Retraction of threads

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 10:34 PM GMT
    In scientific and medical journals, if there are any doubts about methods or data that change the main conclusion, authors retract their articles. If the editors come upon improprieties that they were not aware of prior to publishing the article, the journal retracts the suspicious articles.

    Threads that purport to inform and start with conclusions that are subsequently contradicted by other reliable sources, or have doubtful methods or statistics, should be retracted, or at least have their titles amended.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/the-case-of-the-mystery-study/

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-stimulus-really-destroy-million.html

    If only politicians use Politifact more often...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 10:38 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidIn scientific and medical journals, if there are any doubts about methods or data that change the main conclusion, authors retract their articles. If the editors come upon improprieties that they were not aware of prior to publishing the article, the journal retracts the suspicious articles.

    Threads that purport to inform and start with conclusions that are subsequently contradicted by other reliable sources, or have doubtful methods or statistics, should be retracted, or at least have their titles amended.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/10/the-case-of-the-mystery-study/

    http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/did-stimulus-really-destroy-million.html

    If only politicians use Politifact more often...


    The irony is that you post this and reference Paul Krugman probably one of the most easily debunked columnists at the NYT. Just a minor double standard in your books?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 10:41 PM GMT
    Please try and debunk Krugman, who has been right about virtually everything since long before the economic crisis. Go ahead.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 10:44 PM GMT
    Christian73 saidPlease try and debunk Krugman, who has been right about virtually everything since long before the economic crisis. Go ahead.


    His columns have been repeatedly debunked by numerous economists who refer him back to his own texts and contradictions especially with respect to stimulus in which he debunks himself. I don't have to lift a finger - though lmgtfy.com might be helpful for you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 10:45 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidPlease try and debunk Krugman, who has been right about virtually everything since long before the economic crisis. Go ahead.


    His columns have been repeatedly debunked by numerous economists who refer him back to his own texts and contradictions especially with respect to stimulus in which he debunks himself. I don't have to lift a finger - though lmgtfy.com might be helpful for you.


    As I suspected, all hat and no cattle. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 10:58 PM GMT
    Some recent threads of interest by riddler:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1624873--rebuttal by leanVA
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1623094--rebuttal by makeumyne

    I don't even want to start with SB's threads.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 10:59 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    The irony is that you post this and reference Paul Krugman probably one of the most easily debunked columnists at the NYT. Just a minor double standard in your books?


    The irony is that all Krugman did in that particular case is to quote 2 other sources.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jun 17, 2011 11:10 PM GMT
    The irony is that you post this and reference Paul Krugman probably one of the most easily debunked columnists at the NYT.


    The Floor's Yours Rid

    Everybody's doin a brand new dance Now

    Comon Baby Do The Debunk-emotion

    I know you'll Get to like it if you give it a Chance Now

    Comon Baby Do the Debunk-emotion
    icon_cool.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 11:13 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    Christian73 saidPlease try and debunk Krugman, who has been right about virtually everything since long before the economic crisis. Go ahead.


    His columns have been repeatedly debunked by numerous economists who refer him back to his own texts and contradictions especially with respect to stimulus in which he debunks himself. I don't have to lift a finger - though lmgtfy.com might be helpful for you.


    Yes Paul Krugman has been wrong, after all he is an economist, a profession notorious for getting things wrong.

    I have alway thought being a macroeconomist would be great, sort of like being a .300 hitter in baseball. You could be wrong/fail 70% of the time and still make a million bucks!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 11:25 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidSome recent threads of interest by riddler:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1624873--rebuttal by leanVA
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1623094--rebuttal by makeumyne

    I don't even want to start with SB's threads.


    Except those weren't even debunkings. In the case of leanVA - both conclusions are right. If you assume that these cars last 150k km, then yes, you do get a net benefit (from an emissions standpoint). The breakeven is 129k km - which as the article points out, is unlikely to be reached given the charge available for these cars.

    In the case of the mini-ice age, it's unclear whether or not this is a debunking as experts suggest that "much is unknown" about the relationship between sun activity and global warming. So if this is your attempt at showing how I've been debunked you're going to have to do better.

    Compare this to Krugman - the examples of contradictions are many - even against his own textbook writings. The reason is simple - his academic writings are substantively different than his writings as a polemic for which he has been employed as a columnist:
    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=krugman+contradictions
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 11:29 PM GMT
    Let me quote that article that makeumyne linked:
    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/06/new-ice-age-dont-count-on-it.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-newsThere's a simple problem with this claim. Let's assume that grand minima really do cool Earth's climate: not every climate scientist is convinced of that, but for the sake of argument let's go with it. Now the question becomes: how much do they cool it, and for how long?

    The straightforward answer is: not enough. Last year researchers modelled what would happen to global temperatures if a grand minimum started now and continued until 2100. They found that it would lower temperatures by 0.3 °C at most.

    That's not enough to compensate for our greenhouse gas emissions, which are set to raise temperatures by 2-4.5 °C by 2100. So in the most optimistic scenario, in which the grand minimum has the biggest effect possible and emissions their smallest, a rise of 2 °C would be reduced to 1.7 °C.

    That isn't a new ice age: it's a slightly less severe heatwave.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 11:32 PM GMT
    And let's leave Krugman out (since he's not the subject of this thread--I used his blog purely for the links it provided for pointing out the irregularities in that poll) for now.

    I'm addressing the threads here.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 11:38 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidLet me quote that article that makeumyne linked:
    http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2011/06/new-ice-age-dont-count-on-it.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-newsThere's a simple problem with this claim. Let's assume that grand minima really do cool Earth's climate: not every climate scientist is convinced of that, but for the sake of argument let's go with it. Now the question becomes: how much do they cool it, and for how long?

    The straightforward answer is: not enough. Last year researchers modelled what would happen to global temperatures if a grand minimum started now and continued until 2100. They found that it would lower temperatures by 0.3 °C at most.

    That's not enough to compensate for our greenhouse gas emissions, which are set to raise temperatures by 2-4.5 °C by 2100. So in the most optimistic scenario, in which the grand minimum has the biggest effect possible and emissions their smallest, a rise of 2 °C would be reduced to 1.7 °C.

    That isn't a new ice age: it's a slightly less severe heatwave.


    As also noted in the other post, this assumes you can just sum the two numbers and it's unclear whether or not the comment with respect to the lowering of temperatures already takes the warming into account or whether it is even linear. This is what the blog poster/reporter makes as an assumption. Further, as you should well know, the models to date have been grossly overestimating warming in the short run (this is not to say they aren't right about the longer run but it should provide pause before politicizing findings).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 11:39 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidAnd let's leave Krugman out (since he's not the subject of this thread--I used his blog purely for the links it provided for pointing out the irregularities in that poll) for now.

    I'm addressing the threads here.


    Krugman is very much relevant given the irony of referencing him on this topic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 17, 2011 11:45 PM GMT
    OK, scratch Krugman out and replace it with these two:
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/mckinsey-refuses-white-house-request-for-info-on-study-faulting-affordable-care-act/2011/03/03/AG9gBEPH_blog.html
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/multiple-sources-throw-controversial-mckinsey-health-care-study-under-the-bus.php?ref=fpa

    Sorry, three:
    http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/max-baucus-issues-public-call-to-mckinsey-to-come-clean-about-controversial-hcr-survey.php?ref=fpblg
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Jun 18, 2011 12:17 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidSome recent threads of interest by riddler:

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1624873--rebuttal by leanVA
    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1623094--rebuttal by makeumyne

    I don't even want to start with SB's threads.


    Sort of like the pot calling the kettle black don't you think?