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?
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?Why would anyone use a POORLY CONSTRUCTED SEARCH which is overly inclusive????????
Do you WANT to get bad data?
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.Anderegg state explicitly: We verified, however, author identity for the four top-cited papers by each author.
Meaningless conjecture. I can demonstrate at any time that Google Scholar search results are filled with erroneous garbage.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!
4. Did Phil Jones get 120 papers retracted in the last three years?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):
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
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.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!
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.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!
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