RT @critica_omette: @Geostudiolab Ad essere sinceri ci sono anche articoli di climatologia che vengono retratti. Per esempio questo, che d…
@Geostudiolab Ad essere sinceri ci sono anche articoli di climatologia che vengono retratti. Per esempio questo, che diceva che il cambiamento climatico è provocato dal sole. Ops. Questa è ancora citata alla grande dai negazionisti. Un po' come Wakefiel
@IvanRamondo @lorreca @Mariang50295139 @Giulio_Firenze Beh guarda si smonta da sola lei, non ne ha beccata una e i suoi paper sono stati ritirati. Compreso a quello che ti riferisci tu. https://t.co/Vk4GM3xh5h PS: Come mai Roshydromet dice le stesse cose
@ZDM0916 Unseriös, wurde zurückgezogen. https://t.co/HNDVR1hROv
Ihre Annahmen sind unzutreffend. Zudem gibt es zu dem Thema keine andere wissenschaftliche Arbeit? https://t.co/HNDVR1hROv
RT @baukirsche: @winggiver @ZDM0916 Ihre Annahmen sind unzutreffend. Zudem gibt es zu dem Thema keine andere wissenschaftliche Arbeit? ht…
@winggiver @ZDM0916 Ihre Annahmen sind unzutreffend. Zudem gibt es zu dem Thema keine andere wissenschaftliche Arbeit? https://t.co/HNDVR1hROv
@Lehtos_Harri Humpuukia. Zharkova joutui vetämään artikkelinsa Naturesta pois, kun lukijat osoittivat sen vakavat virheet. https://t.co/dVkxRmg8B2
@DVadroux @romumartinik heu, c'est pas sans explication justement, y'a une page qui explique comment ça s'est fait et pour quelles raisons (des hypothèses douteuses) https://t.co/56ek6OhSgU
@JkmMikke Tu jest wyjasnienie dlaczego doszlo do retrakcji. https://t.co/NkTodMoNsr Moim zdaniem powody nie sa bezsensowne. Chodzi o szczegoly pewnych zalozen, ktore moga zasadniczo zmienic konkluze pracy.
@KorolukM @JkmMikke Merytoryczny powód odrzucenia jest podany tutaj: https://t.co/VgcB31DOuu
@Myrdrwin Peccato che lo studio sia stato ritirato e la Zharkova screditata. Peccato si. Povero myrdrwin, ne collezioni una dietro l'altra. https://t.co/DDTDhflV1z
@PolAnimalAus @OscarsWild1 Her retracted paper was published June 24 2019, retracted on Mar 4 2020. The paper I quoted was PUBLISHED on the site Aug 4 2020. It supercedes the retracted paper containing faulty data. That`s how real science works, new dat
@PolAnimalAus @TruthShepherrd Oops forgot the link.... https://t.co/TzyJEdRY4h
@CorRosielle @QQHaseena @JohnnyBG19 Haar artikel in Nature is ondertussen ook al weer ingetrokken door de editors toen aan licht kwam dat er aardig wat foutjes in zaten🙃(niet verbazend natuurlijk) https://t.co/Rk9p8QIaWV
@LucasHuybrechts @fmeeus1 Bij mijn weten is dat artikel over verkorting afstand van Zharkova e.a. ingetrokken (retracted). Ofwel inhoud en conclusies op zijn minst controversieel. https://t.co/Qmq0EL3t0E
@RetifDuPoitoux @AssoClimatoReal non, ils ne sont pas ignorés : https://t.co/szIYOu2NAB
@AntonioSocci1 Ritirato da Nature l’articolo della imbarazzante Zharkova, https://t.co/LjafM6UYSx
@AntonioSocci1 Non esattamente una fonte attendibile e obiettiva. https://t.co/wyTyNv5NF3
@jeroen_amf @FoskedeWolf @NatanjaTweet Heb je de datum van dat artikel gecheckt? En daarna verder gezocht en dit gevonden? https://t.co/a4e0gnEVps
@robinmonotti The paper you are citing has been retracted because it was fundamentally flawed. As it turns out, the distance between the Sun and the Earth varies a lot less due to the Sun's motion than what the article claimed. https://t.co/LfrCUwg4dj
@silvano_trotta Article fondé sur une hypothèse fausse... https://t.co/OBXChGMvaF
@Anika12000536 @bobik314 @Rob99990727 @jakubwiech Przecież takie prace od czasu do czasu się pojawiają. Tyle tylko, że zwykle zawierają błędy i często są wycofywane. Zharkova na na koncie kilka takich: https://t.co/VTjLwvWwnj A to czy powinno się dostosow
@Arkilogos @goddeketal You mean her article that had to be retracted because it was wrong? https://t.co/9hPxErDmBF
@Arkilogos @goddeketal You're also relying on somebpdy whose entire paper on the earth / sun distance and rotation had to be retracted. https://t.co/9hPxErDmBF
@JaydenW67403763 @Cance1Cance1ers @JunkScience Further, the authors could have attempted to publish elsewhere, or revise their work to account for the flaw. That they haven't appeared to do so, or that no other group has tried to resurrect their original
@Vagelford @andrianopoulos4 Αναπαράγει τη παραπληροφορηση της Zharkova, αγνοεί ότι το άρθρο της όμως έγινε retracted, γιατί έκανε λάθος σε orbital mechanics και έβγαλε το λάθος συμπέρασμα ότι αλλάζει δραματικά η απόσταση Γης Ηλίου. https://t.co/RfkNuoAQ0g
@damagedonegr Yes, I realise that, but her paper was used by science deniers to make the claim that there is "an impending mini ice age" due to a GSM. And she herself makes that silly claim. https://t.co/x0NnpeQnaP https://t.co/GhTtRwQzdb
@LucasHuybrechts @Valja46Zhark5 @kate_vandy @MattMcGrathBBC @annaholligan Here's the retraction notice: https://t.co/x0NnpeQnaP https://t.co/whwIzZwasx
RT @mattanurret: 8/ KANSKE det kan det ligga något sakligt bakom o inte bara politiskt åsiktsförtryck? EW pratar om Zharkova. Nej, det var…
RT @mattanurret: 8/ KANSKE det kan det ligga något sakligt bakom o inte bara politiskt åsiktsförtryck? EW pratar om Zharkova. Nej, det var…
8/ KANSKE det kan det ligga något sakligt bakom o inte bara politiskt åsiktsförtryck? EW pratar om Zharkova. Nej, det var inte utan motivering en av hennes artiklar drogs tillbaka https://t.co/7Ld1KcZ6Dl
@jbs2250 @hausfath ".. in the conclusions presented." https://t.co/K8y1WZCZOW 5/
@Carnalnature @JunkScience @AP @sophia_tulp No, nothing to do with any *narrative*. She made a major error which made her conclusions useless. Didn't you so called *critical thinking* skills allow you to read the retraction notice? https://t.co/dcBTXEp
@Inkie653 @Tweets59873292 @Nieuwsuur Verder is haar publicatie teruggetrokken nadat het fouten bleek te bevatten: https://t.co/nhbFhwNbAH
@LucasHuybrechts The one Zharkova wrote. https://t.co/nQiFOBYWHl
RT @TheDisproof: @GrahamLKeegan Your list includes non scientists and those whose papers were retracted or debunked e.g. Zharkova https://t…
@GrahamLKeegan @verycentrist Zharkova made massive flaws https://t.co/EwwU4Pw0eg
@GrahamLKeegan @verycentrist Nope, her paper was awful, retracted https://t.co/EwwU4PNBCQ
@GrahamLKeegan Your list includes non scientists and those whose papers were retracted or debunked e.g. Zharkova https://t.co/EwwU4PNBCQ and Soon https://t.co/pyMuRYxnez Patrick Moore isn't a scientist, he has a PhD in forestry. Lindzens model projections
@LeppanPierre @MatthewWielicki Her paper was "debunked" and retracted. https://t.co/Mdka5bbRnX
RT @GrahamLKeegan: You misunderstand - her paper explains the Sun’s key role in climate change.
You misunderstand - her paper explains the Sun’s key role in climate change.
@GrahamLKeegan Nothing to do with CO2 Her errors involving the barycenter of the solar system were the basis for the retraction Here's an overview of the issue https://t.co/RwSWcU3GkJ And the journal retraction: https://t.co/R0r8hDjcov
@GiorgosSahinis 1) το άρθρο της Zharkova έγινε retracted γιατί έκανε στοιχειώδη λάθη σε orbital mechanics https://t.co/RfkNuoBnPO 2) Wolf cycle είναι περιοδικότητα περίπου 11 χρόνων, Gleissberg cycle είναι περίπου 70-100. Το ότι οι ανίδεοι που σου μιλάνε γ
@bookie808 @ALICIA56483057 For me, CENSORSHIP gives her more credit as an honest scientist, perhaps not correct, but honest. Why this insistence on canceling his theories? For being uncomfortable for the dictatorial Scientific Dogma? https://t.co/XOOMnx
@DrealSlackman @emilper @JunkScience This zharkova? https://t.co/BUnGjqPPeH
@Nordensson_ @LisaRostlund I en senare artikel där forskarna försökte styrka sin modells validitet led den fortfarande av samma problem. Därtill var den så illa underbyggd att den behövde dras tillbaka av redaktören för tidsskriften. https://t.co/8lpsKeRPd
@biology_blogger BTW, I am sure you never bothered to read the actual RETRACTED BY THE AUTHOR article. Why are you so uneducated? https://t.co/BrZp4XMDZn
Bullet quote, and in this case it literally killed it. "Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article. " https://t.co/BrZp4Xuu
@rita_arryn @PGILLON @FranckenTheo haar paper daarover is retracted door het journal wegens inaccuraat. "Post-publication peer review has shown that this assumption is inaccurate because [...]" meer daarover hier: https://t.co/k3X5PvILMV
@FMG30 @RubenSanchezTW Toma, esta en inglés. Pero RETRACTED creo que lo entenderás. https://t.co/IXx5nr5VNA
@FranHervias Venga, te lo dejo por aquí, crack. https://t.co/IXx5nr5VNA
Hola, Fran, te dejo aquí la retracción del paper al que te refieres. https://t.co/tVwewbc9cc
Esta es la retractación del artículo en el cual se basaba el estudio difundido por el ex senador. Porque para qué voy a investigar un poco más si esto coincide con mis ideas preconcebidas. https://t.co/G541KfbO90
RT @hsocasnavarro: @Sopa56041841 @FranHervias @GirautaOficial @pcoffeebreak Aquí se puede encontrar la nota de retracción: https://t.co/00…
RT @txemap23: Estaría bien que gente con poder de difusión tuviese algo más de cuidado con lo que publica, máxime cuando no tiene ni idea d…
@Sopa56041841 @FranHervias @GirautaOficial @pcoffeebreak Aquí se puede encontrar la nota de retracción: https://t.co/00Q2aqqhVm
Estaría bien que gente con poder de difusión tuviese algo más de cuidado con lo que publica, máxime cuando no tiene ni idea de lo que está difundiendo. Toma Fran, por si quieres hacer un favor a tus seguidores y contarles la verdad (si es que te interesa):
Ignoro si Hervías entiende lo q comparte. Yo no, más allá de generalidades He leído el original q comparte y también este otro, q fue retractado en 2020 Así q yo pondría esas conclusiones tan rotundas sobre calentamiento/enfriamiento global, en cuarentena.
@FranHervias @GirautaOficial Fran interesante el artículo, aunque he ido tirando del hilo y he acabado en un retracto del artículo original que es para mí de una complejidad incomprensible: https://t.co/acUa2Ot999
@shisha_de @jpgcrowley @RARohde Read the retraction of one of her papers and commentary on that retraction Read both retraction & commentary in retraction watch https://t.co/R0r8hDAfqv https://t.co/pfoZw4IiUM
@NdabaningiMoyo @RARohde @shisha_de She does (see link). Though when she republished the material as an editorial in Temperature (which defines itself as a "physiological journal"), she omitted the astronomical considerations that were the reason for the
@shisha_de @RARohde For the record, this is the retraction note. https://t.co/2VgZn9uYYq
@beefyfarmer @TheDisproof @CAR26_ORG @LoisPerry26 @Seeotu @LanceForman The Zharkova? Queen of retraction (https://t.co/foTxwMaCVP)?😂 And Svensmark with his disproved "cosmic rays" (https://t.co/VNCpjVFR9E)?🤣
@lavenderroute @nasdaily Current ephemeris calculations [1,2] show that the Earth-Sun distance varies over a timescale of a few centuries by substantially less than the amount reported in this article." https://t.co/OUSnmMVHbX
@lwona78 @Spec30922756 @1972tomek 8/n 🧵: https://t.co/VTjLwvWwnj Jak to w takich przypadkach bywa autorzy mogą się ustosunkować do decyzji redakcji. Pani Zharkova ZGADZA się z decyzją. Ma świadomość, że popełniła błąd. https://t.co/QocBxzwmXX
Reputable journals maintain their reputation by retracting papers which are irreparably flawed. A good example.
@SkippyKishi @prageru @Greenpeace Valentina Zharkova’s "research" "indicating" that was retracted. https://t.co/O3UnEPI4bE #BadScience
@smAshomAsh @dbirch214 The article was retracted, but the retraction was disputed and I am still going with the article's conclusions. https://t.co/zDZCm7MOHE
@miltorbica @GruesomeChild So your link is to a preprint that was peer reviewed and heavily criticised. It was found that the preprint contained conclusions based on incorrect scientific assumptions & the article was retracted. This was even agreed to
@lavenderroute @AttuchRoberto @CerizePedro @f_alperowitch Esse artigo aqui né? "Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale" https://t.co/OUSnmME6kp Que foi retratado por conter erros elementares..
@MrMatthewTodd @Daily_Express @THEJamesWhale's "earth moving closer to the Sun" claim may come from an article retracted in 2020: https://t.co/8MTpZKvtNM "Ken Rice of the University of Edinburgh, UK, criticised the paper for an “elementary” mistake about
RT @AtomsksSanakan: @GidMK @RetractionWatch Say what you want about Scientific Reports + other 'Nature' journals, but at least their editor…
@GidMK @RetractionWatch Say what you want about Scientific Reports + other 'Nature' journals, but at least their editors retract bad work without using evasive excuses, such as waiting for the authors to agree or saying issues are unclear. https://t.co/I5
@LarryTu05180091 I hope you aren’t referring to the Zharkova paper that was retracted for errors… https://t.co/dey6jmyKM2 https://t.co/W0IK8rXKmH
@TheABD Zharkova could not get basic solar-planetary motions correct and had her 2019 paper retracted https://t.co/R0r8hDiEyX Her solar model projections and history are at odds with leading solar scientists Suggest you stop worrying
@WonderW97800751 Scary! But this study was retracted from the most reputable science journals because it sucked! (the lead scientist is a mathematician not a climate scientist) https://t.co/a6VyiWhXvC
@ianmdallas @CharlieEmmaUK You don’t give a date or citation for this paper, but it looks suspiciously like this one retracted by Nature 18 months ago: https://t.co/6AZvGnw0J4 BTW: The GWPF is not impartial, has been censured by the Charities Commission an
@mittdolcino Adesso lo leggo ma calmo: mi riferivo a questa roba, so bene che c'è la censura accademica con annessi e connessi, mi hai preso per un Gretino? https://t.co/PSHspgJ7Gw
@drolkrad_ehT @DavidMc71590985 @NoTricksZone Oh please, not another GSM... Hey, that's the woman who had to pull her article from solar because she phugged up so badly it ruined her career. Yeah, she's toxic lunatic. https://t.co/BrZp4XM69P
Un negacionista del cambio climatico me cita a Zharkova. En un tiempo ese personaje fue profesor universitario de mi alma mater. https://t.co/SwSNNgWjBo
@ronaldvanamelr @helgavanleur Dit is de "retraction note" van Nature: https://t.co/VyHhH9jZL6