"The lead author responded and he was not happy. He invited a 'spirited discussion'.ā
I put this statement in the category of "weasel words". Basically, weasel words are words (typically adjectives or adverbs) that suck the meaning out of the nouns they qualify. Careless readers either accept them at face value or skip over them without realizing it.
Clearly the lead author was not happy that he and his associates had been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Rather than addess the root issue, mixed and matched data sets, he wants to duke it out verbally.
Have you sent a Comment to the journal? Good to have it + the authors' response accompanying the paper, should it not be retracted + that way also alert others of the data issues involved.
Iām confused, it seems clear the dataset should not be used to support the authors conclusion and they should retract the paper. What is the spirited debate?
Yes, the lead author is putting on a brave face and pretending that there is a debate to be had here. Obviously Iād be happy for him to engage. But I doubt he will.
That said, it is a rare author who willingly will retract their own paper. The thing to watch is whether the journal takes any action.
No response from the editor as yet.
Given the PNAS debacle I am not optimistic but we shall see!
š¤. Bizarre. Iāve made modeling mistakes before and some have even been caught by clients. Yes, itās embarrassing and sometimes you get fired, but modeling anything with large data sets is hard! You will make mistakes which is the only certainly in data analytics. Thats why you have independent reviewers. š. Iām imagining a scenario where I would say, nah, Iām not changing my conclusions, Iām sure Iām right regardless. Letās move forward on the deal with my wrong analysis. Thatās called gross negligence and you donāt work again.
"A normalization estimates direct economic losses from a historical extreme event if that same event was to occur under contemporary societal conditions." From the abstract of your study with Jessica Weinkle as lead author. Haven't read the paywalled full article which may detail the answer to this question: does "contemporary societal conditions" then approximate the density and class of 2017 or 2020 infrastructure and buildings in the path of the historical storm even though these may not have existed at the time of earlier storms vs. taking the less dense/less costly historical infrastructure and simply pricing it in contemporary dollars. thanks ,brian
As bad as fraud and plagiarsm have become in academia, it's not the worst thing. Bias is a much bigger more pervaisve problem than outright cheating. Especially since academia has now been thoroughly cleansed of any deviants who may not fully subscribe to the the woke-climate leftist agenda.
8 hrs agoĀ·edited 8 hrs agoLiked by Roger Pielke Jr.
Looks like you are on firm ground and I fear that we may see some bad behavior in the case of the "spirited discussion."
However, my meta fear is that this will result only in noise that leaves both climate denialists and doomsters even more entrenched in their policy positions.
I don't know how this tennis match will be played, but I can only say that the point is to return the volley onto the court, not just hit it back over the net.
As always, the bottom line is not just to correct errors in what is claimed, but to improve _policy._
In this case there is no policy implication here, other than for policies related to scientific integrity. People trust science and scientists in part because science is self-correcting and when mistakes are found they are fixed. This is a clear cut test of scientific integrity. Mistakes happen, what matters is what happens when they are found out.
It's not the policy concerns this study will affect (effect?). It is the corresponding public disclosure through media that is of concern. Once reported, it becomes public record regardless of a retraction. But of more concern is the peer review process that allowed this to be published. I dare say. If this study had shown the opposite, that hurricane damage had decreased due directly to climate change, it would likely have been rejected before it ever got to review. I know I've harped on this endlessly, the peer review process is broken. It needs, desperately, to be re-imagined. Right now, I hope for some fully open process. Where articles are put forth, reviews are published independently and journals bid on publication. Just an idea at this point.
I was wondering whether you would consider writing an article listing all the dubious assumptions of RCP 8.5? I have see them mentioned in a few places (including your articles), but to the best of my knowledge, no one has listed them all out in one place. You would be the perfect person to write the article. Thanks.
The best part of this response is the demand to make the discussion public. I know that scientists prefer not inviting critique by uninformed or I'll informed people, but would like to think many of us are smart enough to know when one argument runs out of stream because of back peddling, clear obfuscation, etc.
Well done for calling this out Roger - the fact that you've done it publicly is excellent and hopefully will sharpen the minds of some of the researchers out there. It will be interesting to see if any of the usual suspects in the mainstream media publicise these "results".
"The lead author responded and he was not happy. He invited a 'spirited discussion'.ā
I put this statement in the category of "weasel words". Basically, weasel words are words (typically adjectives or adverbs) that suck the meaning out of the nouns they qualify. Careless readers either accept them at face value or skip over them without realizing it.
Clearly the lead author was not happy that he and his associates had been caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Rather than addess the root issue, mixed and matched data sets, he wants to duke it out verbally.
Have you sent a Comment to the journal? Good to have it + the authors' response accompanying the paper, should it not be retracted + that way also alert others of the data issues involved.
Iām confused, it seems clear the dataset should not be used to support the authors conclusion and they should retract the paper. What is the spirited debate?
Ha!
Yes, the lead author is putting on a brave face and pretending that there is a debate to be had here. Obviously Iād be happy for him to engage. But I doubt he will.
That said, it is a rare author who willingly will retract their own paper. The thing to watch is whether the journal takes any action.
No response from the editor as yet.
Given the PNAS debacle I am not optimistic but we shall see!
š¤. Bizarre. Iāve made modeling mistakes before and some have even been caught by clients. Yes, itās embarrassing and sometimes you get fired, but modeling anything with large data sets is hard! You will make mistakes which is the only certainly in data analytics. Thats why you have independent reviewers. š. Iām imagining a scenario where I would say, nah, Iām not changing my conclusions, Iām sure Iām right regardless. Letās move forward on the deal with my wrong analysis. Thatās called gross negligence and you donāt work again.
"A normalization estimates direct economic losses from a historical extreme event if that same event was to occur under contemporary societal conditions." From the abstract of your study with Jessica Weinkle as lead author. Haven't read the paywalled full article which may detail the answer to this question: does "contemporary societal conditions" then approximate the density and class of 2017 or 2020 infrastructure and buildings in the path of the historical storm even though these may not have existed at the time of earlier storms vs. taking the less dense/less costly historical infrastructure and simply pricing it in contemporary dollars. thanks ,brian
The former
Seems to be a "open and shut" case of incompetent editorship (and reviewers).
As bad as fraud and plagiarsm have become in academia, it's not the worst thing. Bias is a much bigger more pervaisve problem than outright cheating. Especially since academia has now been thoroughly cleansed of any deviants who may not fully subscribe to the the woke-climate leftist agenda.
Looks like you are on firm ground and I fear that we may see some bad behavior in the case of the "spirited discussion."
However, my meta fear is that this will result only in noise that leaves both climate denialists and doomsters even more entrenched in their policy positions.
I don't know how this tennis match will be played, but I can only say that the point is to return the volley onto the court, not just hit it back over the net.
As always, the bottom line is not just to correct errors in what is claimed, but to improve _policy._
In this case there is no policy implication here, other than for policies related to scientific integrity. People trust science and scientists in part because science is self-correcting and when mistakes are found they are fixed. This is a clear cut test of scientific integrity. Mistakes happen, what matters is what happens when they are found out.
It's not the policy concerns this study will affect (effect?). It is the corresponding public disclosure through media that is of concern. Once reported, it becomes public record regardless of a retraction. But of more concern is the peer review process that allowed this to be published. I dare say. If this study had shown the opposite, that hurricane damage had decreased due directly to climate change, it would likely have been rejected before it ever got to review. I know I've harped on this endlessly, the peer review process is broken. It needs, desperately, to be re-imagined. Right now, I hope for some fully open process. Where articles are put forth, reviews are published independently and journals bid on publication. Just an idea at this point.
I had recently seen a discussion of the paper implying a huge effect on storm damage by climate change and hoped you would respond. Thank you!
Great article as always.
I was wondering whether you would consider writing an article listing all the dubious assumptions of RCP 8.5? I have see them mentioned in a few places (including your articles), but to the best of my knowledge, no one has listed them all out in one place. You would be the perfect person to write the article. Thanks.
These people have no shame.
The best part of this response is the demand to make the discussion public. I know that scientists prefer not inviting critique by uninformed or I'll informed people, but would like to think many of us are smart enough to know when one argument runs out of stream because of back peddling, clear obfuscation, etc.
Thank you for your research exposing this issue, Roger. Altering data to support a predetermined narrative is a form of research misconduct.
Thank you again for exposing the fraudulent and arrogant nature of the climate cult.
Well done for calling this out Roger - the fact that you've done it publicly is excellent and hopefully will sharpen the minds of some of the researchers out there. It will be interesting to see if any of the usual suspects in the mainstream media publicise these "results".
Hmmmm, splicing data to create an outcome
I smell the imprint of Piltdown Mann