tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post3621230946018491147..comments2023-07-14T03:38:09.995-04:00Comments on Green Herring: Commenting on lists and name-callingJim Prallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-53323582886886624442011-06-22T01:11:17.805-04:002011-06-22T01:11:17.805-04:00Hi,
Thanks for your work.
Just a quick note to ...Hi, <br /><br />Thanks for your work.<br /><br />Just a quick note to let you know that your <a href="http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/climate_authors_table.html" rel="nofollow">list</a> contains an error. Your link to Michael Mann goes to the wrong Michael Mann. There's more than one of them.<br /><br />Take careAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-54187749294617043272011-04-05T20:26:22.568-04:002011-04-05T20:26:22.568-04:00(six or seven figures in the U.S., perhaps?)
Skep...<i>(six or seven figures in the U.S., perhaps?)</i><br /><br />Skepticalscience.com reckons over 10 million US citizens fit the OISM signing criteria.<br /><br />0.3% of those who could have done actually signed...Nick Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05360924308743466075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-25965613927338014072011-04-05T16:03:38.802-04:002011-04-05T16:03:38.802-04:00Thanks, Nick. Your comments on ScepticalScience ma...Thanks, Nick. Your comments on ScepticalScience make good sense.<br /><br />My take on the OISM signers is that the great majority of them were genuinely skeptical of mainstream/consensus climate science (not just relying on the fact that the petition's language only rejects an extreme outcome.) The key point is that the petition has been touted as having lots of signers with relevant expertise, while in fact it cast a very wide net and took everyone's word for it that they had a B.Sc. in almost anything. Anybody with a BSc *ought* to be able to tell a gigaton from a petagram or a ppm; however the source population for having a BSc in anything is a pretty large number (six or seven figures in the U.S., perhaps?)<br /><br />The petition's own organizers narrowed down their own figures on signers with (any) Ph.D., around 9K, and further to people who they identified as climatologists (double digits), though they never identifies which signers they counted under these figures.Jim Prallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04033053570742850619noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-41022287769726169242011-04-05T11:09:25.076-04:002011-04-05T11:09:25.076-04:00Hi I read your U of T page on sources and though...Hi I read <a href="http://www.eecg.utoronto.ca/~prall/climate/list_sources.html" rel="nofollow"> your U of T page on sources</a> and thought you might be interested in passing on my views of an aspect of the OISM petition that seems to have been barely noticed by all the people culling the Mickey Mice and Spice girls and assessing the validity of the PhDs?<br /><br />Here is a link to a comment I made on Skepticalscience.com, which covers the strawmen inherent in the very wording of the petition itself.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html#10310" rel="nofollow"> link to my comment on skepticalscience's OISM page</a>Nick Palmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05360924308743466075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-61972088655418534102010-07-07T17:57:58.029-04:002010-07-07T17:57:58.029-04:00No one cares. No one is going to listen to people ...No one cares. No one is going to listen to people like Jim Prall. Ever. Deal with it buddy. We don't believe you, there's nothing you can say to make us believe you, and it isn't because we closed our minds; you closed them for us with exactly the kind of attitude that leads to behavior like this ridiculous list.<br /><br />Don't listen to Freeman Dyson, he doesn't know what he's talking about! The man, and most of the men and women on that list, could and would run rings around the Phil Joneses and Jim Pralls of the world. Not because they're smarter. But because they're more honest and they're also correct. Too bad so sad to see all those climate conferences devolve into jack squat, huh?<br /><br />By the way, when you want to make sure your condescension gets through, write like this, not your half-assed attempt at not coming off haughty. Hilarious brother.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-72380410190406808732010-07-07T14:26:09.957-04:002010-07-07T14:26:09.957-04:00Thanks for this blog, it's a good way for ever...Thanks for this blog, it's a good way for everyone to see the political bias behind your work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-7827870576814916912010-06-28T21:42:19.014-04:002010-06-28T21:42:19.014-04:00If you make a difference, you'll get people sh...If you make a difference, you'll get people shooting arrows at you. Look at it as a badge of honor.<br /><br />And hey, big congratulations on the paper - that is so cool that you stepped up to the plate and did it.Anna Hayneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176850465809297298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6425933403289654692.post-50867584924463375442010-06-28T14:45:55.008-04:002010-06-28T14:45:55.008-04:00The only other way to spin this into something sin...<i>The only other way to spin this into something sinister is to argue that someone evil *might use* the lists to persecute people regardless of our intentions. ... That objection of what someone might do with the list really falls down on the point Michael makes so well, that all the source lists I compiled were already on the web.</i><br /><br />I'm not convinced by this blacklist thing but the point is that your lists have now received the PNAS imprimatur. Anyone can make lists and stick them on the Web. Who cares? But PNAS-stamped lists are a whole nother thing. They really are potential (but, IMO, unlikely) blacklist fodder.<br /><br />While I'm here, can you please clarify one aspect of your methods? Your PNAS paper suggests an ambiguous method of searching Google Scholar for references and citations [I can't find the PDF! It was something like 'Finit Lastname' - something that suggested that only the first initial was used, anyway] and your website provides exact search terms that sort-of agree with this method but often had two or more initials. Fair enough. However, repeating the searches using those terms now produces some strange results - eg, fewer 'climate' publications for some authors than you found a year or more ago.<br /><br />Did you hand-finish the Google Scholar results for selected authors? That is, did you use extra name-variants for some of the authors on your lists?<br /><br />VBVinny Burgoohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13830703358571312302noreply@blogger.com