2011-04-18 17:50:00Updated SkS database - you can now tag Poptech papers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

This is not urgent or necessary at this point but there seems to be growing interest in Poptech from various quarters so it's inevitable SkS is going to have to address Poptech at some time and our extensive peer-reviewed database is the ideal resource. So I've updated our database so we can now tag papers as being on Poptech's list. Here is our webpage which lists papers already tagged:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/poptech.php

There are two ways you can tag a paper:

Note - the Poptech option in the Add Link form is only available if your SkS account is set to Moderator or above. So ordinary users won't see the Poptech option when adding a link. The Firefox Add-on doesn't (and never will) include Poptech functionality so this will be the only way to tag Poptech papers.

Soon, I hope to get hold of meta-data info from Zvon which will enable us to add journal and author info to our paper database - this will be useful with the Poptech list also. I will probably add other fields to the database too - perhaps a Comments field or other meta-data as we sort through the Poptech list.

Consolidating our resources on Poptech

To minimise duplication of efforts, here is what has been done already:

2011-04-18 17:58:00
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

By "Moderator or Above," what do you mean?  I am not a moderator, yet I can see the option.  Do you mean non-Authors?

Neat feature, I'll see if I can get started on some.

2011-04-18 18:02:36Moderator or above
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

There is a hierarchy of user levels. Moderator is the lowest, then Pending Author then Full Author then Admin.

You have to be Pending Author or higher to even view this forum. So if you're reading these words, you have Pending Author level or higher and can edit any of the links via http://www.skepticalscience.com/peerreview.php or submit new papers via http://www.skepticalscience.com/resources.php?a=addlinkform and see the Poptech option at the bottom of the form.

I tagged a handful of Poptech papers. I noticed two disturbing things in just that initial cursory glance. Firstly, there are a lot of Poptech papers we don't yet have listed. Secondly, we have a lot of papers Poptech doesn't yet have listed! So I think we may have to completely discredit Poptech's list, or our publishing our list of skeptic papers will only give him more fodder.

2011-04-18 18:08:00
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Yes, I'm noticing that too, and I agree.  We'll have to carefully comb his list before we publish, or he'll notice the same thing as you said.

2011-04-18 18:28:04
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Noticed a copy in the skeptic column, "Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (McKitrick & Michaels, 2007)", not sure how to delete.

(Editing after your most recent post)

Yep, that's me.  I also noticed that some of the papers are from E&E, like Loehle's 2007 paper.  How do you want those handled?

2011-04-18 18:28:24Just snazzed up the Poptech page
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Alex, noticed someone has already started adding papers to the Poptech list, guessing that's you :-)

Just snazzed up the coding of the page - added the total # of papers in the heading and turned the heading of each column (Paper, Date, Type, Bias) into hyperlinks - clicking any of them lets you order the list of papers by Title, Date, etc. So you have the option to look at them alphabetically or chronologically.

2011-04-18 18:39:52
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

One more thing:

"On the Diagnosis of Radiative Feedback in the Presence of Unknown Radiative Forcing" is not on the Excel sheet you gave; is it new to PopTech's list?

 

2011-04-18 18:43:30New papers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

The spreadsheet is probably out of date - not that long ago, Poptech was calling it 850+ papers - now the heading is 900+ papers. Wait till he gets a load of our list of skeptic papers - he'll probably top 1000!

2011-04-18 18:46:36
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

One more duplicate, this one:

Changes in Earth's Reflectance over the Past Two Decades (Pallé et al. 2004) (#113/114)

A "Test5" paper is in the Skeptic column, #147.

2011-04-18 19:00:23Duplicate
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Deleted the duplicate, thanks for spotting that. We will need some quality control but I think after we get the Zvon data, I'll redisplay our paper database in a more systematic way so we can peruse and quality check - perhaps have a checklist system so we can tick them off as we go.

2011-04-18 19:05:19
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Did you get the first one, "Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data (McKitrick & Michaels, 2007)?"

I finished going through the skeptic column, all should be marked.  We have 57, about a third of our list.

2011-04-18 20:32:49110 papers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
If 57 of our skeptic papers are on poptech's list, that means we've identified 110 skeptic papers not on Poptech's list. Now thats hilarious!
2011-04-18 21:38:07
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.107.62

I could tell right away, when I first saw that list (I think it was 450 skeptic papers back then), that he hadn't put much effort in finding the real skeptic papers.

2011-04-18 22:18:38SkS - better at climate skepticism than climate skeptics
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
I sometimes think with our comprehensive catalogue of climate myths, years of links to skeptic articles, etc, our database could be used for great evil in the wrong hands :-)
2011-04-18 22:34:15
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
91.154.107.62

Yes, and when reading the climate science papers, there is very often things that I notice that could be used to make very convincing skeptic arguments. We're lucky that they are so lazy (or incompetent) that they don't actually look at the science.

2011-04-18 22:46:29Needlebase database of the 900+ list
christianhunt

christian@carbonbrief...
88.211.15.182

I did a piece of research examining this list...

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links

The people at NeedleBase, the screen scraping software I used to do this, have been spectacularly helpful and have made a database of all the data I grabbed with some interesting layers of analysis on it:

https://pub.needlebase.com/actions/visualizer/V2Visualizer.do?domain=AGW-Skepticism

It's 'quite complicated', but there might be some nuggets of gold in there. There might also be names/stories that you will spot which will mean more to you than they do to me.

So I'm passing it on as a resource - but also:

a) If you have ideas for other layers of analysis that would be useful, email me and I can suggest them to Needlebase. They have offered to to more work on it, if I can think of things to add.

b) If you spot interesting things, let me know...

c) If you have ideas about good visualisations to do based on this data.

As a minimum, I hope it's useful to you, and you enjoy the data-geekery. We've got a post about where the papers are published (biggest journal: Energy and Environment) going up later today.

All the best,

Christian

2011-04-18 23:52:09Duplicates and E&E
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.167.140

I’ve been deleting duplicates as I spot them – there are probably lots of others I haven’t found.

Also, 7 of the 57 are from E&E:

  • A 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-treering proxies
  • Climate Change and the Earth’s Magnetic Poles: A Possible Connection
  • Cooling of the Global Ocean Since 2003
  • Corrections to the Mann et al (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series
  • Scientific Consensus On Climate Change?
  • Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
  • The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications
2011-04-19 04:12:29
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

I'm going to start adding some of PopTech's papers.  I'll go through maybe 20 or 30 and we'll see from there how good of a job he does at categorizing.  I'm also busy today too so I might have to play this one by ear, how much I can do.

2011-04-19 07:23:03E&E
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165
James, I've recatwgorised those E&E papers as online articles.

Christian, would be great if that page listed the # of papers per journal. Can it show author links to think tanks which get fossil fuel funding.

2011-04-19 09:50:24
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

John, there's a problem when I try to submit new papers that are on PopTech's list.  The dates disappear from them, and they end up at the bottom of the category I place them in.  Also, the "yes" option switches back to "no."  Editing existing papers is fine.

2011-04-19 10:03:12Fixed glitch
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Sorry, glitch on my part - now when you add new Poptech papers, they are correctly added to the Poptech list (eg - the option stays as "yes").

Not sure about the date issue though - the date seemed to save okay for me.

2011-04-19 10:58:12
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Huh, the date is working now, just added another and it was fine.  Oh well, perhaps it was something related to that glitch?  No matter, it seems fine.

2011-04-19 11:36:40Date error - human error? :-)
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.60.165

Never mind, it's working now, that's all that matters.

BTW, updated http://www.skepticalscience.com/poptech.php with colour coding (red = skeptic, green = proAGW, etc). Doesn't add that much but I just love colour coding, it's a compulsion of mine :-)

2011-04-19 11:53:21
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

Thanks for that update, I was going to ask if you could do that.  It'll be interesting to see how it progresses.  I've gone through maybe 20 of his papers from the list, ordered alphabetically in ascending order (on the Excel sheet).  So far one that I know is a peer reviewed research paper not from E&E is skeptical, while others I am not sure on, are pro-agw or neutral, or are from E&E or are believed by me to not be actual peer reviewed articles.  I'll finish the 20 and add a new comment in the PT discussion thread I started with the results or what I'd like second opinions on.

I'm not adding E&E articles.  If anyone wants to add them as online articles, fine, but I'm not going to spend my time doing that.

2011-04-20 13:00:10Uploaded Alex's spreadsheet
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.72.92

I've added Alex's spreadsheet to the list of resources up at the top of this thread:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/poptech_alex.xls

Some notes from Alex about his spreadsheet:

I've color-coded many of the boxes, based on these criteria:

  • light yellow: Energy and Environment publications
  • pink: comments, updates/corrections, responses
  • red: copies, likely duplications of same research published in different journals, never published (this last one is specific to "Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide" by Robinson - OISM head; as I understand it, this is a fake paper.  There is another of the same title by Willie Soon, actually published.  Not the same paper.)
  • green: different parts to same publication (one instance)
  • various shades of purple: publications in "Ecological" section dealing with the progression of plant growth over an extended (several year) time period.  This was relevant at the time I made the Excel sheet, as I was looking for independent and unique publications - I did not consider multiple papers on the same data set, as it were, especially qualifying, but this would have been open for discussion.
  • gray: published before a certain date (I think it was 1980 that I used).  This was in case the older papers presented questions or explanations that have since been answered or corrected.  The year was rather arbitrary, the main reason for it being that I was under the presumption that climate science really started to get a firm grip and grow around the turn of that decade.
Sections are separated by blackened boxes with white text labeling the titles.  The basic format for each paper is <Title [Author(s) Year, Journal of Publication]>.  I do not think that the format is consistent, as it was still in the making and there were changes I started to make halfway through that I did not apply to the first half.  There are no major differences though, minor ones if anything.
It was pretty much for my personal use, and I included a few comments for things to check up on more if I ever got the time to (I didn't on most).  Sorry if it seems a little ad hoc - the color code index (if you will) is not in the sheet, so anyone using it will likely not know what the colors mean.
2011-04-20 15:48:29Part II of Carbon Brief's analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.72.92

Carbon Brief get a few quotes from scientists of the 900+ papers. Would've been nice to have a larger collection than 3 scientists - I'm sure there are other scientists on record denouncing being on the list (Pielke Sr?). Nevertheless, added this to our resource list - an interesting way of approaching the list.

“Using our paper to support skepticism of anthropogenic global warming is misleading.” Part II of our analysis of the 900+ climate skeptic papers

I wonder if one way to look at the list is to whittle it down.

Trim the Energy & Environment papers

Trim the papers by authors linked to fossil fuel money

Trim the papers where the authors say their paper doesn't say what it's saying

Trim other papers that shouldn't be listed for whatever reason.

What do we have left?

2011-04-20 19:51:32
Hoskibui

hoskibui@gmail...
194.144.161.27

This is a great effort - I hope I will be able to help later (will be busy next week at least).

p.s. by the way, I was going to read this:


Wakening the Kraken (working title): Methane - The Hidden Danger
Started by Agnostic on Tue 19 Apr 2011, 09:56 AM

...and I ended up here?

2011-04-20 23:24:23FYI
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.150.97

PopTech includes a response to his critics at the bottom of his 900 papers page.

2011-04-21 06:25:17
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.149.101.148

PopTech's response to critics focuses mainly on criticism of journal selection and "lies" about various other topics that we do not have to bring up.  I for one do not think that sifting through the papers to find major funders, for instance, is necessary, and he'll have a hissy fit that will detract from the main focus, which is the actual science.  Let's just categorize his papers on what the science actually says, publish the animation and list and leave it at that.

Trims directly associated with PopTech's list ought to be saved for a full rebuttal of his list.  Presently, I do not think that this is a project we're working on.  Keeping E&E papers out should be our main goal for the time being, until May 15.

2011-04-21 09:56:43
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
97.83.150.37

@ Hoskibui

 

Just sent John an email on that issue.

2011-04-21 10:51:12Looking at it now...
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.72.92

This glitch happens when I move posts around from one thread to another. Bad idea!

2011-04-21 11:41:09Kraken bug fixed
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.72.92

And improved the code so it won't happen again, even if I do move posts around.

2011-04-21 16:21:53Uploaded latest spreadsheet
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
124.187.72.92

Here's the most recent EXCEL SPREADSHEET by Alex building on earlier work. Added it to the earlier post.