Scientific truth is not determined by a google scholar result or democracy, but data.
BUt remember, the only thing Poptech knows how to do is construct a database search. That's it. Anyone who doesn't do it exactly as poptech does it is "computer illiterate".
Even professional climate researchers who use extremely powerful computer models BUT WHO DISAGREE WITH POPTECH's "blog" entries are "Computer Illiterates".
In fact I bet EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is a "computer illiterate" unless they agree 100% with PopTech's Blog posts.
Your Denialist Dogma's Denying you Data: you can only harp on and on and on about the most boring rubbish, and are ignoring the beautiful, repeatable, demonstrable truths we learn from science.
To be fair to Poptech, people like ME, did raise the 97% value. That opened the door to his rants and screeds.
Granted PopTech clearly doesn't know about statistics (hence his critiques of Anderegg et al are limited solely to search criteria and ignore the statistical tests Anderegg et al did (Mann-Whitney U Test) which help underscore the potential of error (which still came out quite low!)
What PopTech fails to understand is that any "sampling" event of any sort is, by necessity "imperfect". He argues like a CREATIONIST in that he wants perfect data. This isn't a reality.
I wonder about his repeated claims of association with earth scientists.
You're boring me silly with your toddler temper tantrums and semantic games.
He does get bent pretty fast! I love the way he goes over the top and suddenly EVERYONE is a LIAR and a COMPUTER ILLITERATE.
I think the best thing to do is simply present SCIENCE and MATH to him and it will drive him bonkers.
I would stay clear of "Google Scholar Search" criteria though. That is apparently what he got his degree in. And if you differ with him you are COMPUTER ILLITERATE!
If you had something solid against the science,
Ahhh, he doesn't have any science background in this! His familiarity with Revelle is some screed post about Al Gore!!!
I'm guessing the guy has no earthly idea what the Revelle Factor is or anything prior to the political diatribes that came out of the denialist camps after "An Inconvenient Truth"!!!
It's so funny to see someone who so abysmally unaware of the science that predates all their denialist blogger buddies by about 5 DECADES.
that would be one thing, but this autistic focus you have on your google scholar results and your semantic games is just truly sad. You're embarrassing yourself 20 times over. I can't watch any longer. It makes me cringe for you. Goodbye.
I take responsibility for getting him going on the Anderegg paper. I didn't realize that he had a BLOG that ranted on this. Thankfully I found that sometime last year someone ON THIS VERY BOARD took him to task already about the complaints.
And interestingly enough PopTech DOESN'T EVEN DEAL with the data as Anderegg et al did! He keeps on about one aspect of part of the search and he insists on using RAW COUNT DATA when Anderegg et al didn't!
Sampling, sampling, sampling.
It is all part of the bigger understanding of science in general. PopTech knows how to use "strict delimiters" but ironically DOESN'T LIKE FILTERS on his searches! And when someone DOES construct a solid search HE COMPLAINS THAT IT IS TOO NARROW but when they don't use a narrow search HE COMPLAINS IT IS TOO BROAD!
LOL.
Too funny.
And it is kinda fun to watch him get his knickers in a twist over stuff that, as you point out, really isn't the "science". It's semantics.
But oh does he get BENT!