18 thoughts on “SkS Survey Over Haiku”

  2. HR–
    When I wrote the hypothetical complaint in comments I said it was hypothetical and that I had no intention of sending it; I did not send it.

  3. It’s clear that Cook gave an inaccurate description of the survey in his informational letter (regarding the method of sampling articles).

    Not that UQ is likely to care.

  4. JunkPsychology–
    That’s among the main reasons I wasn’t going to send a letter complaining about that. I think that description was inaccurate. I’m certainly willing to say so at my blog. But I don’t think it rises to the level where UQ is likely to care. I’m not entirely sure they should care.

    There are other aspects that might amount to bigger issues– though even then I’m not sure. I’m not Australian. UQ’s internal rules aren’t really my business. I’d rather just blog my thoughts publicly.

  6. Lucia I think that organisations like UoQ take the work of their ethical committees seriously even for seemingly harmless projects like Cooks. At UoQ they seem to be manned by lawyers, independant outsiders, experts and senior staff of the university. Projects that may have stepped outside the rules are going to be re-appraised if complaints are made. Given the general ‘passion’ expressed by many in the climate debate it’s not hard to imagine that some people unfriendly to SkS might have complained.

  7. The paper will appear anon

    If I was associated with that mess, I know I’d want it published “anon.”

  8. Eli said “like this week”

    Are you expecting the paper to be published this week? Seems unlikely unless large parts of it, I don’t know say the conclusions for example, are already written. That’s not possible surely!

  9. Eli

    The paper will appear anon, like this week. Sometimes the simple answer is best.

    Is there a question? I merely observed the survey closed.

    As for your prediction: Is it based on information available elsewhere? Like the planet 3.0 group? Or the SKS group? I didn’t ask a question, but I’m always curious. If you have more info, feel free to spill it!

  11. Eli–
    By “original” do you mean
    (a) the ranking by the authors themselves?
    (b) the ranking by John Cooks team or
    (c) the ranking performed by invitees from climate blogs?

    Obviously, this survey closing only touches on (c). (Is ‘c’ what you call ‘secondary’? It happens to be the primary topic of conversation of recent post as that is the survey we were invited to partake in, which has been running and which seems to be closed.)

    Of course we knew one of either (a) or (b) was coming out– though as I don’t follow the SkS blog and am not a member of the super-secret inner sanctum involved in their private forum, I will admit being fuzzy about the details of the ERL paper. It will be interesting to read the paper about (a) or (b) or both or whatever, but it isn’t especially relevant to primary topic of this blog post– which is the closing of the current survey (c).

  12. From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

    It’s actually rather astonishing that after papers were filtered to include only those that mention global warming or climate change, 2/3rds state no position on AGW. Of course, the high fraction that state no position might be explained by the fact that abstracts tend to be brief and highlight the main results which in the case of most of these papers had more to do with things like plant physiology, mammalian reproductive cycles or butterfly responses to sudden cold spells and such like. But nevertheless, that’s a higher rate of “no mention” than I’d expected.

  16. Hmmm… It looks like Eli may need to pick up the pieces of the “Exploded Italian Flag”:

    For some time, Eli has been screaming that teh science denial lives in a funhouse of cards, while the coherence of science provides strong support for its conclusions.
    Denialism is reduced to throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping that something sticks which leads to claiming that every one of a set of mutually contradictory papers are just wonderful.

    http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/01/shredding-italian-flag.html

    Spaghetti seems to like the white places.

Comments are closed.