Is global warming just another ‘End-of-the-World’ delusion?

[Poptech]

2. Anderegg or anyone else will have difficulty with getting a 'perfect' sample. No matter how it is derived. Unless Poptech can find such an horrific bias in the data that 97% drops down to 49% (and he can show that mathematically...not just point out potential problems with the Google scholar search) then it's pointless exercise.

Why do you insist on demonstrating your computer illiteracy? All I have to show is the data a methods used to derive the percentage is flawed. You cannot use Google Scholar to perform that types of analysis that is being attempted as it is a "scholarly" dynamic search engine not a scientifically robust database. Google Scholar can only be used to locate scholarly material nothing more.

 

[Poptech]

Expert Credibility study by Anderegg critiqued by Poptech HERE

1. Poptech complains that Anderegg unnecessarily limited the counts to climate scientists with >20 references on the topic.

Response: while it is somewhat arbitrary it is a reasonable filter. Since Google Scholar is a somewhat crude tool there has to be some metric by which we establish "EXPERT" (per the title of the article).

Say, for instance the article were focused only on "any joe blow" then it would be irrational to so limit. But EXPERTS are usually well published in a field, so it is not a problem....unless the "skeptics" are simply unable, unwilling or lack sufficient expertise to get published.

No it is not reasonable and completely biased against skeptics who consider volume of papers published as an argumentum ad populum and a logical fallacy. First the argument was that skeptics did not publish, then when they have been irrefutably shown to have published you cherry pick them away for not publishing over 20 papers. An objective criteria would have been if they have or have not published.

In addition the authors made every effort to list credible SKEPTICS as well as non-skeptics. You can see the list compiled by PRALL here which lists the various organizations used to define positions and inclusions (HERE)

How many of each group did they begin their so called study with?

FURTHER, Anderegg et al wanted to see how big the difference would be if they used a 10 publication or 40 publication cutoff filter and found very little change in the results:

That is what is "claimed" but it is still arbitrary, as an objective criteria would have been if they have or have not published.

2. Climate Patents: Poptech complains that "patents" are not filtered out which contain the word "climate"

RESPONSE: Since this was often tied in with the AUTHOR criterion one has to realize that the results Anderegg et al got were not simply raw numbers but were verfied by the author names. This wasn't just a pump-and-dump process!

Prove that they verified all the results for each author in their search. Their failure to not search for patents demonstrates their absolute incompetence in using Google Scholar and the fact that this was not caught during the peer-review process demonstrates the incompetence of the reviewers.

So if Phil D. Jones of UEA has a lot "climate" patents unrelated to this topic it is highly unlikely that it would significantly skew the results.

What is likely or not is irrelevant to the simple fact that it should not have been done.

3. Poptech claims there is a problem with using the number of "hits" from this method which is variable and may conflate with similarly named researchers.

RESPONSE:
Poptech's attempt to show the flaw of doing an "author:fi-lastname climate" search on Google scholar for Phil Jones comes up with the ridiculously high value of 6,580.

Poptech himself provides a link to the more rational 2initial "PD-Jones" search which he claims results in >5,000 hits. Except when you click on the link it comes out at 604!

Are you illiterate? Did you fail to read this?

"Note: All Google Scholar numerical result totals will change over time and sometimes every time you search."

Why are you continuing to show your computer illiteracy?

I ran the "author: PD-Jones" and "climate" search and I also got 604. Which is alarmingly close to Anderegg's results and pretty much every one of them on the first couple pages are Phil Jones CLIMATE RELATED!

Of course Poptech is going to get a WRONG ANSWER IF HE PUTS IN A WRONG SEARCH, or if he reports THE WRONG NUMBERS!!!!

I didn't put in the wrong search or report the wrong numbers you liar. Google Scholar is a dynamic search engine where the results can change depending on the day you search it. Are you really this ignorant? Wow, I never thought anyone would resort to these lying tactics. I will make sure to take screen shots next time.

You really want to try this nonsense and lie like this? Lets play...

1. What was the Google Scholar search field used for authors in Anderegg et al.? Quote it from the paper.

2. How many search results did Anderegg et al. get for Phil Jones?


Prepare to be educated.

 

[eclipsenow]

1. What was the Google Scholar search field used for authors in Anderegg et al. (2009)? Quote it from the paper.

2. How many search results did Anderegg et al. (2009) get for Phil Jones?


Prepare to be educated.

Wow, these searches must hold the key to climate science. Whatever you do, don't analyse CO2's demonstrable, repeatable, heat-trapping properties! Whatever you do don't go and talk to a geo-chemist or a climatologist. Whatever you do, don't book an appointment in a physics lab to SEE how CO2 traps heat. Whatever you do, keep critiquing climate science from the perspective of some whacked out perception of yours about some 'search conspiracy'.

You're like a plumber critiquing a neuro-surgeon's brain surgery! Well done on the credibility front! (Not!)

 

[Poptech]

Wow, these searches must hold the key to climate science. Whatever you do, don't analyse CO2's demonstrable, repeatable, heat-trapping properties! Whatever you do don't go and talk to a geo-chemist or a climatologist. Whatever you do, don't book an appointment in a physics lab to SEE how CO2 traps heat. Whatever you do, keep critiquing climate science from the perspective of some whacked out perception of yours about some 'search conspiracy'.

They hold the key to refuting the propaganda 97% number in Anderegg et al. Why do you keep lying? I have made no remote argument as to CO2 being a greenhouse gas or not and I talk to climatologists weekly.

Please quote where I show the computer illiteracy of those who attempt to use Google Scholar to make a propaganda argument as a "conspiracy".

You're like a plumber critiquing a neuro-surgeon's brain surgery! Well done on the credibility front!

No it is like a computer expert showing a computer illiterate why they are ignorant. You still have avoided all my questions. I shall compile them for you.

 

[Poptech]

Questions eclipsenow cannot answer,

1. Why do you think "Planet Mutonia and the Young Pop Star Wannabes" is a peer-reviewed paper about global warming?

2. What is the 1001 result for any Google Scholar search?

3. How many scientists does it represent for those scientific organizations who released policy statements in support of AGW?

4. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

5. Please provide the objective criteria for determining a "climate expert".

 

[Lucy Stulz]

No it is not reasonable and completely biased against skeptics who consider volume of papers published as an argumentum ad populum and a logical fallacy. First the argument was that skeptics did not publish, then when they have been irrefutably shown to have published you cherry pick them away for not publishing over 20 papers. An objective criteria would have been if they have or have not published.


How many of each group did they begin their so called study with?


That is what is "claimed" but it is still arbitrary, as an objective criteria would have been if they have or have not published.


Prove that they verified all the results for each author in their search. Their failure to not search for patents demonstrates their absolute incompetence in using Google Scholar and the fact that this was not caught during the peer-review process demonstrates the incompetence of the reviewers.


What is likely or not is irrelevant to the simple fact that it should not have been done.


Are you illiterate? Did you fail to read this?

"Note: All Google Scholar numerical result totals will change over time and sometimes every time you search."

Why are you continuing to show your computer illiteracy?


I didn't put in the wrong search or report the wrong numbers you liar. Google Scholar is a dynamic search engine where the results can change depending on the day you search it. Are you really this ignorant? Wow, I never thought anyone would resort to these lying tactics. I will make sure to take screen shots next time.

You really want to try this nonsense and lie like this? Lets play...

1. What was the Google Scholar search field used for authors in Anderegg et al. (2009)? Quote it from the paper.

2. How many search results did Anderegg et al. (2009) get for Phil Jones?


Prepare to be educated.

I am not lying. I clicked THE LINK FOR PD JONES SEARCH ON YOUR SITE. If > >4000 hits are no longer there then your critique is no longer valid.

The fact that the actual search results in 605 hits means it is easily within the results of Anderegg et al.

Please check your blog post.

As for how many hits they got for Phil Jones it was more in line with what one gets for PD Jones which IS WHOLLY ALLOWED UNDER THE fi-last and rubric since Jones publishes commonly under PD and the fi- command can return more than just one initial.

The search string they used was author:fi-last name and climate. PD is allowed by the fi- command and indeed the results return +/- 10% of the 650 or so PD Jones hits in the Andersgg paper.

In addition the raw number IS NOT USED BY A DEREGG AS THEY EXPLICITLY STATE.

Please read the methods section at the end of the paper.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Why do you insist on demonstrating your computer illiteracy? All I have to show is the data a methods used to derive the percentage is flawed. You cannot use Google Scholar to perform that types of analysis that is being attempted as it is a "scholarly" dynamic search engine not a scientifically robust database. Google Scholar can only be used to locate scholarly material nothing more.

It would be helpful if you also bothered to learn some statistics. Unless you think all science is absolutely perfect, you should know what a "sample" is.

I have a goodly bit of background in statistics of you would like to learn a bit more about what life is like in the sciences in the real world!

 

[Poptech]

I am not lying. I clicked THE LINK FOR PD JONES SEARCH ON YOUR SITE. If > >4000 hits are no longer there then your critique is no longer valid.

The fact that the actual search results in 605 hits means it is easily within the results of Anderegg et al.

I am well aware that Google Search Results are now different 3 years later.

2. How many search results did Anderegg et al. get for Phil Jones?

As for how many hits they got for Phil Jones it was more in line with what one gets for PD Jones which IS WHOLLY ALLOWED UNDER THE fi-last and rubric since Jones publishes commonly under PD and the fi- command can return more than just one initial.

What "fi-" command you computer illiterate?

 

[eclipsenow]

Questions eclipsenow cannot answer,

1. Why do you think "Planet Mutonia and the Young Pop Star Wannabes" is a peer-reviewed paper about global warming?

2. What is the 1001 result for any Google Scholar search?

3. How many scientists does it represent for those scientific organizations who released policy statements in support of AGW?

4. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

5. Please provide the objective criteria for determining a "climate expert".

Don't bother asking these any more, as I'm not indulging your sick fantasies. If you want to attack the science, Lucy is more than qualified to deal with the reality that peer-reviewed science is discussing. If you want to play semantic games... not interested.

 

[Poptech]

It would be helpful if you also bothered to learn some statistics. Unless you think all science is absolutely perfect, you should know what a "sample" is.

It would help if you received a proper education in computer science and learned what the difference is between a search engine and a static scientific database. Computer databases always return "perfect" results to what they contain unless something is wrong with their software or hardware. Margins of error do not apply, nor your ignorance on the subject.

 

[Poptech]

Don't bother asking these any more, as I'm not indulging your sick fantasies. If you want to attack the science, Lucy is more than qualified to deal with the reality that peer-reviewed science is discussing. If you want to play semantic games... not interested.

That is because you cannot answer them and I will continue to demonstrate that you cannot answer them.

 

[eclipsenow]

That is because you cannot answer them and I will continue to demonstrate that you cannot answer them.

Scientific truth is not determined by a google scholar result or democracy, but data. Your Denialist Dogma's Denying you Data: you can only harp on and on and on about the most boring rubbish, and are ignoring the beautiful, repeatable, demonstrable truths we learn from science. You're boring me silly with your toddler temper tantrums and semantic games. If you had something solid against the science, that would be one thing, but this autistic focus you have on your google scholar results and your semantic games is just truly sad. You're embarrassing yourself 20 times over. I can't watch any longer. It makes me cringe for you. Goodbye.

 

[Poptech]

eclipsenow, no need to run away because you cannot answer these very basic questions which demonstrate your so called "arguments" are nothing but logical fallacies,

1. Why do you think "Planet Mutonia and the Young Pop Star Wannabes" is a peer-reviewed paper about global warming?

2. What is the 1001 result for any Google Scholar search?

3. How many scientists does it represent for those scientific organizations who released policy statements in support of AGW?

4. Please provide the objective criteria for determining who is a "climatologist".

5. Please provide the objective criteria for determining a "climate expert".

 

[Lucy Stulz]

I am well aware that Google Search Results are now different 3 years later.

2. How many search results did Anderegg et al. (2009) get for Phil Jones?


What "fi-" command you computer illiterate?

"fi-" is the placeholder in the google search lexicon for FIRST INITIAL. It can be multiple.

I suggest you dial back you nastiness and insults. For one such as yourself who doesn't even seem to understand the relationship between agw and basic chemistry you are hardly in a position to be a pedantic jerk.

 

[Poptech]

STRAWMAN and LYING (per your standards). I never said YOU quoted AL GORE, what I said was you were making use of the CO2/Temperature graph that was from the Antarctic which is the one Al Gore used in his film.

No I said, quote where I referenced or made any mention to Al Gore in relation to CO2 lagging. Actually what you explicitly said was,

"No, you were referring to the classic Antarctic Ice Core data that skeptics like to pull out of Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" which appears to show some leading of temperature."

So you admit the above insinuation is absolutely irrelevant to anything I was discussing?

You were making use of the Antarctic ice core data.

If you don't know the geographic location of the sources you cite, maybe you should refrain from it as well.

Where did I claim the majority of scientific studies I cited were not from the southern hemisphere?

STRAWMAN AND A LIE (per your standards). I NEVER SAID CO2 RELATED TO CLIMATE FORCING...I USED IT TO EXPLAIN CO2 LAGGING.

I am well aware of what you were ranting about which had nothing to do with my argument.

WHy on earth should I care what EclipseNow says? Earth science and geology are integral to this topic!

Sorry, I just ignored Eclipse's comments about geology and climate. It was wrong.

I don't care about that. But I'll officially correct him now: ECLIPSE, GEOLOGY IS CRITICAL IN THIS TOPIC.

This is epic! Alarmists calling each other out. You had to be pushed into a corner to be intellectually honest here, very interesting and it speaks volumes about your character (or lack there of).

No, I'm happy to show YOURS.

FAQ on CLIMATE MODELS

Show me what? I have read that before and the scientists at RealClimate are as computer illiterate as yourself.

Notice their concession, "all models are indeed wrong". The only use they have is selling climate propaganda to computer illiterates who do not know any better.

And interestingly enough it is almost the entirety of the world's professional climate scientists who are "skeptics". It is the same 4 names listed ad nauseam.

I was unable to post more than four due to the comment space limitations imposed at these forums. I ask again how many names would you like?

I've been around more geologists and oceanographers than you have.

No you haven't. I've worked at a research university myself. Regardless this is an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

Just as a bit of trivia for you:

1. In 1898 when "AGW" was first hypothesized, you DO realize that the guy who did it, Svante Arrhenius, was one of the FATHERS OF PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY right?

You do realize I explicitly cite him in my "Rebuttals section on my list?

Criticism: Paper [Insert Name] is outdated.
Rebuttal: The age of any scientific paper is irrelevant. Using this argument would mean dismissing Svante Arrhenius's 1896 paper "On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground" and the basis for greenhouse theory. Regardless, there are over 800 papers published since 2000 on the list.

2. Roger Revelle and Hans Suess in the 1950's who took up the AGW banner again were INVOLVED IN GEOCHEMICAL/OCEAN CHEMISTRY CARBON CYCLING STUDIES, you did know that right? (I assume you've heard those names...because you are SO knowledgable about this topic!)

Yes, I am very familiar with them and have cited this story about Revelle many times,

The Revelle-Gore Story: Attempted Political Suppression of Science (PDF) (Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking, Chapter 11, 2003)

Your failures are adding up.

 

[Poptech]

"fi-" is the placeholder in the google search lexicon for FIRST INITIAL. It can be multiple.

It is not a "command" you computer illiterate. Sorry for having to continue to educate you.

Why is the searched initials arbitrary applied depending on the author? This does not sound like a robust method to do a so called "study".

It appears there are serious problems doing these types of searches since depending on the journal an author may or may not use their middle initial. And by just searching for the first you run into the problem of increasing the amount of erroneous results with scientists who share similar names. This is before even acknowledging that Google Scholar does not only index peer-reviewed papers.

Now I ask the question you continue to dodge just like the 1001 result request from before,

2. How many search results did Anderegg et al. get for Phil Jones?

 

[Lucy Stulz]

It is not a "command" you computer illiterate. Sorry for having to continue to educate you.

Pedantry. I apologize for using the term incorrectly.

Please dial back your viciousness. If not you will be reported.

Why is the searched initials arbitrary applied depending on the author? This does not sound like a robust method to do a so called "study".

Oh my! So you don't do database searches yourself? It is NOT arbitrary! When I publish I am often listed by my first two initials.

THIS IS CALLED A FILTER.

Sorry to educate you. But you see if someone were to "pump and dump" data as you wish to do of course they are going to get unusable results?

Why would anyone use a POORLY CONSTRUCTED SEARCH which is overly inclusive????????

Do you WANT to get bad data?

It appears there are serious problems doing these types of searches since depending on the journal an author may or may not use their middle initial.

-sigh-

Anderegg state explicitly:

We veri​

​

​

​

[FONT=AdvOT118e7927+fb][FONT=AdvOT118e7927+fb]fi[/FONT][/FONT]ed, however, author identity for the four top-cited papers by each author.​

and don't forget that the Google Scholar searches were compared in some cases against other databases and provides a more CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE of expertise!

Researcher publication and citation counts in Earth Sciences have been found to be largely similar between Google Scholar and other peer-review-only citation indices such as ISI Web of Science...Indeed, using Google Scholar provides a more conservative estimate of expertise (e.g., higher levels of publications and more experts considered) because it archives a greater breadth of sources than other citation indices.
​

​

Now I ask the question you continue to dodge just like the 1001 result request from before,

2. How many search results did Anderegg et al. (2009) get for Phil Jones?

Since Anderegg do not explicitly use RAW COUNTS as established earlier it looks like from the Prall SI materials that the original list comes out with 724 hits (LINK)

Now let's do some math!

YOUR search from August 2010

authorD-Jones climate

Results: 5,370
(HERE)

P-Jones climate search in March 2012 (from this post on Christian Forums)
Results: 537

PD-Jones climate search today (June 2013):

authorD-Jones climate
Results: 604

Now I'm not going to every claim that Google Scholar is perfect and I'm fully aware that it is changeable with time. BUT here's what I see:

Prall's original listing: 724
2012 Poster on CF: 537
My 2013 CF count: 604

Average of these is 621 with a 95% confidence + 107. So somewhere between 493-728 we have a 95% confidence of finding the "true mean"

And in the end this is th enature of "sampling". This isn't a perfect study! No one expects it to be!

THAT IS WHY ANDEREGG et al WERE DOING STATISTICAL ANALYSES AND NOT USING THE RAW COUNT VALUES!

But more importantly, as EclipseNow notes: if you wish to completely ignore the science and get hung up on some consensus count that is like missing the forest for the trees!

Frankly I wonder about your sampling if you claim to be in contact with earth scientists every day and you don't know how much consensus is out there for AGW within the earth science community!

Like I said, I have several degrees in geology have been around more geologists than most, I work in chemistry and I've been around many research organizations and I have met very, very few AGW skeptics who are thus professionally trained.

 

[AV1611VET]

THAT IS WHY ANDEREGG et al WERE DOING STATISTICAL ANALYSES AND NOT USING THE RAW COUNT VALUES!

I wouldn't get too comfortable yelling at us.

Shortly after your predecessor was ... very sincerely asked to stop yelling, he suddenly had to leave for some reason.

I held the door open for him.

You can take your Sam Kinison act elsewhere.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

This is epic! Alarmists calling each other out. You had to be pushed into a corner to be intellectually honest here, very interesting and it speaks volumes about your character (or lack there of).

So my silence about another poster was an indictment of my character?

Oooook.

Show me what? I have read that before and the scientists at RealClimate are as computer illiterate as yourself.

All I need to know! Everyone on the planet is "computer illiterate" except you!

Notice their concession, "all models are indeed wrong". The only use they have is selling climate propaganda to computer illiterates who do not know any better.

When you actually do some science let us know! (you know, except for "cherry picking")

The type of model I use is called a "statistical" model which is built up from the empirical relationships. To that end it is, by necessity, "imperfect" and "wrong" to some degree. No model is perfect.

You know what you remind me of? A CREATIONIST. Creationists want perfect science. Absolute 100% perfection. In that they display their fundamental failure at understanding what science is all about.

You want a perfect "sample" (you clearly haven't ever had a stats class). You want perfect "models" (you clearly haven't done much in the physical sciences).

The only folks who get "perfection" are religious zealots.

Yes, I am very familiar with them and have cited this story about Revelle many times,

The Revelle-Gore Story: Attempted Political Suppression of Science (PDF) (Politicizing Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking, Chapter 11, 2003)

Your failures are adding up.

Interesting that the only thing you cite about Revelle is some link to Al Gore! LOL!

Revelle was active in the field when Gore was still filling his diapers.

The minute you start talking about Revelle's work in the 1950's-1960's with Suess and others on CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere, then I'll assume you have some idea of the science.

Instead you are focused on politics and quotation marks.

 

[Lucy Stulz]

Scientific truth is not determined by a google scholar result or democracy, but data.

BUt remember, the only thing Poptech knows how to do is construct a database search. That's it. Anyone who doesn't do it exactly as poptech does it is "computer illiterate".

Even professional climate researchers who use extremely powerful computer models BUT WHO DISAGREE WITH POPTECH's "blog" entries are "Computer Illiterates".

In fact I bet EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is a "computer illiterate" unless they agree 100% with PopTech's Blog posts.

Your Denialist Dogma's Denying you Data: you can only harp on and on and on about the most boring rubbish, and are ignoring the beautiful, repeatable, demonstrable truths we learn from science.

To be fair to Poptech, people like ME, did raise the 97% value. That opened the door to his rants and screeds.

Granted PopTech clearly doesn't know about statistics (hence his critiques of Anderegg et al are limited solely to search criteria and ignore the statistical tests Anderegg et al did (Mann-Whitney U Test) which help underscore the potential of error (which still came out quite low!)

What PopTech fails to understand is that any "sampling" event of any sort is, by necessity "imperfect". He argues like a CREATIONIST in that he wants perfect data. This isn't a reality.

I wonder about his repeated claims of association with earth scientists.

You're boring me silly with your toddler temper tantrums and semantic games.

He does get bent pretty fast! I love the way he goes over the top and suddenly EVERYONE is a LIAR and a COMPUTER ILLITERATE.

I think the best thing to do is simply present SCIENCE and MATH to him and it will drive him bonkers.

I would stay clear of "Google Scholar Search" criteria though. That is apparently what he got his degree in. And if you differ with him you are COMPUTER ILLITERATE!

If you had something solid against the science,

Ahhh, he doesn't have any science background in this! His familiarity with Revelle is some screed post about Al Gore!!!

I'm guessing the guy has no earthly idea what the Revelle Factor is or anything prior to the political diatribes that came out of the denialist camps after "An Inconvenient Truth"!!!

It's so funny to see someone who so abysmally unaware of the science that predates all their denialist blogger buddies by about 5 DECADES.

that would be one thing, but this autistic focus you have on your google scholar results and your semantic games is just truly sad. You're embarrassing yourself 20 times over. I can't watch any longer. It makes me cringe for you. Goodbye.

I take responsibility for getting him going on the Anderegg paper. I didn't realize that he had a BLOG that ranted on this. Thankfully I found that sometime last year someone ON THIS VERY BOARD took him to task already about the complaints.

And interestingly enough PopTech DOESN'T EVEN DEAL with the data as Anderegg et al did! He keeps on about one aspect of part of the search and he insists on using RAW COUNT DATA when Anderegg et al didn't!

Sampling, sampling, sampling.

It is all part of the bigger understanding of science in general. PopTech knows how to use "strict delimiters" but ironically DOESN'T LIKE FILTERS on his searches! And when someone DOES construct a solid search HE COMPLAINS THAT IT IS TOO NARROW but when they don't use a narrow search HE COMPLAINS IT IS TOO BROAD!

LOL.

Too funny.

And it is kinda fun to watch him get his knickers in a twist over stuff that, as you point out, really isn't the "science". It's semantics.

But oh does he get BENT!