Al Those Great Scientists Here

Tom Kunich wrote:

wrote in message
.
..

Most people agree there was
a Medieval Warm Period, they just don't agree that it
means what "co2science.org" wants it to mean.

Well, Benny, good old CO2Science is so bad that some of your buddies
attacked it and tried to erase all of the data. Too bad for people
like you that actual records and papers prove you wrong most of the
time.

But it's all right with me if you want to pretend to be knowledgeable
about something you know nothing about.



Here's how typical climate skeptics stack up against real climate
physicists in terms of their h-indeces:

The question, if you calculate the h-index for a group of well-known, well-
funded, and well-fed from the look of them climate skeptics and compared
that to the h-index for a group of similar climate scientists, would there
be any significant difference? (Sidebar: the h-index is one measure of a
scientist's productivity over his/her career and tracks the impact their
publications have in terms of citations. There is a wikipedia entry on the
h-index, googling h-index will turn it up. It is also discussed on the ISI
website.) So, I took the staff of WorldClimateReport.com (Michaels,
Balling, Davies, Knappenberger (all well-known skeptics)) and compared
their h-indeces to the staff of RealClimate.org (Schmidt, Mann, Ammann,
Archer, Benestad, BRadley, Connolley, Rahmstorf, Steig, deGaridel-Thoron
(maybe not so well-known climate physicists and chemists)). One issue with
this approach is that the h-index for a scientist will rise over time.
This puts younger scientists at a disadvantage to older scientists so I
also computed the average h-index for each divided by the years since Ph.D.
(the result being the average rise in h-index over time (ISI claims for
physicists that a value of 1 for this ratio signifies normal scientific
productivity (the ratio is higher for biomedical sciences, somewhat lower
for other sciences, but 1 is a good ballpark number)). Here are the
results (all h-indeces compiled using ISI's Web of Science):

WorldClimateReport (Skeptics)
Name....................h-index....PhD Yr...........h-index/(yrs since PhD)
P.J.Michaels.............11........1979........... ...0.38
R.C.Balling Jr...........19........1979..............0.66
P.C.Knappenberger.........9........1992........... ...0.56
R.E.Davies...............13........1979........... ...0.65

Average...................13...................... ...0.56


RealClimate.org (Climate scientists)
Name..............h-index.........PhD Yr..............h-index/yrssincePhD
Schmidt............18.............1996............ ..1.5
Mann...............29.............1998............ ..2.9
Ammann.............17.............2002............ ..2.8
Archer.............24.............1990............ ..1.3
Benestad...........8..............1997............ ..0.73
Bradley............31.............1974............ ..0.91
Connolley..........14.............1996............ ..1.2
deGaridel-Thoron...5..............2002..............0.83
Rahmstorf..........22.............1990............ ..1.2
Steig..............24.............1995............ ..1.85

Average............18............................. ..1.53


So it's a landslide to RealClimate.org in terms of scientific productivity.
Their average h-index normalized over their careers is a factor of three
greater than the skeptics. This is why the skeptics are simply getting
savaged scientifically. They just aren't good scientists, they're just
media whores who do just enough science to maintain credibility.

CO2Science is run by the Idso family. Craig Idso has an h-index of 5 and a
yearly average of 0.5. Keith Idso has an h-index of 4 and a yearly average
of 0.16. Sherwood Idso (daddy) has an h-index of 43 for an average of
1.05 (I guess we know who weilds the big stick in that clan eh?), so he is
comparable to the guys at realclimate.org, but that is a rare exception
among skeptics. Fred Seitz, who you cite as an authority, has an h-index
of 14 but has a career spanning over 50 years so his average is very low
(you can't argue that he did most of his work early either since most of
his publications are in the back half of his career (when he became a
climate skeptic)).

It's not that people like Ben or I are pretending to be knowledgable, it's
that the skeptics are pretending to be knowledgable. Why people like you
and Jack can't figure out that you are being used as inflatable sheep with
life-like sucking mouth action is something I cannot figure out.

--
Bill Asher

Paul G. wrote:

Uh... there is a GLARING error there- how can it be true that "It is
very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379
ppm) and CH4 (1,774 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last
650 kyr" when according to right wing biblical experts the earth is
only 6000 years old? See how easy that was? No need to go to the
trouble and expense of fooling around with core samples. If you need
any more help with scientific facts me and Kuntitch will be happy to
help. This global warming nonsense is as absurd as the idea that
Kuntitch evolved from primitive simians. If anything, primitive
simians evolved from Kuntitch.
-Paul

Right. I keep forgetting the planet was created to make us think it was
obeying laws of physics to test our faith in god.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUW1SGF7bR8

--
Bill Asher

Robert Chung wrote:

On May 7, 7:50 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Robert Chung" wrote in message

.
..

On May 6, 6:57 pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
Was there a Medieval Warm Period? YES, according to data published
by 532 individual scientists from 325 separate research
institutions in 38 different countries ... and counting!

NO, according to some of those 500+ scientists:

http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scient...d-doubts-about
...

Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?

Hmmm. Well, in matters like these I try to start with little steps.
Pointing out how foolish you are is almost always a reasonable
beginning.


Not according to Schwartz. It's more like donating money to the EDF, which
only guarantees you'll be asked to donate more money to the EDF.

--
Bill Asher

wrote in message
...
On May 7, 10:00 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
And of course those same sort of uneducated dolts (snip)

Mirror time, TK (IRT the usual bail-out when your game is called on
you-- this time, a "source" getting both its titties caught in the
proverbial wringer)!

Let me see, if I claim that people who are making absolutely false claims
about climate change aren't qualified you insist that I need to be
qualified?

Where was it you got your engineering degree from, again? What year?

USAF 1963, why?

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
On May 7, 7:50 am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:

Well then Robert - what are you doing to save the earth?

Hmmm. Well, in matters like these I try to start with little steps.

Yet you don't seem to be able to demonstrate that you do anything at all.

Let's put together the sort of question which is what you really need to
answer -

How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially destroy or
murder in order to get your way?

Tom Kunich wrote:


How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially
destroy or murder in order to get your way?



Can we also tap their women?

--
Bill Asher

On May 7, 11:09 am, William Asher wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially
destroy or murder in order to get your way?

Can we also tap their women?

One of my governor's best lines:

Mongol General: We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the
wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear
the lamentations of the women.

Tom Kunich wrote:
How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially
destroy or murder in order to get your way?

I didn't realize climate scientists received CIA training.

William Asher wrote:
Can we also tap their women?

Kunich thinks we're all gay so he isn't worried about that (although
he might be worried if he knew you to be a Jedi knight dabbling in the
back side of the Force).

Robert Chung wrote:

On May 7, 11:09 am, William Asher wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

How many people are you willing to falsely discredit, financially
destroy or murder in order to get your way?

Can we also tap their women?

One of my governor's best lines:

Mongol General: We won again! This is good, but what is best in life?
Mongol: The open steppe, fleet horse, falcons at your wrist, and the
wind in your hair.
Mongol General: Wrong! Conan! What is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear
the lamentations of the women.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V30tyaXv6EI

--
Bill Asher

Sandy wrote:

EDF - Électricité de France ???

Environmental Defense Fund.

--
Bill Asher