Vegas Free-for-All - Two Interesting Headlines related to Global Warming

Two Interesting Headlines related to Global Warming

alanleroy

Apr 6, 2015
12:54pm

Quote

Originally posted by: Poptech

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.

Of course I'm understanding this. An examination of the data is what I've been suggesting all along. Are you even paying attention?

Of course to get a view on the whole set of data we could sample a statistically significant portion of it. I still think I'd start by sorting the articles by publication. Some publications only contain peer reviewed articles. If a significant number of articles are not peer reviewed I'd expect maybe we'll see some commonality in them...Like coming from Conference Proceedings rather than a Journal. Maybe we can easily identify large swaths of non-peer reviewed articles. Then again, maybe not.

Poptech

Apr 6, 2015
1:58pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy
Of course I'm understanding this. An examination of the data is what I've been suggesting all along. Are you even paying attention?

Of course to get a view on the whole set of data we could sample a statistically significant portion of it. I still think I'd start by sorting the articles by publication. Some publications only contain peer reviewed articles. If a significant number of articles are not peer reviewed I'd expect maybe we'll see some commonality in them...Like coming from Conference Proceedings rather than a Journal. Maybe we can easily identify large swaths of non-peer reviewed articles. Then again, maybe not.

Unless every single document type is checked that it is peer-reviewed in its respective journal than no claim can be made to the peer-review status of the papers as a whole. This manual check would be required anytime a new analysis of new query results were done.

I have already confirmed with Thompson Reuters that not all of their journals and especially not all of their document types are peer-reviewed in the Web of Science.

Quote
"It is possible that a few journals in Web of Science Core Collection are not peer-reviewed [...] Although a journal is peer-reviewed, certain document types within an issue may not be, [...] Thomson Reuters does not keep a log or list of which journals do have peer review status." - Thomson Reuters (Source: Email)

Powell failed to do basic due diligence and thus his conclusions are worthless.

alanleroy

Apr 7, 2015
12:27am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Poptech
Unless every single document type is checked that it is peer-reviewed in its respective journal than no claim can be made to the peer-review status of the papers as a whole. This manual check would be required anytime a new analysis of new query results were done.

Well, we could sample the data and establish with high confidence that his peer review claim is likely correct or likely incorrect. You do believe in statistical analysis, right?

A scan of the publication sources might even be prima facie evidence that his claim is wrong. All we need is the data to get started.

Poptech

Apr 7, 2015
4:36am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy
Well, we could sample the data and establish with high confidence that his peer review claim is likely correct or likely incorrect. You do believe in statistical analysis, right?

A scan of the publication sources might even be prima facie evidence that his claim is wrong. All we need is the data to get started.

This is not a debate but the limitations of their database, as I have confirmed from Thompson Reuters that not all the journals indexed in the Web of Science nor all the documents types are peer-reviewed.

Thus Powell's claim is wrong and unless every single document type is checked that it is peer-reviewed in its respective journal than no claim can be made to the peer-review status of the papers as a whole.

Powell's email response to you confirms what I already knew - that he did no such thing.

alanleroy

Apr 7, 2015
5:12am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Poptech
Thus Powell's claim is wrong and unless every single document type is checked that it is peer-reviewed in its respective journal than no claim can be made to the peer-review status of the papers as a whole.

You're confusing the real issue. He was obviously attempting to make the point that the overwhelming majority of the scientific literature supports the case for man-made global climate change. He did that by referring to literature that according to you may or may not be peer reviewed, but according to him is peer reviewed. He used similar selection criterion for 'articles' to find Pro and Anti manmade climate change citations.

A statistical analysis of the data would not prove that every one of the documents has been peer reviewed, but will give us an excellent confidence about the level of peer review in the articles he cited. If it was very high, that would lend credence to his real thesis...that the overwhelming majority of the literature supports the concept of manmade global climate change...if the number was low, it would disprove his thesis...or at least force him to change his chart.

I don't even think fact checking every document is an overwhelming task for a guy who has database skill like you....and the key is--- if and when you find great swaths of non-peer junk infiltrating his results then you have actually disproven his work and perhaps advanced the science.

And let's just say we do fact check every document and we find 1 of them is from a conference proceeding and not a peer reviewed articles...does that really invalidate the real point he was making?

Poptech

Apr 7, 2015
9:36am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy
You're confusing the real issue. He was obviously attempting to make the point that the overwhelming majority of the scientific literature supports the case for man-made global climate change. He did that by referring to literature that according to you may or may not be peer reviewed, but according to him is peer reviewed. He used similar selection criterion for 'articles' to find Pro and Anti manmade climate change citations.

I am well aware of his real propaganda issue and it is irrelevant.

It is not according to him or I, it is according to the reality of the Web of Science database. Databases do not work based on opinion they work based on how they were designed and programmed. The very real limitations of the Web of Science database are not an opinion, they are reality.

Irrefutable Fact = The Web of Science does not filter only peer-reviewed content.

Thus, unless Powell checked every single paper's peer-reviewed status he cannot claim any of the papers are peer-reviewed let alone all of them.

1. Is Powell claiming all of the papers are peer-reviewed?

2. Please quote and cite his selection criteria he used to determine if his Web of Science queried results accepted or rejected AGW.

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
A statistical analysis of the data would not prove that every one of the documents has been peer reviewed, but will give us an excellent confidence about the level of peer review in the articles he cited. If it was very high, that would lend credence to his real thesis...that the overwhelming majority of the literature supports the concept of manmade global climate change...if the number was low, it would disprove his thesis...or at least force him to change his chart.

I don't even think fact checking every document is an overwhelming task for a guy who has database skill like you....and the key is--- if and when you find great swaths of non-peer junk infiltrating his results then you have actually disproven his work and perhaps advanced the science.

And let's just say we do fact check every document and we find 1 of them is from a conference proceeding and not a peer reviewed articles...does that really invalidate the real point he was making?

Again, unless every single document type is checked that it is peer-reviewed in its respective journal than no claim can be made to the peer-review status of the papers as a whole.

His methodology has been shown to be fatally flawed thus his conclusions worthless. Making excuses for his fatally flawed methodology is not an argument nor is deflecting that I should do his work for him. Let me know when he receives a proper education in the relevance of the results he obtains from the databases he uses.

alanleroy

Apr 7, 2015
11:29am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Poptech
unless every single document type is checked that it is peer-reviewed in its respective journal than[sic] no claim can be made to the peer-review status of the papers as a whole.

That simply isn't true. A statistical analysis would certainly allow an evaluation of the status of the papers as a whole. It would require Dr Powell to change his statement about those papers to something along the lines of '2953' published scientific articles with at least 95% being peer reviewed....or whatever number the analysis determined.

This would avoid nitpicker's argument that "100% of the papers were not proven peer reviewed, so we reject his true point that there is an overwhelming consensus in the literature". The lower the percent peer reviewed, the lower the credibility of his argument, but it could still indicate an scientific consensus....or no credibility at all depending on the results.

Please don't take this the wrong way. You have brought up a valid question regarding his methods, but the real point he was making may in fact be correct. That's what I hoped you would help to prove one way or the other with a true review of the cited literature.

Looking at his web site, this isn't the only analysis he's done using that methodology. If it's truly flawed, then I hope to further explore with him "the relevance of the results he obtains from the databases he uses" as you suggest. Perhaps he has looked at each of the articles he cited. Perhaps he will consider adjusting his charts to refer to 'scholarly scientific articles' rather than 'peer reviewed' or use some other qualifier to indicate these are not all peer reviewed. We'll see.

Poptech

Apr 7, 2015
11:58am

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy
That simply isn't true. A statistical analysis would certainly allow an evaluation of the status of the papers as a whole. It would require Dr Powell to change his statement about those papers to something along the lines of '2953' published scientific articles with at least 95% being peer reviewed....or whatever number the analysis determined.

Incorrect, all of the data is available and the only acceptable margin of error for determining which papers are peer-reviewed is zero. I will not accept any statistical sampling and I will not accept anything less than 100% verification. Failure to do your work properly and then promot worthless conclusions based on fatally flawed methods is scientifically irresponsible.

You failed to answer these questions:

1. Is Powell claiming all of the papers are peer-reviewed?

2. Please quote and cite his selection criteria he used to determine if his Web of Science queried results accepted or rejected AGW.

This is just the tip of the ice-berg regarding what is wrong with his work. I have many valid issues with his methodology, all of which render his conclusions worthless propaganda.

alanleroy

Apr 7, 2015
12:25pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: Poptech
I will not accept any statistical sampling and I will not accept anything less than 100% verification. Failure to do your work properly and then promot worthless conclusions based on fatally flawed methods is scientifically irresponsible.

Who made you God of what's acceptable? I suggested he might have to adjust his claim that ALL of the articles are peer reviewed. Do you even read the stuff you're quoting?

Poptech

Apr 7, 2015
12:38pm

Block User

Quote

Originally posted by: alanleroy
Who made you God of what's acceptable?

That depends on if you are interested in propaganda or not.

Quote
Originally posted by: alanleroy
I suggested he might have to adjust his claim that ALL of the articles are peer reviewed. Do you even read the stuff you're quoting?

Not "might", he does unless he checks that every single document type is peer-reviewed in its respective journal.

You failed to answer these questions:

1. Is Powell claiming all of the papers are peer-reviewed?

2. Please quote and cite his selection criteria he used to determine if his Web of Science queried results accepted or rejected AGW.

«‹15 ›»

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

Platinum Membership

$50 per year

Unlimited access to LVA website

Exclusive subscriber-only content

Exclusive Member Rewards Book

Join Now