3 ms·
This actually isn't news. Questions have already been raised as this paper was never peer reviewed [1] (Jan 2013), which states: > According to their C.V.s [2]
by cletus 14y ago
This actually isn't news. Questions have already been raised as this paper was never peer reviewed [1] (Jan 2013), which states:
> According to their C.V.s [2], it's been published in the May 2010 issue of the American Economic Review, which is a special non-reviewed "papers and proceedings" issue.
So I really don't know why anyone listened to this in the first place other than it furthered their pre-existing political agenda.
This is why any paper should be required to release:
- the raw data supporting it;
- the assumptions, exclusions and weightings made to produce the final data; and
- any code used for a model.
All of these issues are particularly problematic when it comes to climate science.
[1]: http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/no-90-percent-debt-threshold-hasnt-been-proven http://www.nextnewdeal.net/rortybomb/no-90-percent-debt-thre...
[2]: http://www.carmenreinhart.com/c.v./cv-in-pdf/ http://www.carmenreinhart.com/c.v./cv-in-pdf/
- pharrington 14y agoSo I really don't know why anyone listened to this in the first place Maybe because this seems to be standard for research publications. http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ#flaws-in-mainstream-science-and-psychology http://www.gwern.net/DNB%20FAQ#flaws-in-mainstream-science-a... e: downvote with comments please
- JumpCrisscross 14y ago"This actually isn't news" This is news. "We can't replicate" a landmark study (yes, it was an intercontinental landmark study) is very different from "we have found the specific errors that make this study faulty".
- gruseom 14y agoDeleting a comment in one thread (especially a parent comment) and reposting it in another is not a very good practice. Also, this is obviously news. Also, a gratuitous reference to climate science in this context is flamebait—luckily it hasn't set anyone off. Fully agree about releasing both data and code.