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

Poptech

Newbie
Jun 18, 2011
158
6
✟15,318.00
Faith
Agnostic
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.

3. Did Anderegg et al. apply the use of a first and middle initial arbitrarily to the scientists names?

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

Do you WANT to get bad data?
There is no way to properly construct a search for this type of study using Google Scholar and not get bad data. Are you really this computer illiterate?

Anderegg state explicitly: We verified, however, author identity for the four top-cited papers by each author.
Those results are not the same as those that included the word "climate" but related to their citation analysis. Do you even know how to read the paper? Also they were counting a minimum of 20 papers per author and used the total number of their search "results" for other parts of their study see Figure 1 and 2.

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!
Meaningless conjecture. I can demonstrate at any time that Google Scholar search results are filled with erroneous garbage.

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)

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

PD-Jones climate search today (June 2013):

author:pD-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
4. Did Phil Jones get 120 papers retracted in the last three years?

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!
No it is wrong. Google Scholar search results are unreliable, non-reproducible and filled with erroneous nonsense making any so-called "statistical survey" done using them to be worthless.

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!
Oh, no you started this and I am going to finish it. You want to pretend my irrefutable statements about how Google Scholar actual works are wrong? Prepare to be humiliated.

Lets look at Andrew J Weaver, Anderegg et al. claims he has 571 papers?

Lets do a search, author:AJ-Weaver climate = 281 papers!!??

5. Did Andrew J Weaver get 290 papers retracted in the last three years?

Lets look at Gary L Russell, Anderegg et al. claims he has 416 papers?

Lets do a search, author:GL-Russell+climate = 64 papers!!??

6. Did Gary L. Russell get 352 papers retracted in the last three years?

Oh my, how did that happen? Could it be Anderegg et al. is pure garbage because the authors are Google Scholar illiterate?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Poptech

Newbie
Jun 18, 2011
158
6
✟15,318.00
Faith
Agnostic
All I need to know! Everyone on the planet is "computer illiterate" except you!
No just most scientists,

Computational science: ...Error …why scientific programming does not compute. (Nature, Volume 467, pp. 775-777, October 2010)
Researchers are spending more and more time writing computer software to model biological structures, simulate the early evolution of the Universe and analyse past climate data, among other topics. But programming experts have little faith that most scientists are up to the task. [...]

...as computers and programming tools have grown more complex, scientists have hit a "steep learning curve", says James Hack, director of the US National Center for Computational Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. "The level of effort and skills needed to keep up aren't in the wheelhouse of the average scientist."

As a general rule, researchers do not test or document their programs rigorously, and they rarely release their codes, making it almost impossible to reproduce and verify published results generated by scientific software, say computer scientists. [...]

Greg Wilson, a computer scientist in Toronto, Canada, who heads Software Carpentry — an online course aimed at improving the computing skills of scientists — says that he woke up to the problem in the 1980s, when he was working at a physics supercomputing facility at the University of Edinburgh, UK. After a series of small mishaps, he realized that, without formal training in programming, it was easy for scientists trying to address some of the Universe's biggest questions to inadvertently introduce errors into their codes, potentially "doing more harm than good". [...]

"There are terrifying statistics showing that almost all of what scientists know about coding is self-taught," says Wilson. "They just don't know how bad they are."

As a result, codes may be riddled with tiny errors that do not cause the program to break down, but may drastically change the scientific results that it spits out.
 
Upvote 0

Lucy Stulz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,394
57
✟1,937.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Robustness of the Anderegg et al. conclusions.

Since PopTech is only focused on the search criteria it might be helpful to understand how robust the Mann-Whitney U test results are.

No doubt PopTech lacks training in statistics as he does in climate science, geology, and chemistry (hence his failure to deal with the science).

The Mann-Whitney U test is non-parametric analysis of the differences between two distributions. In the case of Anderegg et al. they used this to determine how prevalent belief in the AGW hypothesis is among the most active researchers in the area (the "experts")

The analysis of the data showed that there is a 817 to 93 in favor of AGW.

NOTE; this is a function NOT just of searching for their favorite people but rather "EXPERTS" within the field.

PopTech would have us believe that EXPERTISE is something so "ineffible" as to be unquantifiable. So in PopTech's world THERE IS CLEARLY NO WAY TO DETERMINE THIS ANALYSIS and so it cannot be valid in any way.

However in science it is an easy matter to determine EXPERTISE. A citation analysis. Done NOT ONLY on raw counts of the publications but on a CITATION ANALYSIS of the TOP FOUR PUBLICATIONS.

They impose the 20 publication count limitation but even at HALF this amount of publications the analysis is essentially unchanged.

IF ANYTHING Google Scholar, being MORE inclusive of non-peer reviewed publications WILL BE BIASED TOWARD NON-PROFESSIONALS! PopTech should LOVE that! It will allow the non pros which make up the vast majority of skeptics!

How could PopTech complain about THAT????

Well, he can because EVEN WHEN YOU PULL IN NON-PEER REVIEWED, NON-PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS as you would get with a Google Scholar search THE CE (pro-AGW Hypothesis) group STILL SIGNIFICANTLY OUTNUMBERS THE UE (Skeptic) group!

Expertise p-value is <10[sup]-14[/sup] indicating a VERY significant difference.

Statistically speaking 80% of the UE group have less than 20 climate publications.

There are only two ways to explain this:

1. They are not active in the field (hence calling into question their "expertise"
2. They are active but their work fails to get published (again calling into question the expertise or validity of the research)

But unlike PopTech's analysis (hamfisted though it is), Anderegg et al. build in a SECOND INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS in the form of "citation analysis".

Now, I'm a published chemical researcher and I know the value of a well-cited publication. It shows the science to be sufficiently valuable to be referenced. A citation analysis is NOT necessarily a "proof" of validity but it at least shows that OTHERS ACTIVELY PUBLISHING IN THE FIELD feel it is valuable enough to discuss and deal with.

In this case the CE group, again, outnumbers the UE group in terms of citations with a p-value on the Mann-Whitney test of < 0.000000000000001!!!! This is phenomenal because most of the time people make decision if the p<0.05 (95% confidence on not making a Type I error....something PopTech may not be familiar with since it is statistics)

Let's assume that the numbers were different. You're going to have to shift those values around HUGELY.

So if there are SO MANY highly credible AGW skeptics out there then surely PopTech could EASILY construct a statistical analysis that shows how wrong these HUGE numbers are.

No, instead, PopTech does the Creationist thing and just tries to find some THEORETICAL reason to "doubt" the data. Not that he can find data that would SUPPORT his argument, but rather just "doubt for doubt's sake".

And this type of analysis (citation analysis and publication analysis) are commonly used in OTHER fields to assess expert credibility and consensus!. So PopTech will, like any good Creationist, wish to GUT AN ENTIRE AREA OF STUDY because in his particular bonnet this particular bee stings.

Ouch!

Oh yeah, and EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET IS A LIAR AND COMPUTER ILLITERATE except PopTech.

He's done the analysis!

Ho: PopTech is wrong
Ha: Everyone one else is wrong
p<0.00000001

^_^

(That's a statistics joke, Poptech, ask one of your science buddies to explain it to you).
 
Upvote 0

Lucy Stulz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,394
57
✟1,937.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
No just most scientists,

Computational science: ...Error &#8230;why scientific programming does not compute. (Nature, Volume 467, pp. 775-777, October 2010)

Brilliant analysis. So you know what this means, I assume!

It means ANY SCIENCE THAT PopTech FINDS DISAGREEABLE HE NEED ONLY QUOTE THIS ARTICLE AND ALL THE SCIENCE CAN BE SWEPT AWAY!

Except for the fact that things like AGW have, at their core, basic science that has been known for >100 years.

The advanced computing and models only came later. But the basics are pretty clear.

And interestingly enough, when enough different researchers converge on the same concept from independent routes it kinda enforces the concept.

But no matter! THIS SINGLE ARTICLE is a "get outta jail free" card for "skeptics" forever!

Remember the Creationist Credo: Science doesn't know things 100% perfectly so they know NOTHING!

:amen:

Unless, of course, the science is stuff that PopTech likes. So scientists like Richard Lindzen, well, all of his conclusions on AGW are ipso facto pure and perfect!. Balling and Idso? Couldn't do a thing wrong if they tried! McIntyre and McKitrick? Virtually walk on water! Their science is tight!

Well, for McIntyre and McKitrick they might have a few major problems with how to apply PRINCIPAL COMPONENT analysis...but their hamhanded version of it that violates standard procedure is STILL GOOD SCIENCE!

^_^
 
Upvote 0

Poptech

Newbie
Jun 18, 2011
158
6
✟15,318.00
Faith
Agnostic
Lucy continues to dodge my questions:

3. Did Anderegg et al. apply the use of a first and middle initial arbitrarily to the scientists names?

4. Did Phil Jones get 120 papers retracted in the last three years?

5. Did Andrew J Weaver get 290 papers retracted in the last three years?

6. Did Gary L. Russell get 352 papers retracted in the last three years?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Lucy Stulz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,394
57
✟1,937.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Lucy continues to dodge my questions:

Ummm, because your questions aren't answerable. But I can make conclusions based on the obvious differences in results.

And again I must point out that Anderegg et al. CONFIRMED THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE TOP FOUR CITED ARTICLES BY EACH AUTHOR.

Not a "pump and dump" as you are apparently used to doing in your line of work.

Besides, again, YOUR QUESTIONS WILL HAVE TO YIELD SUCH HUGE DIFFERENCES IN THE FINAL COUNTS AS TO RENDER THE p-value ON THE MANN-WHITNEY U-TEST TO >0.05 UP FROM 0.000000000000001.

If that is what you think is the REALITY of the situation, YOUR OWN ANALYSIS showing this should be elementary.

Do the analysis. Do the same type of analyses that Anderegg did and SHOW HOW YOU WIND UP WITH SUCH A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THE MANN-WHITNEY test p-value!

Easy peasy!

Or keep playing "creationist" and just find something to doubt.

It's safer that way for folks like you who haveclearly no real training in the basic science involved in this debate.

So long as you don't have to face up to the SCIENCE you can always hide off in the weeds of "Google Scholar Searches"!

LOL!
 
Upvote 0

Poptech

Newbie
Jun 18, 2011
158
6
✟15,318.00
Faith
Agnostic
No doubt PopTech lacks training in statistics as he does in climate science, geology, and chemistry (hence his failure to deal with the science).
This is incorrect, I have had training in each field but my specialty is computer science.

The Mann-Whitney U test is non-parametric analysis of the differences between two distributions. In the case of Anderegg et al. they used this to determine how prevalent belief in the AGW hypothesis is among the most active researchers in the area (the "experts")

The analysis of the data showed that there is a 817 to 93 in favor of AGW.

NOTE; this is a function NOT just of searching for their favorite people but rather "EXPERTS" within the field.

PopTech would have us believe that EXPERTISE is something so "ineffible" as to be unquantifiable. So in PopTech's world THERE IS CLEARLY NO WAY TO DETERMINE THIS ANALYSIS and so it cannot be valid in any way.
Anderegg et al. determined "experts" using a subjective cherry picking method of requiring 20 papers since it cannot be shown that skeptics have not extensively published. It is also an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

7. Why is a scientist who has published 19 peer-reviewed papers on climate change not considered an expert?

However in science it is an easy matter to determine EXPERTISE. A citation analysis. Done NOT ONLY on raw counts of the publications but on a CITATION ANALYSIS of the TOP FOUR PUBLICATIONS.
Citations are simply a measure of popularity not scientific validity and an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.

They impose the 20 publication count limitation but even at HALF this amount of publications the analysis is essentially unchanged.
No such claim has been shown to be true, more like they were mining for a 97% propaganda statistic.

IF ANYTHING Google Scholar, being MORE inclusive of non-peer reviewed publications WILL BE BIASED TOWARD NON-PROFESSIONALS! PopTech should LOVE that! It will allow the non pros which make up the vast majority of skeptics!
No, this simply discredits the study further as it applies even more so to the pro-AGW side. Is Anderegg et al. attempting to demonstrate so called "expertise" through number of op-eds published? Many pro-AGW academics write extensively and anything they ever wrote that appears "scholarly" (formatted similar to a scientific article) and posted to a university server (whether published or not) will show up in Google Scholar. Chapters of books they wrote can appear multiple times, op-eds from the Guardian ect...

Now, I'm a published chemical researcher and I know the value of a well-cited publication. It shows the science to be sufficiently valuable to be referenced. A citation analysis is NOT necessarily a "proof" of validity but it at least shows that OTHERS ACTIVELY PUBLISHING IN THE FIELD feel it is valuable enough to discuss and deal with.
If you know it is not proof of validity why are you attempting to imply that it is? Citations are an ego-boosting metric of popularity and have no bearing on the scientific validity of a paper.

No, instead, PopTech does the Creationist thing and just tries to find some THEORETICAL reason to "doubt" the data. Not that he can find data that would SUPPORT his argument, but rather just "doubt for doubt's sake".
No I have empirically demonstrated that the data and methods used in Anderegg et al. are unreliable, non-reproducible and generate erroneous nonsense. This is not creating doubt but discrediting a scientifically unsound paper.

It is disappointing to see you drag out the tired old creationist ad hominem, especially on this site. So by using your citation argument and Google Scholar this book you would consider to be scientifically accurate;

Intelligent design: The bridge between science & theology - cited 353 times.
 
Upvote 0

Lucy Stulz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,394
57
✟1,937.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
PopTech insists everyone pay attention to his questions. If you fail to answer even one he will go on about it in big red letters.

So here's a challenge to PopTech:

1. Re-run the analysis showing how LITTLE ROBUSTNESS shows up in the Anderegg et al. analyses! It should be easy if there is such a horrible error that the Mann-Whitney U-test p-value can be easily shifted to non-significance.

2. Show, using a CITATION analysis how "Skeptical" positions are EASILY as well cited and show as much credibility in the scientific community as the "CE" group (again all you need do is shift the p-value on the Mann-Whitney U-test!)

Easy, right? You can even use a better search engine than Google Scholar. I'd recommend SciVerse (SCOPUS) or any of the other professional science searching sites!

LOL!
 
Upvote 0

Poptech

Newbie
Jun 18, 2011
158
6
✟15,318.00
Faith
Agnostic
Ummm, because your questions aren't answerable. But I can make conclusions based on the obvious differences in results.
This is incorrect, you are simply dodging them.

3. Did Anderegg et al. apply the use of a first and middle initial arbitrarily to the scientists names?

4. Did Phil Jones get 120 papers retracted in the last three years?

5. Did Andrew J Weaver get 290 papers retracted in the last three years?

6. Did Gary L. Russell get 352 papers retracted in the last three years?


And again I must point out that Anderegg et al. CONFIRMED THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE TOP FOUR CITED ARTICLES BY EACH AUTHOR.
You have said this already and I addressed this,

"Those results are not the same as those that included the word "climate" but related to their citation analysis. Do you even know how to read the paper? Also they were counting a minimum of 20 papers per author."

8. Did Anderegg et al. fail to validate at least 80% of the data they used?

Not a "pump and dump" as you are apparently used to doing in your line of work.
What are you lying about my job? I do not work in the financial sector.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lucy Stulz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,394
57
✟1,937.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
This is incorrect, I have had training in each field but my specialty is computer science.

Ahhh, then you will no doubt get RIGHT ON showing the weakness of the Mann-Whitney results which had, in both cases, something like p-values of 0.000000000000001 or so. All you need do is show us how the numbers REALLY look!

Anderegg et al. determined "experts" using a subjective cherry picking method of requiring 20 papers

And again you ignore that they tried it with only 10 papers and found little difference.

But I suppose in your world a blog poster such as yourself is an "expert" because they have something written somewhere?

LOL. What do you think "expertise" amounts to?

It is also an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

What part of "Expertise" do you fail to understand? Really.

7. Why is a scientist who has published 19 peer-reviewed papers on climate change not considered an expert?

Again, your "statistics training" you claim seems to evade you. Anderegg TRIED THE DATA WITH ONLY 10 PUBLICATIONS AND FOUND VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE!

Why do you INSIST on ignoring this point?

Citations are simply a measure of popularity not scientific validity and an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy.

And here's YET ANOTHER AREA OF SCIENCE YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR WITH!.

It's called "citation analysis". Learn about it HERE

This is not say it is perfectly free from error or problems or abuses. But again, just blowing off an entire field as a logic fallacy shows how desperate you are to establish your "kingdom of doubt". Proper Creationist style.

No such claim has been shown to be true, more like they were mining for a 97% propaganda statistic.

LOL! What if their numbers are off by, oh, let's say 10%. Let's say that the consensus is something like 88% of all climate scientists believe in AGW. Will this REALLY make a difference????

But really, in the end what you are saying is that Anderegg et al LIED in the publication. Which, of course, is what you do with EVERYONE who disagrees with you.

No, this simply discredits the study further as it applies even more so to the pro-AGW side.

WHAT??? A citation database that includes plenty of non-peer reviewed trash WILL PLAY VERY WELL with the skeptic community!!

They don't have to do anything scientifically valid!

Is Anderegg et al. attempting to demonstrate so called "expertise" through number of op-eds published? Many pro-AGW academics write extensively and anything they ever wrote that appears "scholarly" (formatted similar to a scientific article) and posted to a university server (whether published or not) will show up in Google Scholar. Chapters of books they wrote can appear multiple times, op-eds from the Guardian ect...

Kinda like YOUR blog, eh?

If you know it is not proof of validity why are you attempting to imply that it is? Citations are an ego-boosting metric of popularity and have no bearing on the scientific validity of a paper.

It isn't just an "ego boosting metric of popularity". LOL!

THIS alone is all I need to know that YOU have probably never had a peer-reviewed publication.

If you had, you would know the value of that publication is in the eyes of independent researchers who DON"T KNOW YOU FROM ADAM but read your article and found it worthy of citation!

This is rich!

No I have empirically demonstrated that the data and methods used in Anderegg et al. are unreliable, non-reproducible and generate erroneous nonsense. This is not creating doubt but discrediting a scientifically unsound paper.

No, let's be clear. IF you have had the statistics training you claim YOU WILL KNOW that merely shifting around a few values WON'T NECESSARILY CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS.

This is what makes statistics valuable! You can make interpretations WITH NOISE!

It is disappointing to see you drag out the tired old creationist ad hominem,

Oh please! You have insulted and belittled non-stop. Calling everyone an "illiterate" and a "liar"! Please, give me a break.

You act and debate EXACTLY like a creationist.

You NEVER touch the science. You ONLY touch on "doubt" where you can monger doubt.

And you DO NOT MATHEMATICALLY DEMONSTRATE THE LACK OF ROBUSTNESS OF THAT WHICH YOU CRITIQUE.

Doubt for doubt's sake!

especially on this site. So by using your citation argument and Google Scholar this book you would consider to be scientifically accurate;[/i

Intelligent design: The bridge between science & theology - cited 353 times.

LOL.

You really have no idea what the Anderegg paper is based on, do you? None whatsoever.

:doh:
 
Upvote 0

Poptech

Newbie
Jun 18, 2011
158
6
✟15,318.00
Faith
Agnostic
Ahhh, then you will no doubt get RIGHT ON showing the weakness of the Mann-Whitney results which had, in both cases, something like p-values of 0.000000000000001 or so. All you need do is show us how the numbers REALLY look!
9. What can a Mann-Whitney test tell you about data that is unreliable because it cannot be reproduced and is filled with erroneous nonsense?

And again you ignore that they tried it with only 10 papers and found little difference.
I am well aware of their unsupported claim which does not change my question,

7. Why is a scientist who has published 19 peer-reviewed papers on climate change not considered an expert?


But I suppose in your world a blog poster such as yourself is an "expert" because they have something written somewhere?
Strawman, where did I make any such claim?

LOL. What do you think "expertise" amounts to?
What ever you want it to be.

What part of "Expertise" do you fail to understand? Really.
There is nothing I fail to understand about an appeal to authority logical fallacy.

And here's YET ANOTHER AREA OF SCIENCE YOU ARE COMPLETELY UNFAMILIAR WITH!.

It's called "citation analysis". Learn about it HERE

This is not say it is perfectly free from error or problems or abuses. But again, just blowing off an entire field as a logic fallacy shows how desperate you are to establish your "kingdom of doubt". Proper Creationist style.
I am very familiar with your popularity metric and argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. Did you not learn logical reasoning at your university? Scientists like to use citations to make themselves feel important but getting your buddies to cite your paper a lot does not demonstrate scientific validity.

It is disappointing to see you continue with the desperate creationist ad hominem.

But really, in the end what you are saying is that Anderegg et al LIED in the publication. Which, of course, is what you do with EVERYONE who disagrees with you.
No I believe the authors of Anderegg et al. are Google Scholar illiterate and were data mining for a 97% statistic. I have not lied about anyone.

WHAT??? A citation database that includes plenty of non-peer reviewed trash WILL PLAY VERY WELL with the skeptic community!!

They don't have to do anything scientifically valid!
Only someone who does not understand how Google Scholar works would make such a computer illiterate argument.

Kinda like YOUR blog, eh?
My website is not posted to university servers, are you even capable of following a conversation?

It isn't just an "ego boosting metric of popularity".

THIS alone is all I need to know that YOU have probably never had a peer-reviewed publication.
Actually it is, as citation count cannot determine scientific validity. I have assisted in the publication of numerous peer-reviewed papers.

If you had, you would know the value of that publication is in the eyes of independent researchers who DON"T KNOW YOU FROM ADAM but read your article and found it worthy of citation!
This certainly will make the author feel better, but it is not evidence of scientific validity. So if a rogue scientist had a scientifically verifiable hypothesis that can be replicated via experimentation but prominent scientists did not like this person and thus never cited them - the rogue scientists hypothesis would not be scientifically valid?

You really have no idea what the Anderegg paper is based on, do you?
I understand very well what it is based on,

It is based on worthless data that is unreliable because it cannot be reproduced and is filled with erroneous nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Poptech

Newbie
Jun 18, 2011
158
6
✟15,318.00
Faith
Agnostic
The questions Lucy still cannot answer and continues to dodge,

3. Did Anderegg et al. apply the use of a first and middle initial arbitrarily to the scientists names?

4. Did Phil Jones get 120 papers retracted in the last three years?

5. Did Andrew J Weaver get 290 papers retracted in the last three years?

6. Did Gary L. Russell get 352 papers retracted in the last three years?

7. Why is a scientist who has published 19 peer-reviewed papers on climate change not considered an expert?

8. Did Anderegg et al. fail to validate at least 80% of the data they used?

9. What can a Mann-Whitney test tell you about data that is unreliable because it cannot be reproduced and is filled with erroneous nonsense?

10. Is "Intelligent design: The bridge between science & theology" scientifically valid because it is cited 353 times?
 
Upvote 0

Lucy Stulz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,394
57
✟1,937.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
The questions Lucy still cannot answer and continues to dodge,

I think I've grown board with this pedantry. I've said my piece.

Sorry, Poptech. But I'd rather discuss the science. OR, if that is too much for you, then perhaps YOU can discuss STATISTICS.


3. Did Anderegg et al. apply the use of a first and middle initial arbitrarily to the scientists names?


This is called "filtering", PopTech. As I said, I am often published under my first two initials. In fact it is not that uncommon. However if one wishes to ensure they will capture UNRELATED hits on names similar to mine they may wish to drop my second initial. My last name isn't all that common, but you should get the point.

4. Did Phil Jones get 120 papers retracted in the last three years?

You know as well as I do that the absolute count is not absolutely critical. There is noise in the data as part of the weakness of ANY database. Databases as you have noted are dynamic and often sloppy. Noise.

5. Did Andrew J Weaver get 290 papers retracted in the last three years?

6. Did Gary L. Russell get 352 papers retracted in the last three years?

Again, same thing.

7. Why is a scientist who has published 19 peer-reviewed papers on climate change not considered an expert?

I have already addressed this. Do not make yourself out to be a LIAR (as you like to accuse everyone else).

Expertise is subjective and Anderegg et al. at least went so far as to establish a baseline for their study and tested the robustness of this.

9. What can a Mann-Whitney test tell you about data that is unreliable because it cannot be reproduced and is filled with erroneous nonsense?

It shows that no matter how the data is parsed those with a baseline history of publication and research in the field are OVERWHELMINGLY more likely to be in the CE category than UE category. Buy such a large margin that if it were otherwise the p-value would be much, much higher.

And again, it would be trivial for folks like YOU to actually do not just a "count" analysis, but a CITATION analysis and find an absolutely different result.

But you don't. Why is that? Because you can't.

10. Is "Intelligent design: The bridge between science & theology" scientifically valid because it is cited 353 times?

And that is flawed on many vectors:
1. A single search is NOT what Anderegg et al were doing.
2. You are looking at a raw count on one search
3. This has nothing to do with the TYPE of analysis Anderegg et al were doing. (ie it is not a credibility or citation analysis.)

There, I've addressed your points. Or as much as I care to.

I await YOUR response to the challenge set out to you do an actual analysis showing that the UE group is so vast and so well published in the climate sciences that there is almost no STATISTICAL DIFFERENCE in the populations as expressed in Anderegg et al.

Now, if you wish to say that there is NO OBJECTIVE WAY to determine a "consensus" in a field then fine! But that is kind of silly since there is. And an analysis of citations will do that.

But however you wish to do it.

And don't worry, I know your "game". The name of the game is "doubt for doubt's sake". All you "need" to do is find some questions. Then call it a day.

But it is like missing the forest for the trees. Meanwhile nearly every single climate scientist you will meet (assuming you get out of the skeptic blogger bubble you appear to live in) will probably fall in the "CE" category. There's a 97% likelihood of that.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Lucy Stulz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,394
57
✟1,937.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Actually it is, as citation count cannot determine scientific validity. I have assisted in the publication of numerous peer-reviewed papers.

Ooooh! "assisted"! Well, color me impressed!

But do remember FOR THOSE OF US who have actually PUBLISHED (not just 'assisted') in peer reviewed journals:

WE HAVE NO SAY IN WHO CITES OUR WORK.

Here's a bit of REAL world experience for you. I published quite a bit from my first postdoc in chemistry. Only a couple of my papers were of significant importance enough to get cited by others in the field. AND I HAD NO CONTROL WHATSOEVER OVER THAT And I knew almost NO ONE who cited me.

LOL! You think it is an "ego boosting" "popularity" contest? You clearly know next to nothing about how this all works.

Yes there are "cliques" that can form, but that is part of the noise.

The fact of the matter is not all publications are valuable and the GREATER COMMUNITY determines that.

So keep on "assisting" people who get published. Maybe you'll get published one day. I mean on something other than your own BLOG.

Sorry, that's a bit harsh. I understand though....this is an area you don't really understand but you think your "opinion" is valid "expertise".

If your "Expertise" is so solid in this world of "LIARS" and "COMPUTER ILLITERATES" then by all means: DO YOUR OWN ANALYSIS and RUN THE NUMBERS.

Show the world they are LIARS and ILLITERATES.

Or just keep doing what you're doing and CRITIQUE...don't do any ORIGINAL research, though. That's hard.

That's why Creationists do what they do.
 
Upvote 0

Lucy Stulz

Well-Known Member
Apr 3, 2013
1,394
57
✟1,937.00
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Faux pas?

No.

PopTech has missed the greater picture clearly visible in the statistics. He is claiming that the SELECTION methods of Anderegg et al. are so bad that it calls into question the idea that there is a solid scientific consensus on the topic.

If PopTech is only interested in tossing the 97% figure then will he be OK if HIS analysis shows a 90% figure? Or how about 86%?

In almost any scenario PopTech's over the top antics must be backed up by some real indication that the numbers from Anderegg WILL RESULT in an analysis that is SIGNIFICANTLY and dramatically different from a "Good" analysis.

And again, to take the approach PopTech is taking flies in the face of basic experience. There are almost no climate scientists who don't believe in AGW!

If the numbers were just reversed somehow all these great climate skeptics are invisible.

The basic science is pretty solid and has been for ~100+ years. The evidence has been repeatedly established over the past 50+ years of global warming. The science just keeps coming back to this.

Yeah, there are questions still unanswered. No, it isn't perfect.

But PopTech is mongering doubt.

I would be much more impressed if HE'D DO AN ANALYSIS using any given scientific citation index and showed, statistically, how Anderegg et al. or ANY OF THE OTHER analyses showing similar results, are ALL WRONG.

I'm tired of his hackneyed saw of "liars" and "computer illiterates".

SHOW us the goods.

He has failed to appreciate the power of statistical analysis. Even if the values of Anderegg et al's searches were different due to poor search criteria etc. they would have to be EXTRAORDINARILY off the mark to result in such horrific errors that PopTech seems to see.

And, again, that should be trivial for PopTech to PROVE mathematically.

That is, of course, if he's UP TO IT. Or if he's just another blogger who likes to play "critic" but can't do the stuff he criticizes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums