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: 63316683" data-attributes="member: 328376"><p>Sampling means it is not the full population picture. It is just a sample. With sufficient samples the central limit theorem tells us we will zero in on the "true mean" of the population, but a sample is NOT necessarily the full picture.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Because your points about Google Scholar are reasonable....but flawed in their application.</p><p></p><p>No one expects the Google Scholar sample to be perfect. Not even the authors themselves.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>See, that's where you show your failure in this analysis. You seem to be of the opinion that every member of the population MUST BE ANALYZED for a meaningful conclusion to be drawn.</p><p></p><p>That is where statistics comes in. It is possible to SAMPLE a population and develop a modicum of confidence on the population behavior....but it is always imperfect.</p><p></p><p>This is the reason I ask about your statistics training. Because it seems you may have missed quite a bit of the key parts.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You claim you are in contact with scientists and yet have doubts on agw consensus. THAT sampling.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>THAT is what Anderegg et al did in this study. That's the whole point! I wish you would attempt to understand how scientists operate. In the absence of a clearly "standardized" system one has build a rubric by which to run the analysis.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I admit nothing of the sort. And it would be most helpful if you understood the technical details of the ad hominem fallacy. It is not merely an "insult". It is using an unrelated aspect of the PERSON to call into question the content of their argument. THAT is what the ad hominem fallacy is.</p><p></p><p>If you are "insulted" by my comparing your debates to creationist style, that is totally different.</p><p></p><p>My point is technically on target and I have supported it with an explanation. </p><p></p><p>AND it is hardly "dishonest" to point out that you are only casting doubt on the analysis without running a comparative analysis. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>More failures to have taken a logic class.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"flawed consensus"? So Anderegg, Noreskes, Dornan, EVERYONE is wrong? Repeated analyses by INDEPENDENT STUDIES find, time and again, >90% agreement within the community.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Actually you kinda do! Because Anderegg's results are in line with other independent studies, AND if Anderegg's sampling is so seriously flawed then rather than point to POSSIBLE problems with "citation counts" <strong><strong>you <em>should</em> be able to generate a MATHEMATICALLY ROBUST analysis showing the <em><u>final values to be different.</u></em></strong></strong></p><p></p><p>This is where you will likely make another howler of an error so let me stop you beforehand:</p><p></p><p>merely pointing out that the search for PD-Jones or the search for X.Y. Johnson results in different numbers of "hits" at different times is insufficient to determine if the <u><em><strong>final statistical analysis will be different</strong></em></u>.</p><p></p><p>Let me help you with a much simpler example:</p><p></p><p>Let's say I want to find out if there's a difference in two populations A and B.</p><p></p><p>I sample A and get a distribution "a". I sample B and get a distribution "b". </p><p></p><p>FIRST off: "a" is NOT A. It is a SAMPLE. That means it may or may not accurately reflect the population A.</p><p></p><p>So I run a STATISTICAL TEST ON "a" and "b". Perhaps I do a "t-test" (let's assume these are "normally distributed" data). I find a difference between the two populations that has a p-value of <0.05.</p><p></p><p>What if I then go back and re-sample A and B and get two new samples: "a2" and "b2".</p><p></p><p>"a2" and "b2" may have different means and be somewhat different from "a" and "b".</p><p></p><p><span style="color: Red">But will it <strong><em>necessarily change</em></strong> the results of the t-test? </span> </p><p></p><p>What you have done is point out a <em>possible</em> problem with sampling.</p><p></p><p>You have <strong>not</strong> shown how it will <em><strong>impact the final analysis</strong></em> and conclusions of Anderegg et al.</p><p></p><p>NOW, here's the shocker: your critiques are not ipso facto "bad". But all they are is a critique. </p><p></p><p>It proves nothing as to the final analysis. And that is where you seem to miss the boat. This is the power of statistics. It doesn't have to see EVERYTHING PERFECTLY to draw conclusions.</p><p></p><p>But you are correct to question the sampling methodologies. <strong>However once you have done that you cannot simply blow it off as "worthless" because the results <em><u>may still be accurate on the whole</u></em></strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I actually <u><em>did research</em></u>. Not just critiquing of others work.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And since you have no NUMBERS you are free to live with that doubt. Clearly those who<em><strong><u> bother to do actual research and come up with analyses and numbers</u></strong></em> are, in your world, worthless.</p><p></p><p>It is better to be a "doubt monger" than to attempt to do research.</p><p></p><p>THIS is how I got my PhD. I did RESEARCH. It isn't enough just to scratch your head and say "I don't think you did that right so I think it's all in doubt."</p><p></p><p>THAT is where you have fallen short of the goal.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lucy Stulz, post: 63316683, member: 328376"] Sampling means it is not the full population picture. It is just a sample. With sufficient samples the central limit theorem tells us we will zero in on the "true mean" of the population, but a sample is NOT necessarily the full picture. Because your points about Google Scholar are reasonable....but flawed in their application. No one expects the Google Scholar sample to be perfect. Not even the authors themselves. See, that's where you show your failure in this analysis. You seem to be of the opinion that every member of the population MUST BE ANALYZED for a meaningful conclusion to be drawn. That is where statistics comes in. It is possible to SAMPLE a population and develop a modicum of confidence on the population behavior....but it is always imperfect. This is the reason I ask about your statistics training. Because it seems you may have missed quite a bit of the key parts. You claim you are in contact with scientists and yet have doubts on agw consensus. THAT sampling. THAT is what Anderegg et al did in this study. That's the whole point! I wish you would attempt to understand how scientists operate. In the absence of a clearly "standardized" system one has build a rubric by which to run the analysis. I admit nothing of the sort. And it would be most helpful if you understood the technical details of the ad hominem fallacy. It is not merely an "insult". It is using an unrelated aspect of the PERSON to call into question the content of their argument. THAT is what the ad hominem fallacy is. If you are "insulted" by my comparing your debates to creationist style, that is totally different. My point is technically on target and I have supported it with an explanation. AND it is hardly "dishonest" to point out that you are only casting doubt on the analysis without running a comparative analysis. More failures to have taken a logic class. "flawed consensus"? So Anderegg, Noreskes, Dornan, EVERYONE is wrong? Repeated analyses by INDEPENDENT STUDIES find, time and again, >90% agreement within the community. Actually you kinda do! Because Anderegg's results are in line with other independent studies, AND if Anderegg's sampling is so seriously flawed then rather than point to POSSIBLE problems with "citation counts" [B][B]you [I]should[/I] be able to generate a MATHEMATICALLY ROBUST analysis showing the [I][U]final values to be different.[/U][/I][/B][/B] This is where you will likely make another howler of an error so let me stop you beforehand: merely pointing out that the search for PD-Jones or the search for X.Y. Johnson results in different numbers of "hits" at different times is insufficient to determine if the [U][I][B]final statistical analysis will be different[/B][/I][/U]. Let me help you with a much simpler example: Let's say I want to find out if there's a difference in two populations A and B. I sample A and get a distribution "a". I sample B and get a distribution "b". FIRST off: "a" is NOT A. It is a SAMPLE. That means it may or may not accurately reflect the population A. So I run a STATISTICAL TEST ON "a" and "b". Perhaps I do a "t-test" (let's assume these are "normally distributed" data). I find a difference between the two populations that has a p-value of <0.05. What if I then go back and re-sample A and B and get two new samples: "a2" and "b2". "a2" and "b2" may have different means and be somewhat different from "a" and "b". [COLOR="Red"]But will it [B][I]necessarily change[/I][/B] the results of the t-test? [/COLOR] What you have done is point out a [I]possible[/I] problem with sampling. You have [B]not[/B] shown how it will [I][B]impact the final analysis[/B][/I] and conclusions of Anderegg et al. NOW, here's the shocker: your critiques are not ipso facto "bad". But all they are is a critique. It proves nothing as to the final analysis. And that is where you seem to miss the boat. This is the power of statistics. It doesn't have to see EVERYTHING PERFECTLY to draw conclusions. But you are correct to question the sampling methodologies. [B]However once you have done that you cannot simply blow it off as "worthless" because the results [I][U]may still be accurate on the whole[/U][/I][/B] I actually [U][I]did research[/I][/U]. Not just critiquing of others work. And since you have no NUMBERS you are free to live with that doubt. Clearly those who[I][B][U] bother to do actual research and come up with analyses and numbers[/U][/B][/I] are, in your world, worthless. It is better to be a "doubt monger" than to attempt to do research. THIS is how I got my PhD. I did RESEARCH. It isn't enough just to scratch your head and say "I don't think you did that right so I think it's all in doubt." THAT is where you have fallen short of the goal. [/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