Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 08:14am PT
|
Malemute posts about a "study" on denier funding. I ask for details on denier efforts.
The response is this silliness.
Malemute
Ice climber
great white north
Mar 29, 2015 - 07:47am PT
a typical denier
A dominant theme in the warmer camp seems to be about silencing those evil deniers.
This place is dripping with irony.
Or is it hypocrisy?
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 08:16am PT
|
Ignore the forum bully. Malemute. The science is undeniable.
The motives of The Deniers...now that's a harder question to answer.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 08:18am PT
|
Do you receive funding from any groups that may directly benefit from policies intended to combat global warming?
I think most people on this planet, and most critters too, would benefit from policies that did manage to combat global warming. Perhaps you can refine your insinuation a bit?
If so, do you disclose those relationships on all your published literature?
I always acknowledge who supports my research. It's required explicitly by most journals as a matter of ethics, and even aside from that it's expected if not required by the granting agencies themselves, such as NSF and USDA. Finally, it's just fair.
The Willie Soon case was exceptional in several ways: (1) he concealed support that really was a conflict of interest; and (2) this support came from sources that explicitly required he keep them hidden. And for obvious reasons.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 08:21am PT
|
I think most people on this planet, and most critters too, would benefit from policies that did manage to combat global warming. Perhaps you can refine your insinuation a bit?
Nice dodge.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 08:24am PT
|
EddyT wrote: Nice dodge.
Cherry picker.
Is it really that hard for your to read Chiloe full response to you?
"I always acknowledge who supports my research. It's required explicitly by most journals as a matter of ethics, and even aside from that it's expected if not required by the granting agencies themselves, such as NSF and USDA. Finally, it's just fair."
You call that a dodge?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 08:28am PT
|
Frinstance our paper in Geophysical Research Letters last year, Predicting Septempber sea ice: Ensemble skill of the SEARCH Sea Ice Outlook 2008-2013, includes this statement:
Acknowledgments
This research was carried out under the Sea Ice Prediction Network project, with support from the U.S. National Science Foundation (PLR-1303938) and the Office of Naval Research (N00014-13-1-0793). Helen Wiggins (ARCUS) provided Sea Ice Outlook data; Walt Meier (NSIDC) and Jennifer Kay (NCAR) supplied the office pool data analyzed in the supporting information. Matthew Cutler assisted with dataset preparation.
Similar statements appear with pretty much any formal paper or presentation I write, if it was done with external support.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 08:59am PT
|
The Sea Ice Prediction Network (see Acknowledgments above) actually is a larger enterprise that includes more people than the four coauthors of that one GRL paper. To see mug shots (check out Blanchard-Wrigglesworth, one of the coauthors!) of all the scientists involved in SIPN, and the sponsors for their contributions to this project, you could click here on the SIPN web page and scroll down to the bottom.
Or, I'll list the sponsors right here: NSF, ONR, NOAA, NASA and DOE. Looks cooler with their logos, though.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 09:00am PT
|
Sketch, facts to you are like water off a duck back. Your whole time here on ST has been you ankle biting.
The really sad part is that you and Chief think you know more than ED or Chiloe on the subject.
You have to be a complete idiot at this point to think that the effects of 7-8 billion people on this planet has no effect on it's climate.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 09:30am PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 10:45am PT
|
Looks cooler with their logos, though.
I call the displaying of logos (e.g. on PowerPointless talks, et al.) the "NASCAR format" for presentations... I guess those organizations do take time and resources to come up with logos that convey attributes of those organizations that they feel communicate the "mission" to the viewers... but for the most part I eschew overt displays in my talks...
simple acknowledgements are more appropriate, IMHO, but that may be too old school.
I had mentioned, in response for a request for "funding sponsors," that those so seeking would look at the "Acknowledgement" section of the papers of those they'd inquired about such things. Fact is that those inquiring haven't actually read (let alone written) a formal paper and have no idea of what goes into writing the papers, and what is required, and what is expected to appear.
Attribution of funding works both to identify the source of the funding, but also to acknowledge the contributions of those institutions and organizations that are funding the research. It is the expectation of the funding organizations that the publication of research results is a good outcome of the research.
So one has to wonder why an organization would fund research and request that their contribution not be acknowledged. Most organizations that I've worked with that don't want acknowledgement don't want the research published in the open literature. There are closed literatures, they are closed for good reason (in my opinion).
One can insinuate that some list of authors intentionally not mention sponsors, but such an insinuation essentially alleges that the authors are being dishonest. This is a very interesting tactic of raising questions about the research but avoiding addressing the research itself.
The research represented in the publications contains all of the information required to assess whether or not the findings of the research reported can stand up to scientific scrutiny. This information is available to anyone who can read the paper and work through the arguments. It is the most important aspect of "peer review" to judge if a paper contains the necessary information for such independent assessment. "Peer review" is not a confirmation that the results are "right" but that they are supported by the research, and that the methods used are explained fully.
Because of the "peer review" process, papers that are subject to such review are often difficult to criticize on the basis of the reported science. But critics of the papers can use a number of rhetorical techniques to call the research into question, research that is based on sound science.
For instance, questioning the source of the funding for the research implies that the funding source has an important influence on the researches outcome (an often unsubstantiated allegation). In the case of a "normal" scientific paper, all the sources of funding are disclosed, as required by the funding organization and the institution at which the research is conducted.
Another method is to accuse an author of being untrustworthy, and disregarding any paper they write. The most frequent example is Mann, where his 1995 paper was highly criticized (based on the scientific content), the research methods where improved and subsequent research by both Mann and researchers independent of Mann verified the conclusions of the 1995 paper. Less well known are that some of the criticisms are based on flawed analyses. The point being that the science has verified Mann's initial work, yet the original (and in some cases erroneous) criticism of the original paper is held up as a reason to discount all of Mann's subsequent work. Not only that, Mann acknowledges all of his funding sources.
In terms of Cook's research, a significant part of the paper was devoted to estimating the "uncertainty" of the result to the categorization criteria. This is not only good practice, but it is essential in establishing the statistical significance of that result.
Chiloe's example above seems to have gone way over EdwardT's head.
One test of Cook's conclusion, that there is a 97% consensus in the literature that climate change is caused by anthropogenic activity, would be to "roll a dice" that points us, randomly, to a paper in that literature. We'd expect that roughly 97 times out of 100 dice rolls that the paper would have such statements in it... (or statements consistent with Cook's categorization scheme).
Chiloe picked a random number, for instance, the "date, time" at some instance, created an index and searched the literature with that random index to pull a paper out and look for such correspondence.
There are many criticisms possible of this example: are the indices truly random, were they picked in such a manner that anticipated a particular paper would be pulled, is the pool of papers skewed in some manner, etc, etc.
Each of these points can be addressed and discussed, and in such a way that the method can be applied by anyone. The outcome of such an independent application would tell us whether or not the conclusions reached are consistent with the original hypothesis, which in this case has to do with the fraction of papers in the literature belong to a particular category (as described by Cook).
Now this takes some work, but I think what is a bigger barrier to actually doing it is that when you do it you cannot be certain of the outcome, which is to say, you might actually confirm Cook's hypothesis, independently.
From a scientists point-of-view, not confirming the result is very interesting because it requires that the two methods have to be compared and that we learn something in the process, perhaps refining the methods (or showing the limitations of the methods) and explaining why the discrepancy exists. This usually addresses some assumption we've made (and stated). And the science progresses.
Focusing on a few papers in detail could be important, but as far as questioning the validity of the conclusion one might ask if the number of such papers exceeds Cook's estimate on the expected variations within categories. Cook addresses these issues in the statistical analysis of the results. Cook does not claim that the categorization is absolutely correct, but that it is correct within a certain statistical variation.
If you don't understand statistics, both Cook's analysis, and Chiloe's test (above) won't mean much, but if you understand (even elementary statistics) you'd have a good idea of the validity of the results.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 11:22am PT
|
(e.g. on PowerPointless talks, et al.)
Anyone afflicted by too many PowerPoint presentations in their universe might get a kick out of Edward Tufte's essay on "The cognitive style of PowerPoint" (pdf here).
After serious discussion he turns funnier with a PowerPoint version of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. You all know how that starts out ...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 12:41pm PT
|
Ed's right that my point about sampling and replication whooshed right past Sketch's head, but for the more scientifically curious here's one more example. The post just before this (mine, actually) is number 21542, let's take the last 4 digits this time and look up abstract #1542 in the C13 database. Here it is:
Climatic warming and its effect on bud burst and risk of frost damage to white spruce in Canada
Stephen J. Colombo
The Forestry Chronicle, 1998, 74(4): 567-577, 10.5558/tfc74567-4
Abstract
Temperature data from ten weather stations across Canada were used to model the effects of climate warming on the timing of bud burst and the risk of frost damage to white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss). There was evidence of increasingly earlier dates of bud break over the course of this century at half of the stations examined (Amos and Brome, Québec; Cochrane, Ontario; Fort Vermilion, Alberta; and Woodstock, New Brunswick), with the period 1981 to 1988 having the earliest predicted dates of bud burst (earliest degree day accumulation). Risk of frost damage at most stations in the 1980s was usually greater than in earlier periods. Weather data modelled for climate warming of 5 °C predicts that bud burst will occur two to four weeks sooner than was the case during 1961 to 1980 at all stations, but that this will generally be accompanied by decreased risk of frost after bud burst. However, while the expected trend is one of reduced frost risk in the future, as the climate gradually warms frost risk is expected to fluctuate upward or downward depending on interactions between provenance and local climate.
Cook et al. classify this one as 4, "no position." Even though the abstract states that past temperatures have been warming, and "the expected trend is one of reduced frost risk in the future, as the climate gradually warms ...." So what we have here is the opposite of pro-ACC bias insinuated by ideologues. Instead, the raters look at an abstract that might have been interpreted as "implicit endorsement" because it says climate has been warming and is expected to warm more in the future. But since the abstract does not articulate why they expect climate to warm, the coders conscientiously called this "no position."
So in my honest although trivial-sized experiment we've looked at 3 abstracts, of which 2 implicitly endorsed ACC and 1 took no position; that's 100% of those taking a position are endorsing. That statistic means nothing at this scale, but you can see how easily this approach will scale up to meaningful numbers. Probably converging on 98%, like we already seem to be.
p.s. To do this right you'd want to use a real pseudo-random generator, not the previous-post or today's-date stuff I demo'd above.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 04:20pm PT
|
I'm almost starting to feel sorry for EddyT/Sketch.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 07:43pm PT
|
Try not to let that bother you Bob.....lol
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Mar 29, 2015 - 07:47pm PT
|
with the chef in full retreat and rick gone round the whackdoodle bend the pressure's on SketchEd...
look away...
look away...
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 07:10am PT
|
Nice work Eddie. You too, Chloe.
For a solid study that's not really controversial, you boys sure did offer up some impressive piles in it's defense. It's comical.
Getting back to the Tol piece, he claims psychology studies, marketing papers, and surveys of the general public were considered scientific endorsements of anthropogenic climate change. A number of non-consensus peer-reviewed scientific papers were left out of the study. Papers by well known skeptics. Are these inclusions and exclusions normal for this type of study?
He also criticized the rating process, claiming raters disagreed what a paper was about 33% of the time. In 63% of cases, they disagreed about the message of a paper with the authors of that paper. Is this normal?
After collecting data for 8 weeks, there were 4 weeks of data analysis, followed by 3 more weeks of data collection. The same people collected and analysed the data. After more analysis, the paper classification scheme was changed and yet more data collected.
Is this typical for this type of study?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 07:27am PT
|
Getting back to the Tol piece, he claims
Pretend you can think for yourself, Sketch. Pick an accusation from Tol's piece that *you* think is accurate and important. Articulate the evidence that persuades you, and stand behind your own judgment.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 07:37am PT
|
Richard Tols shoddy analysis and conspiracy claimes documented here.
Yeah, and many other places as well. In that thread the professional sloppiness and personal quirks that are making Tol a laughingstock among scientists are on full parade. For one example, he declares that instead of 11,944 papers as stated by Cook et al. in their paper, they have 12,876:
Cook's data have 12,876 papers. and
Again, there are 12,876 paper in Cook's data.
People asked, where are these 12,876 papers in Cook's data? And Tol answered plainly,
The 12,876 is from Cook's data. You can get the file here: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media
Because I'm a skeptic, I went to that URL, downloaded the actual dataset, and checked the number. It's 11,944 just as the Cook paper states, not 12,876 as Tol has written repeatedly, spinning that into an accusation of nefarious activity. The URL that Tol himself gives to back up his accusation, actually refutes his accusation and shows C13 were right.
Crushingly obvious as Tol's mistake is (go ahead, check it yourself -- anyone can!), he did not admit that he'd made it, much less apologize for the false accusation he built on that mistake. Instead he's gone off on new tangents inventing theories about how the abstracts were numbered! There's no sign of honesty or analytical intelligence from Tol in this episode, just a two-year animus with apparently psychological roots.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 07:55am PT
|
Way to copy/paste, Sketch.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!