Las Vegas Advisor Menu
« LVA Forums « Vegas Free-for-All

Two Interesting Headlines related to Global Warming

Poptech
Poptech
Apr 6, 2015
1:02am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
My God. Talk about deflection. How many fucking ways do I have to say the Web of Science Database has no fucking Peer Review Filter. You claim it does not. I took you at your word. So move on in the program and answer my question now. "Of those 2259 Citations Powell Claims are peer reviewed, what percent do you believe actually are?".

I don't guess on these issues, if the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed filter how did Powell determine that all those articles were peer-reviewed? As the only way to do so would be to verify that every single article's document type was peer-reviewed in its respected journal. Can you produce his data where he did this?

If Powell failed to do this then his claim of having "2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles" is a lie.
alanleroy
alanleroy
Apr 6, 2015
1:20am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Poptech
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
My God. Talk about deflection. How many fucking ways do I have to say the Web of Science Database has no fucking Peer Review Filter. You claim it does not. I took you at your word. So move on in the program and answer my question now. "Of those 2259 Citations Powell Claims are peer reviewed, what percent do you believe actually are?".

I don't guess on these issues, if the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed filter how did Powell determine that all those articles were peer-reviewed?

Thank you for making my point. The fact of the matter is you don't have to guess. You can look at the actual data and prove it one way or another.....which has been my humble suggestion that you continue to avoid. What if it turns out only 100 of those articles are actually peer reviewed...that would be a real Revelation, don't you think? What if all of them were. That would be good to really know too, wouldn't it?

As to how Powell determined that those articles were peer-reviewed, what did he say about that when you e-mailed him that question? Oh...so you haven't tried to ask him to clarify his research method in well over a year since you began to attack it? That is also telling.

This whole business stinks of someone more interested in discrediting his opponents than finding the Truth. Like I said, there's a lot of that around here. Well luckily AlanLeroy is on the job. I just e-mailed Dr. Powell and hopefully he will clarify this point of how he determined those cited articles were peer reviewed. I even invited him to join this discussion to shed light on his research.

Poptech
Poptech
Apr 6, 2015
1:43am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Thank you for making my point. The fact of the matter is you don't have to guess. You can look at the actual data and prove it one way or another.....which has been my humble suggestion that you continue to avoid. What if it turns out only 100 of those articles are actually peer reviewed...that would be a real Revelation, don't you think? What if all of them were. That would be good to really know too, wouldn't it?

As to how Powell determined that those articles were peer-reviewed, what did he say about that when you e-mailed him that question? Oh...so you haven't tried to ask him to clarify his research method in well over a year since you began to attack it? That is also telling.

This whole business stinks of someone more interested in discrediting his opponents than finding the Truth. Like I said, there's a lot of that around here. Well luckily AlanLeroy is on the job. I just e-mailed Dr. Powell and hopefully he will clarify this point of how he determined those cited articles were peer reviewed. I even invited him to join this discussion to shed light on his research.

If you actually looked at the data and methods and understood them as I do you would not be making any of these comments. He assumed they were peer-reviewed because he does not understand that the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed filter. I have been over this many times before as his methods are available on his website.

What is telling is all those who re-post propaganda without comprehending what they are referencing.

Unless Powell verified that every single article's document type was peer-reviewed in its respected journal and can produce the data to prove this then he lied about having "2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles".

Why would people re-post a lie?
alanleroy
alanleroy
Apr 6, 2015
2:31am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Poptech
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
Thank you for making my point. The fact of the matter is you don't have to guess. You can look at the actual data and prove it one way or another.....which has been my humble suggestion that you continue to avoid. What if it turns out only 100 of those articles are actually peer reviewed...that would be a real Revelation, don't you think? What if all of them were. That would be good to really know too, wouldn't it?

As to how Powell determined that those articles were peer-reviewed, what did he say about that when you e-mailed him that question? Oh...so you haven't tried to ask him to clarify his research method in well over a year since you began to attack it? That is also telling.

This whole business stinks of someone more interested in discrediting his opponents than finding the Truth. Like I said, there's a lot of that around here. Well luckily AlanLeroy is on the job. I just e-mailed Dr. Powell and hopefully he will clarify this point of how he determined those cited articles were peer reviewed. I even invited him to join this discussion to shed light on his research.

If you actually looked at the data and methods and understood them as I do you would not be making any of these comments. He assumed they were peer-reviewed because he does not understand that the Web of Science does not have a peer-reviewed filter. I have been over this many times before as his methods are available on his website.

What is telling is all those who re-post propaganda without comprehending what they are referencing.

Unless Powell verified that every single article's document type was peer-reviewed in its respected journal and can produce the data to prove this then he lied about having "2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles".

Why would people re-post a lie?


"Dr Powell:
Having a discussion about climate change and some are questioning your pie chart that states 2259 peer reviewed articles to 1. The questions surround how exactly you determined the articles were in fact ‘peer reviewed’. Can you explain that to me?

(Here is where the discussion is taking place if you'd like to join us and clarify your methods
https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=17&threadid=325259)

Thanks!

AlanLeroy"

"The Web of Science Core Collection, which I used, records peer-reviewed articles.

JLP. "

So are you able to filter on only peer-reviewed articles, or did you have to assess each of them manually.

Thanks!

AlanLeroy"

"Or are you saying that only peer reviewed articles are in the Web of Science Core Collection."

AlanLeroy"

"That is what I am saying (referring to only peer reviewed articles being in the Web of Science Core Collection)". Just search for “ global warming” as the topic and “articles” as the document type, and all the WoS results will be from peer-reviewed journals. In other words, I did not decide anything about whether an article had been peer-reviewed.

JLP."

So there you have it. Dr Powell claims a WoS Core Collection Search on "articles" will return only peer reviewed journals. Poptech obviously claims otherwise. I do have a humble suggestion for Mr. Poptech where he can settle this permanently and scientifically. LOOK AT THE DATA AND FIND SOME ARTICLES THAT ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED. Better yet LOOK AT ALL THE FUCKING DATA points and determine the full scope of peer review. Let me know if you need further advice on how to do that. Excusez mon Français.







forkushV
forkushV
Apr 6, 2015
2:34am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: Poptech
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Yep, Thor Heyerdahl was right, and scientific consensus fell on it's ass on that one. Fifty-five years ago. That your source has to reach halfway into the last century says it all. You posted a link that demonstrates that while scientific consensus is imperfect, it is almost always correct.

I bet you didn't mean to do that.

Unfortunately you continue to have a reading comprehension problem, that rebuttal in no way argued that scientific consensus is almost always correct...
Oh I get that he didn't say that scientific consensus is almost always correct. But the guy had to reach halfway into the twentieth century to find a pertinent example of consensus actually being wrong, which kind of reinforces my point.

I bet he didn't mean to do that.

And Poptech, it looks like you've been thrown off your game. Up until now you've been arguing that overwhelming scientific consensus is not on the side of the climate change believers. But now you're arguing that scientific consensus is not reliable. That sort of reduces your credibility from where it is now. Which is hard to do.

Poptech
Poptech
Apr 6, 2015
8:32am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
"Dr Powell:
Having a discussion about climate change and some are questioning your pie chart that states 2259 peer reviewed articles to 1. The questions surround how exactly you determined the articles were in fact ‘peer reviewed’. Can you explain that to me?

(Here is where the discussion is taking place if you'd like to join us and clarify your methods
https://www.lasvegasadvisor.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=17&threadid=325259)

Thanks!

AlanLeroy"

"The Web of Science Core Collection, which I used, records peer-reviewed articles.

JLP. "

So are you able to filter on only peer-reviewed articles, or did you have to assess each of them manually.

Thanks!

AlanLeroy"

"Or are you saying that only peer reviewed articles are in the Web of Science Core Collection."

AlanLeroy"

"That is what I am saying (referring to only peer reviewed articles being in the Web of Science Core Collection)". Just search for “ global warming” as the topic and “articles” as the document type, and all the WoS results will be from peer-reviewed journals. In other words, I did not decide anything about whether an article had been peer-reviewed.

JLP."

So there you have it. Dr Powell claims a WoS Core Collection Search on "articles" will return only peer reviewed journals. Poptech obviously claims otherwise. I do have a humble suggestion for Mr. Poptech where he can settle this permanently and scientifically. LOOK AT THE DATA AND FIND SOME ARTICLES THAT ARE NOT PEER REVIEWED. Better yet LOOK AT ALL THE FUCKING DATA points and determine the full scope of peer review. Let me know if you need further advice on how to do that. Excusez mon Français.

Like I said Powell is a computer illiterate and doesn't understand the database he is using. Web of Science indexes articles from scholarly journals but not all articles in those journals are peer-reviewed. Filtering by the document type "article" does not mean they have all been peer-reviewed.

Document Type Descriptions

"Article: Reports of research on original works. Includes research papers, features, brief communications, case reports, technical notes, chronology, and full papers that were presented at a symposium or conference."

Regardless, categories like these have been the subject of debate and confusion in relation to their peer-review status,

"...three categories of articles have been published: review articles up to 10 000 words, original articles of 2500–5000 words and brief communications of 1000–2000 words. Only the first two categories were subject to peer review and brief communications were being published without this quality check." - Health Information and Libraries Journal

Conference papers among those other categories are frequently not peer-reviewed at all.
alanleroy
alanleroy
Apr 6, 2015
9:49am
Block User
I have asked Dr. Powell if he would be so kind as to send me a spreadsheet with the citations he gleaned. Perhaps we can sort them by publication and see if any stand out as unlikely to be peer reviewed. I'm not sure what the licensing is on that research database and if it will allow him to send me raw data, but we'll see.
chefantwon
chefantwon
Apr 6, 2015
10:50am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
Quote
Originally posted by: chefantwon
Forkie has yet to explain WHY the co2 levels were 10 times higher when the dinosaurs were around than they are today? Forkie has yet to explain WHY the Earth was frozen over and what caused the Earth to thaw? Forkie likes to show graphs of these scientists who believe the church of global warming, how many of them are getting federal grants?

Btw, why was the "hockey stick" graph and the data was not reviewed by ANYONE other than the folks that were a part of the original study??

Can Forkie explain WHY concrete holds heat longer than dirt and WHY temp data is measured at airports as the official measuring site?
I haven't a clue. I'm not trained to evaluate such things and neither are you. Maybe you should rely on overwhelming scientific consensus, as compiled by an MIT PhD/university president/national science board member. On the other hand, maybe you should rely on the compilation put together by the blogger/Breitbart fan with no no last name.

Your choice!


How about a mathematician?

Steve McIntyre

link
Oh you mean the retired mining consultant? Well, he is several orders of magnitude more credible than the blogger with no last name, I'll give you that.

So chef, I have some questions about the mining consultant's post: What is a distinct end-member d15N_N03 signature, and what makes it distinct. And what is an alkenone proxie?

Admit it chef, you don't have a clue - yet you linked to that post just because someone told you it matched your political beliefs. You know what? I don't have a clue either, but I have the intelligence and the humility and the integrity and the self-awareness to avoid your fakery. I never cherry-pick scientific papers that I don't understand. Which is why I rely on overwhelming scientific consensus, and sometimes on a simple chart from a highly respected MIT trained scientist. And NOT on an ideologue blogger with no last name.


Excuse ME forkie!!!!

I have read a great deal on the F'ng subject.

How about the IPCC reports for the last 4 years?
The congressional reports on climate change and that's where the bit about the math being fucked.
MC Intyre's web site siting the location of the weather measurement stations that are used to record the temp data.
Just to name a few

Well after a bit of searching your d15c NO3 signature deals with measurements taken covering about 20ka to present. link and link 2

20 k years ago just doesn't measure up to much as the Earth is about 3.8 billion years old.
Poptech
Poptech
Apr 6, 2015
11:38am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
I have asked Dr. Powell if he would be so kind as to send me a spreadsheet with the citations he gleaned. Perhaps we can sort them by publication and see if any stand out as unlikely to be peer reviewed. I'm not sure what the licensing is on that research database and if it will allow him to send me raw data, but we'll see.

You are still not understanding this, you have to check each article's document type vs. its peer-reviewed status in each journal. If he failed to do this I am certainly not wasting my time.
Poptech
Poptech
Apr 6, 2015
11:40am
Block User
Quote
Originally posted by: forkushV
And Poptech, it looks like you've been thrown off your game. Up until now you've been arguing that overwhelming scientific consensus is not on the side of the climate change believers. But now you're arguing that scientific consensus is not reliable. That sort of reduces your credibility from where it is now. Which is hard to do.

I said no such thing, are you having a conversation with someone else? This seems to be a pattern with you.
Already a LVA subscriber?
To continue reading, choose an option below:
Diamond Membership
$3 per month
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Limited Member Rewards Online
Join Now
or
Platinum Membership
$50 per year
Unlimited access to LVA website
Exclusive subscriber-only content
Exclusive Member Rewards Book
Join Now