles complex decision making ad planning, the so called executive functions, handled by the cerebral cortex.
Panic turns off this part of the brain, exactly the wrong thing to do in a planetary emergency.
ur
Nicholas,
Interestingly, she tweeted today that she is eating and sleeping well, and compared it to living on a roller coaster. She also posted a picture, which showed an honest, youthful smile and a happy face to go with it.
My take-away… she is having an adventure away from home, away from parents, and liking it.
Not quite, Papa is with her as reported at notrickszone.com
“The 16-year-old Greta and her father set sail last Wednesday afternoon on board the ocean-going yacht Malizia II with two sailors and a publicity filmmaker.”
At least Mommy Dearest is no longer hovering over her shoulder.
~¿~
ozspeaksup,
The feting of little Greta is reminiscent of Joan d’Arc which did not end well for Joan. It is a matter of great sadness to me that the similar feting of little Greta demonstrates we have failed to value the Enlightenment.
Richard
Isn’t this the same as DOXING? This seems to have been done with the intent of causing harm to those on the “contarian” list.
“Doxing (dropping docs or doc-dropping, sometimes also spelled doxxing) is the practice of revealing personally identifying information (such as names, addresses, places of employment, relatives, etc.) of people who use the Internet, typically in a highly public manner as a call to arms against the target.”
The grand conclusion that skeptics get fair media attention looks evsn more silly when one of the warmistas on the list is Stephen Schneider who has been dead for almost 9 years.
I eagerly await the Go Fund Me campaign.
I was one of the scholars libeled and I never wrote one word on climate change or global warming. I’ll join any lawsuit against this data falsification . Frank Clemente–Penn State
I don’t understand how to use the SI data well, but I see this from Jude Clemente:
sl:nature-386-si$ grep -i Clemente MediaCloud_CCC-AND-CCS-MERGED_58791.txt
http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/10/25/restricting-energy-options-in-india-is-wickedly-cruel/ ,en,Forbes,1104,390761450,Restricting Energy Options in India is Wickedly Cruel,2015-10-25
Pretty interesting article, and definitely from that Jude dude….
Shoddy paper, I have been blogging 173 posts for twelve years and I am not on the list.
The paper’s Figure 2 is still there as is the external link https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09959-4/figures/2 – it lists the top 100 CCSes (“real” scientists)
It shows Richard Betts in the #27 spot.
BTW, Roy Spencer noted that Scott Denning is on the contrarian list. That appears to be due to his talks at ICCC conference. Yes, there are CCSes who speak at ICCCs! (Scott noted he is not a “warmist,” though, and that he’s not the enemy. I agree with that.)
sl:nature-386-si$ grep -i denning MediaCloud_CCC-AND-CCS-MERGED_58791.txt
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkL6TDIaCVw ,en,YouTube,18362,338685758,Scott Denning Speaks at International Conference on Climate Change,2010-5-20
https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/spencer-denning-debate-highlights-heartland-climate-conference ,en,heartland.org,20793,333762364;333762364;333762364;333762364;333762364;333762364;333762364,Spencer-Denning Debate Highlights Heartland Climate Conference | Heartland Institute,2012-5-4
Anthony you said
“I may very well join Monckton in starting a legal battle over this paper, in the case of Dr. Peter Ridd, we raised over a quarter million dollars in a matters of days, and he won that case”.
Not wanting to blow my own trumpet as it were I was in to help Peter and I’d be in as well if you did decide enough was enough and went for the legal stuff.
James Bull
This Nature piece may encourage other publishers/publications to do the same, thus making it obvious for all to see, that the science publication fraternity is just a cover for a cartel of misguided advocacy dolts, populated by consensus enforcers.
Let them show themselves as closed-minded and to that end allow Mann, Trenberth, et al., and William Connelly as chief editor, lead a team that approves or vetoes all papers pertaining to climate by all major science publishers. Let them glory in their anti-science bias.
Let these consensus led publications destroy the many years it took to build trust; trust in honest, open, innovative, objective and verified science.
IMO it may have to get so much worse before it gets better.
After that and from the ashes of today’s science publishing dark and sordid times, there may arise a better, more open, honest, and not overly consensual publishing paradigm, eventually.
I suggest they will not dare got to court. Here’s why.
In all my readings I do recall someone writing the obvious, it wasn’t in Latin so it wasn’t Monkton, and the ,ogic was much simpler. That climate change based legal actions must be avoided by the alarmists, because they have only their consensual opinion of a guessed prediction of a future catastrophe to support their position, and a very minor catastrophe at that, even per the IPCC, and the skeptics have nothing but natural measurements and proven applied physics that deny this. e.g the alarmist prediction is disproven by the available evidence..
In court a successful defence or prosecution will prefer hard evidence, failing that circumstantial evidence, and if you have neither, ad hom attack the opposition witnesses credibility. Legal practice 101. This offers diminishing orders of success, because your approach also says a lot about the quality your case. One of the reasons John Christy keeps presenting reality to the Senate, on the record, for the reckoning that must come when the laws of physics and real sceptical science method makes itself clear.
The single obvious reason organised alarmists have never got beyond the ad hom attacks on reasoned challenges to the predictions of their theoretical models, and who rely on non expert celebrity to promote their unsupportable predictions, is precisely because they are not happening, so they have no evidence to challenge the facts directly, or even circumstantially. And they can never sustain a logical attack on their insubstantial beliefs and prophesies against the evidence and the laws of physics, partly because in the end they are not that bright and cannot argue the hard science case. So they must lose what is a wholly unwinnable battle IF the case is rigorously considered, by an impartial and informed judge, who can understand the simple core issues of independently validatable science method, and also knows how to tell shit from shinola.
I submit this has been the case in courts considering these issues to date? The problem is the whole facade is designed to make people inside the renewable rackets very rich, so they have a LOT of money to defend and misdirect, while the honest expert scientists have only their pensions and independence from the bought Universities and government departments behind the state organised crime of the climate change protection racket.