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: 63311075" data-attributes="member: 328376"><p>So when you said you had statistical training, did you miss the whole "sample vs population" lecture? I don't mean to have to educate you on this, but the idea of a sample is that it is not a PERFECT mirror of the population. Hence there is ERROR associated with the measure.</p><p></p><p>A count should be accurate, yes, but that is why Anderegg et al. <em><strong>ran a statistical analysis!</strong></em></p><p></p><p>When you read Anderegg et al. did you ever notice that they continually refer to the Mann-Whitney U-Test and the associated <em><strong>p-value</strong></em>? I assumed since you have had statistics training that you KNOW what that p-value indicates?</p><p></p><p>It is a relative measure of the possibility of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two groups (UE and CE) in terms of relative "expertise" as defined by active publication in the field.</p><p></p><p>The counts themselves are prone to error....Anderegg et al. TOLD YOU THAT EXPLICITLY IN THE PAPER. But, and this is where statistics comes in, the samples they took, imperfect as they may be, showed such VAST differences that there is virtually no way to confuse the relative expertise between the two groups (or perhaps the ability to get one's publication accepted by the overall scientific community, however you wish to view it)</p><p></p><p><img src="http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a509/LucyStulz/anderegg_fig1_zps8a88d9e8.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>What this picture tells you is that for an analysis, as explicitly outlined in the study, there is virtually NO WAY to confuse the relative activity of researchers who are CONVINCED vs those who are UNCONVINCED.</p><p></p><p>Two skewed distributions with means of 60 (UE) and 119 (CE) publications.</p><p></p><p><strong>The chance of these two means actually being the SAME is about 0.000000000001%</strong> (hence the statistical analysis).</p><p></p><p>Could they be the same? Not very likely. But yes, there is a 1X10^-12% chance of them being the same and that this is merely a difference shown up by random chance.</p><p></p><p>Now let us assume that NOT ALL 908 people in the study KNOW EACH OTHER PERSONALLY and rub each other's necks at the "office party" and rather view the REALITY that this amounts to nearly 1000 individual people spread ALL OVER THE EARTH.</p><p></p><p>Like I pointed out earlier, WHEN MY PAPERS ARE CITED it is often by people I DON"T EVEN KNOW EXIST. So how could I impact my citation analysis in those instances?</p><p></p><p>This graph shows if there is a difference in the NUMBER OF TIMES a given researcher is cited <em><strong>normalized so that absolute publication counts of the researcher are no longer an issue</strong></em>:</p><p></p><p><img src="http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a509/LucyStulz/anderegg_fig3_zps93adc121.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p><p></p><p>This is taking each researcher, <em>regardless of how well published they are</em> and choosing <em>their 4 MOST CITED ARTICLES</em> and comparing how many citations those TOP FOUR MOST CITED ARTICLES GET!</p><p></p><p>It couldn't be more fair than that! AND it is not limited to their "climate only" work! They just want to figure out how "Prominent" they are in the scientific community!</p><p></p><p>And again, it is nearly impossible to confuse these two populations. For those climate researchers who have 20 climate publications or more, they top most cited publications <em>in ANYTHING, not just climate</em> are dramatically different!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>SO WHAT METHODOLOGY WOULD YOU USE?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Then do your analysis using Scopus.</p><p></p><p>Honestly! I mean, seriously! Anderegg et al. stated explicitly all the limitations of their study and they have asked that critics such as yourself DO YOUR OWN ANALYSIS!</p><p></p><p>You are spending so much time FIGHTING this publication instead of SHOWING A BETTER RESULT.</p><p></p><p>This is why I say you are arguing like a creationist. You are mongering doubt for doubt's sake <strong><em>BUT PROVIDING NO ALTERNATIVE DATA AND CONCLSUIONS</em></strong>!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because Anderegg et al. explicitly state all the limitations of their analysis and within the bounds of the analysis it is STATISTICALLY ROBUST.</p><p></p><p>And when you <strong><em><span style="color: Red">compare this to other studies such as Dornan et al (EOS) and other self-reporting type analyses you see the vast majority of climate researchers are "convinced" by the evidence.</span></em></strong></p><p></p><p>Like I said in another post: What if Anderegg et al were wrong? What if only 93%, or 90% or even, gasp, 88% of the world's climate researchers were actually "convinced"......</p><p></p><p>Would that really change anything?</p><p></p><p>This is a SAMPLE. It is not intended to be perfect, and is NEVER claimed to be perfect.</p><p></p><p>IF it is SO FAR OUT from the TRUE mean, then YOU can surely do another analysis, get it published and show the TRUTH.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p><p></p><p>At times like this I wish I was talking to someone who had actually done a scientific study of some sort.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You are so desperately confused by what "popular" means in science. Science cites papers not based on popularity as you may know it from high school, but on whether the data and conclusions are worthy of citation or further testing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I would like to point out that citations don't always mean the author "likes" the study they are citing. I had one study of mine in which I was cited so that the researcher citing me could point out an error I made.</p><p></p><p>Just a friendly FYI for someone such as yourself who appears to have nearly no actual publication history of his own.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And again, you fail to grasp the point of the article. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, if you are NOT like a creationist in debating style, you clearly are able to do your OWN analysis and show it to be false.</p><p></p><p>Not just find "critiques".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p><img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/doh.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":doh:" title="doh :doh:" data-shortname=":doh:" /></p><p></p><p>Ow! My head hurts!!!</p><p></p><p>Please! Stop! Come back after you've actually gotten some stuff of your own published in a peer reviewed journal.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lucy Stulz, post: 63311075, member: 328376"] So when you said you had statistical training, did you miss the whole "sample vs population" lecture? I don't mean to have to educate you on this, but the idea of a sample is that it is not a PERFECT mirror of the population. Hence there is ERROR associated with the measure. A count should be accurate, yes, but that is why Anderegg et al. [I][B]ran a statistical analysis![/B][/I] When you read Anderegg et al. did you ever notice that they continually refer to the Mann-Whitney U-Test and the associated [I][B]p-value[/B][/I]? I assumed since you have had statistics training that you KNOW what that p-value indicates? It is a relative measure of the possibility of falsely rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two groups (UE and CE) in terms of relative "expertise" as defined by active publication in the field. The counts themselves are prone to error....Anderegg et al. TOLD YOU THAT EXPLICITLY IN THE PAPER. But, and this is where statistics comes in, the samples they took, imperfect as they may be, showed such VAST differences that there is virtually no way to confuse the relative expertise between the two groups (or perhaps the ability to get one's publication accepted by the overall scientific community, however you wish to view it) [IMG]http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a509/LucyStulz/anderegg_fig1_zps8a88d9e8.jpg[/IMG] What this picture tells you is that for an analysis, as explicitly outlined in the study, there is virtually NO WAY to confuse the relative activity of researchers who are CONVINCED vs those who are UNCONVINCED. Two skewed distributions with means of 60 (UE) and 119 (CE) publications. [B]The chance of these two means actually being the SAME is about 0.000000000001%[/B] (hence the statistical analysis). Could they be the same? Not very likely. But yes, there is a 1X10^-12% chance of them being the same and that this is merely a difference shown up by random chance. Now let us assume that NOT ALL 908 people in the study KNOW EACH OTHER PERSONALLY and rub each other's necks at the "office party" and rather view the REALITY that this amounts to nearly 1000 individual people spread ALL OVER THE EARTH. Like I pointed out earlier, WHEN MY PAPERS ARE CITED it is often by people I DON"T EVEN KNOW EXIST. So how could I impact my citation analysis in those instances? This graph shows if there is a difference in the NUMBER OF TIMES a given researcher is cited [I][B]normalized so that absolute publication counts of the researcher are no longer an issue[/B][/I]: [IMG]http://i1281.photobucket.com/albums/a509/LucyStulz/anderegg_fig3_zps93adc121.jpg[/IMG] This is taking each researcher, [I]regardless of how well published they are[/I] and choosing [I]their 4 MOST CITED ARTICLES[/I] and comparing how many citations those TOP FOUR MOST CITED ARTICLES GET! It couldn't be more fair than that! AND it is not limited to their "climate only" work! They just want to figure out how "Prominent" they are in the scientific community! And again, it is nearly impossible to confuse these two populations. For those climate researchers who have 20 climate publications or more, they top most cited publications [I]in ANYTHING, not just climate[/I] are dramatically different! SO WHAT METHODOLOGY WOULD YOU USE? Then do your analysis using Scopus. Honestly! I mean, seriously! Anderegg et al. stated explicitly all the limitations of their study and they have asked that critics such as yourself DO YOUR OWN ANALYSIS! You are spending so much time FIGHTING this publication instead of SHOWING A BETTER RESULT. This is why I say you are arguing like a creationist. You are mongering doubt for doubt's sake [B][I]BUT PROVIDING NO ALTERNATIVE DATA AND CONCLSUIONS[/I][/B]! Because Anderegg et al. explicitly state all the limitations of their analysis and within the bounds of the analysis it is STATISTICALLY ROBUST. And when you [B][I][COLOR="Red"]compare this to other studies such as Dornan et al (EOS) and other self-reporting type analyses you see the vast majority of climate researchers are "convinced" by the evidence.[/COLOR][/I][/B] Like I said in another post: What if Anderegg et al were wrong? What if only 93%, or 90% or even, gasp, 88% of the world's climate researchers were actually "convinced"...... Would that really change anything? This is a SAMPLE. It is not intended to be perfect, and is NEVER claimed to be perfect. IF it is SO FAR OUT from the TRUE mean, then YOU can surely do another analysis, get it published and show the TRUTH. :doh: At times like this I wish I was talking to someone who had actually done a scientific study of some sort. You are so desperately confused by what "popular" means in science. Science cites papers not based on popularity as you may know it from high school, but on whether the data and conclusions are worthy of citation or further testing. I would like to point out that citations don't always mean the author "likes" the study they are citing. I had one study of mine in which I was cited so that the researcher citing me could point out an error I made. Just a friendly FYI for someone such as yourself who appears to have nearly no actual publication history of his own. And again, you fail to grasp the point of the article. Well, if you are NOT like a creationist in debating style, you clearly are able to do your OWN analysis and show it to be false. Not just find "critiques". :doh: Ow! My head hurts!!! Please! Stop! Come back after you've actually gotten some stuff of your own published in a peer reviewed journal. [/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