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="Poptech" data-source="post: 63315593" data-attributes="member: 286681"><p>You continue to dodge this question, as it directly applies to the flawed methods used by Anderegg et al.,</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: Red">3. Did Anderegg et al. apply the use of a first and middle initial arbitrarily to the scientists names?</span></strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>Strawman, my critiques of Anderegg et al. have to do with flawed methods and erroneous data not the representativeness of the sample.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Accurate as in, does not include unreliable and erroneous data. A meaningful statistical analysis cannot be done on unreliable and erroneous data. Using your logic I could create "Poptech's scholarly database" that was full of unreliable and erroneous data but so long as I ran a "statistical analysis" on the data my conclusions would always be valid.</p><p></p><p>You continue to dodge these questions as well,</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: red">8. Did Anderegg et al. fail to validate at least 80% of the data they used?</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: red"></span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: red">11. Is the data used by Anderegg et al. reliable and reproducible?</span></strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>The existence of the Internet invalidates the argument of a geographic location as an impediment. It is reasonable to suggest that with the existence of the Internet and the IPCC, these scientists are more likely to know each other than not. Anderegg et al. even conceded that they were unable to rule out self-citation and clique citation bias,</p><p></p><p><strong>"Regarding the in&#64258;uence of citation patterns, we acknowledge that it is dif&#64257;cult to quantify potential biases of self-citation or clique citation in the analysis presented here."</strong> - Anderegg et al.</p><p></p><p>Just because you assert you do not know someone who cites your paper does not rule out the existence of influence. For instance, the influence could come from a co-author of one of your papers or a colleague. The point is the bias cannot be ruled out, and thus makes the metric scientifically worthless.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy, as "prominence" does not equal scientific validity.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No all inclusive database exists to present a methodology that would not be biased.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I simply used Scopus as an example of a bibliographic database that you would not see massive negative "corrections" like you do with Google Scholar. I do not have to do my own analysis to prove that Anderegg et al.'s is worthless.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a dishonest ad hominem and a dishonest circumstantial ad hominem.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is false, if they understood the limitations of using Google Scholar they would of never used it for their study.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I have seen no such evidence to draw any such conclusions, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) suffers from a biased sample of only 75 scientists.</p><p></p><p>You continue to dodge this question,</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: red">7. Do you consider a scientist who has published 20 peer-reviewed papers on climate change should be considered an expert and someone who published only 19 not?</span></strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>I am not confused at all, as there is no way to objectively determine the motives for which a paper is cited. </p><p></p><p></p><p>Strawman - again, you failed to grasp my argument. I am not talking about Anderegg et al. but your argument that citation count implies scientific validity,</p><p></p><p><strong><span style="color: red">10. Is "Intelligent design: The bridge between science & theology" scientifically valid because it is cited 353 times?</span></strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is again a dishonest ad hominem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Poptech, post: 63315593, member: 286681"] You continue to dodge this question, as it directly applies to the flawed methods used by Anderegg et al., [B][COLOR="Red"]3. Did Anderegg et al. apply the use of a first and middle initial arbitrarily to the scientists names?[/COLOR][/B] Strawman, my critiques of Anderegg et al. have to do with flawed methods and erroneous data not the representativeness of the sample. Accurate as in, does not include unreliable and erroneous data. A meaningful statistical analysis cannot be done on unreliable and erroneous data. Using your logic I could create "Poptech's scholarly database" that was full of unreliable and erroneous data but so long as I ran a "statistical analysis" on the data my conclusions would always be valid. You continue to dodge these questions as well, [B][COLOR="red"]8. Did Anderegg et al. fail to validate at least 80% of the data they used? 11. Is the data used by Anderegg et al. reliable and reproducible?[/COLOR][/B] The existence of the Internet invalidates the argument of a geographic location as an impediment. It is reasonable to suggest that with the existence of the Internet and the IPCC, these scientists are more likely to know each other than not. Anderegg et al. even conceded that they were unable to rule out self-citation and clique citation bias, [B]"Regarding the influence of citation patterns, we acknowledge that it is difficult to quantify potential biases of self-citation or clique citation in the analysis presented here."[/B] - Anderegg et al. Just because you assert you do not know someone who cites your paper does not rule out the existence of influence. For instance, the influence could come from a co-author of one of your papers or a colleague. The point is the bias cannot be ruled out, and thus makes the metric scientifically worthless. This is an argumentum ad populum logical fallacy, as "prominence" does not equal scientific validity. No all inclusive database exists to present a methodology that would not be biased. I simply used Scopus as an example of a bibliographic database that you would not see massive negative "corrections" like you do with Google Scholar. I do not have to do my own analysis to prove that Anderegg et al.'s is worthless. This is a dishonest ad hominem and a dishonest circumstantial ad hominem. This is false, if they understood the limitations of using Google Scholar they would of never used it for their study. I have seen no such evidence to draw any such conclusions, Doran and Zimmerman (2009) suffers from a biased sample of only 75 scientists. You continue to dodge this question, [B][COLOR="red"]7. Do you consider a scientist who has published 20 peer-reviewed papers on climate change should be considered an expert and someone who published only 19 not?[/COLOR][/B] I am not confused at all, as there is no way to objectively determine the motives for which a paper is cited. Strawman - again, you failed to grasp my argument. I am not talking about Anderegg et al. but your argument that citation count implies scientific validity, [B][COLOR="red"]10. Is "Intelligent design: The bridge between science & theology" scientifically valid because it is cited 353 times?[/COLOR][/B] This is again a dishonest ad hominem. [/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