Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is global warming just another End-of-the-World delusion?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Lucy Stulz" data-source="post: 63298184" data-attributes="member: 328376"><p>Robustness of the Anderegg et al. conclusions.</p><p></p><p>Since PopTech is only focused on the search criteria it might be helpful to understand how robust the Mann-Whitney U test results are.</p><p></p><p>No doubt PopTech lacks training in statistics as he does in climate science, geology, and chemistry (hence his failure to deal with the science).</p><p></p><p>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 <strong>among the most active researchers in the area</strong> (the "experts")</p><p></p><p>The analysis of the data showed that there is a 817 to 93 in favor of AGW. </p><p></p><p>NOTE; this is a function NOT just of searching for their favorite people but rather "EXPERTS" within the field. </p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>They impose the 20 publication count limitation but even at HALF this amount of publications the analysis is essentially unchanged.</p><p></p><p><em>IF ANYTHING</em> 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!</p><p></p><p>How could PopTech complain about THAT????</p><p></p><p>Well, he can because <em>EVEN WHEN YOU PULL IN NON-PEER REVIEWED, NON-PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS</em> as you would get with a Google Scholar search <em><strong>THE CE (pro-AGW Hypothesis) group STILL SIGNIFICANTLY OUTNUMBERS THE UE (Skeptic) group!</strong></em></p><p></p><p>Expertise p-value is <10[sup]-14[/sup] indicating a VERY significant difference. </p><p></p><p>Statistically speaking <em>80% of the UE group have less than 20 climate publications.</em></p><p></p><p>There are only two ways to explain this:</p><p></p><p>1. They are not active in the field (hence calling into question their "expertise"</p><p>2. They are active but their work fails to get published (again calling into question the expertise or validity of the research)</p><p></p><p>But unlike PopTech's analysis (hamfisted though it is), Anderegg et al. build in a <em>SECOND INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS</em> in the form of "citation analysis".</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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)</p><p></p><p>Let's assume that the numbers were different. You're going to have to shift those values around HUGELY. </p><p></p><p>So <em><strong>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</strong></em>.</p><p></p><p>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".</p><p></p><p>And <strong><em>this type of analysis (citation analysis and publication analysis) are commonly used in OTHER fields to assess expert credibility and consensus!</em></strong>. So PopTech will, like any good Creationist, wish to GUT AN ENTIRE AREA OF STUDY because <em>in his particular bonnet this particular bee stings</em>.</p><p></p><p>Ouch!</p><p></p><p>Oh yeah, and EVERYONE ELSE ON THE PLANET IS A LIAR AND COMPUTER ILLITERATE except PopTech.</p><p></p><p>He's done the analysis!</p><p></p><p>Ho: PopTech is wrong</p><p>Ha: Everyone one else is wrong</p><p>p<0.00000001</p><p></p><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="^_^" title="Kawaii ^_^" data-shortname="^_^" /></p><p></p><p>(That's a statistics joke, Poptech, ask one of your science buddies to explain it to you).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lucy Stulz, post: 63298184, member: 328376"] 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 [B]among the most active researchers in the area[/B] (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. [I]IF ANYTHING[/I] 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 [I]EVEN WHEN YOU PULL IN NON-PEER REVIEWED, NON-PROFESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS[/I] as you would get with a Google Scholar search [I][B]THE CE (pro-AGW Hypothesis) group STILL SIGNIFICANTLY OUTNUMBERS THE UE (Skeptic) group![/B][/I] Expertise p-value is <10[sup]-14[/sup] indicating a VERY significant difference. Statistically speaking [I]80% of the UE group have less than 20 climate publications.[/I] 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 [I]SECOND INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS[/I] 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 [I][B]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[/B][/I]. 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 [B][I]this type of analysis (citation analysis and publication analysis) are commonly used in OTHER fields to assess expert credibility and consensus![/I][/B]. So PopTech will, like any good Creationist, wish to GUT AN ENTIRE AREA OF STUDY because [I]in his particular bonnet this particular bee stings[/I]. 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). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Is global warming just another End-of-the-World delusion?
Top
Bottom