tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post8855482147472935765..comments2024-03-28T06:43:02.954+00:00Comments on Variable Variability: Blog network analysis: WUWT & Co. isolated from scienceVictor Venemahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-1407994225887454772015-01-04T17:54:42.357+00:002015-01-04T17:54:42.357+00:00Sou, no complaints yet :), but if you would commen...Sou, no complaints yet :), but if you would comment here like you sometimes write on HotWhopper, ...<br /><br />WUWT and Co. simply do not like the result. That they protest is no reason in itself to change something and I did not hear any good arguments from them. <br /><br />The article was fine, but the title a little strong given that it was only based on 3 responses in the surveys. It is funny that with so many comments pleading allegiance to the cause of delaying mitigation, no mitigation skeptic found this argument. (Or at least I did not see it.) I would like to stay true to myself. All that you have is your soul. Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-72892168396957416992015-01-04T17:25:31.799+00:002015-01-04T17:25:31.799+00:00Oh no! Please don't tell me to tone it down. (...Oh no! Please don't tell me to tone it down. (Just kidding - feel free.) <br /><br />All I want to say this time is that I've never found it productive to pander to criticisms from fake sceptics (is that term permitted?) One will never please them (and why should one try).<br /><br />Your original article was just fine.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-31027917509210166412014-12-31T02:04:18.424+00:002014-12-31T02:04:18.424+00:00Ms. Jarreau is apparently taking lessons in social...Ms. Jarreau is apparently taking lessons in social network analysis from Wegman's grad student. Error can be found on both sides of the climate issue.Tom Fullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-56522599975117449502014-12-30T23:16:30.870+00:002014-12-30T23:16:30.870+00:00metzomagic, I know your name. :) Sou is doing a gr...metzomagic, I know your name. :) Sou is doing a great job, but if she would comment here I might also have to ask her to tone down.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-88632235085015412542014-12-30T21:59:05.771+00:002014-12-30T21:59:05.771+00:00Victor, hi,
You said above:
(Metzomagic, please ...Victor, hi,<br /><br />You said above:<br /><br /><i>(Metzomagic, please try to formulate a bit more formally in future. Even if this is not a science post, but a science "debate" post, I do not want this place to go down to the linguistic level of WUWT & Co.)</i><br /><br />Oh, believe me, I am firmly in the pro-science camp. I do like a bit of snark in my posts though. So you have to read it like it's Sou that's posting :-) First time posting here, so I'll aim to make it less ambiguous next time.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-26951085127960131802014-12-30T14:58:29.302+00:002014-12-30T14:58:29.302+00:00That's fascinating. Just as well I took part:)...That's fascinating. Just as well I took part:)<br /><br />HotWhopper (plug), Greg Laden's blog and Rabett Run stick to science in contrast to Judith Curry's blog. Hers is a political blog in the main and she frequently posts denier "guest" articles which are pseudo-science at best, and often wouldn't even rate that description.<br /><br />ClimateProgress will often have science, but also technology and politics. DeepClimate has a lot of science as well. <br /><br />Judith is dreaming if she thinks otherwise.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-35826687596310967262014-12-29T21:33:47.873+00:002014-12-29T21:33:47.873+00:00Hi John Russel, I had just added the update that t...Hi John Russel, I had just added the update that the presence of Mark Lynas and the Klimazwiebel in the yellow cluster depends on only one link, on only one blogger mentioning them. And that such details should not be taken seriously. <br /><br />Mark Lynas, if I got the right person, also argues quite strongly against the environmental movement for their positions against nuclear power and GMOs. I can imagine that some mitigation sceptics like that. Some seem to have a general problem with the environmental movement and climate change is just a small facet of that. Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-87277862413587209762014-12-29T19:06:25.807+00:002014-12-29T19:06:25.807+00:00I was surprised that Mark Lynas's blog, being ...I was surprised that Mark Lynas's blog, being very much pro-consensus science (author of '6 Degrees'), is so surrounded by anti-science blogs. John Russell (@JohnRussell40)https://twitter.com/JohnRussell40noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-79406441980052483012014-12-28T21:52:06.702+00:002014-12-28T21:52:06.702+00:00Thus, William, you agree with Anthony Watts that q...Thus, William, you agree with Anthony Watts that quantity is more important than quality? :-)<br /><br />If you would write more comments in your perl scripts, you might be even bigger next time.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-35770431868187791072014-12-28T21:47:20.760+00:002014-12-28T21:47:20.760+00:00I feel that I should point out that I'm in a l...I feel that I should point out that I'm in a larger font than JEB, Eli, and Sou :-)William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-58279900628660128352014-12-28T21:35:06.120+00:002014-12-28T21:35:06.120+00:00Judith Curry already found it interesting.
She wr...<a href="http://judithcurry.com/2014/12/28/climate-blogosphere-discussion-ii/" rel="nofollow">Judith Curry already found it interesting.</a><br /><br />She writes that she did participate, but did not mention any other blogs. She does not write whether she would have mentioned WUWT & Co. or RealClimate & Co. The tone of the post kinda suggests the former, which would in that case not have changed the isolation of this cluster.<br /><br />She write: <i>"And Venema thinks the right hand side of the diagram represents ‘science’? With HotWhopper, Greg Laden, ThinkProgress, Rabett Run, DeepClimate? Ouch."</i><br /><br />I am not aware of writing anything like that. I just described the two clusters that came out of the automatic analysis of the links/mentions. These blogs Curry does not seem to like are in the purple cluster with the science blogs and interacts with them. That seem to be more than we can say of WUWT & Co, while you could expect them to be interested as self-proclaimed guardians of the scientific method.<br /><br />Judith Curry also somehow did not quote the part where I wrote that just as the isolated WUWT & Co. cluster, there is an isolated cluster with Monbiot & Co. That would not have fitted to the message that a climate scientist is again unprovoked picking at those poor victims of Organized Science. <br /><br />Had WUWT & Co. participated and mentioned the blogs they read, the results may have looked differently. It could, however, also be that their cluster would just have been bigger, but just as isolated.<br /><br />(Metzomagic, please try to formulate a bit more formally in future. Even if this is not a science post, but a science "debate" post, I do not want this place to go down to the linguistic level of WUWT & Co.)Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-11091251152086556742014-12-28T21:12:51.519+00:002014-12-28T21:12:51.519+00:00As Judith Curry might say: "Interesting"...As Judith Curry might say: "Interesting". WUWT has one incoming link from Ed Hawkins' site. It has to be in that direction, because I'm 99% sure Anthony doesn't read any science-based sites on a regular basis. Ed probably reads WUWT just to find out what type of lunacy is likely to emanate from there and propagate through the denialosphere next.<br /><br />I was trying to figure out how Climate Audit and Climate Etc. could even appear on the map if they had no links, when I decided to read Paige's methodology more carefully. And this clears up that little mystery:<br /><br /><i>Nodes with no outgoing edges represent either blogs whose authors did not take my survey, or blogs whose authors didn't list any other blogs as ones they read on a regular basis.</i><br /><br />Ah. So they didn't take the survey. Figures. They are afraid to participate in anything that might paint them as part of the the lunatic fringe. Maybe they did learn something from the Lewandowsky affair :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9093436161326155359.post-9458138228852006652014-12-28T18:08:19.641+00:002014-12-28T18:08:19.641+00:00Some comments for Paige Brown Jarreau (I seem to h...Some comments for Paige Brown Jarreau (I seem to have trouble commenting at her blog) that may be more useful for her than for my readers and I thus did not note above. <br /><br />I was somewhat surprised that your blog is not more dominant. That is a really good sign that you really good a good sample of the blogging network and not just your direct network.<br /><br />Like I wrote, I find the network surprisingly egalitarian. Except for Rocket Science, the links seem spread very uniformly. Just an intuitive observation. It may be interesting to compute some network measures and compare them to other (blog/internet sites/link) networks. For example, does a power law probability distribution fit through the distribution of the number of links? If yes, how does this exponent compare to other networks.<br /><br />I am wondering how well the various sciences are represented. The network seems to be dominated by natural science. There do not seem to be much humanities or social science in the network. Is the distinction science vs humanities so strong in the USA, that these people may not have seen themselves as target of this survey? The Dutch/German word Wetenschap/Wissenschaft can be used both for the natural sciences and for all sciences. You have to guess the intent from the context or the writer has to specify it more clearly.Victor Venemahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02842816166712285801noreply@blogger.com