Comments on: Adventures in social network analysis http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:33:20 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Tim Lambert http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164614 Tim Lambert Tue, 18 Jul 2006 14:23:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164614 TJ Olson, Bray's survey of climatologists was rubbish. <a href="http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/" rel="nofollow">See here.</a> TJ Olson, Bray’s survey of climatologists was rubbish. See here.

]]> By: chrisl http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164608 chrisl Tue, 18 Jul 2006 12:50:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164608 Hmmm I was referring to you Hmmm I was referring to you

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164603 John Quiggin Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:28:57 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164603 "La la la I’m not listening" Indeed you're not, but you don't have to announce the fact. “La la la I’m not listening”

Indeed you’re not, but you don’t have to announce the fact.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164602 John Quiggin Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:26:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164602 Linking to SEPP is not exactly the best way to convince anyone that opposition to AGW is apolitical. And you've apparently not read the Aschenbach interview in which Gray describes AGW theory <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR2006052301305_5.html">as a plot to bring in world government</a>. As for McIntyre & McKitrick, they are about as deeply enmeshed in righwing political networks as it is possible to be. Linking to SEPP is not exactly the best way to convince anyone that opposition to AGW is apolitical. And you’ve apparently not read the Aschenbach interview in which Gray describes AGW theory as a plot to bring in world government. As for McIntyre & McKitrick, they are about as deeply enmeshed in righwing political networks as it is possible to be.

]]> By: T J Olson http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164600 T J Olson Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:12:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164600 Hurrican prediction expert William Gray at Colorado State University has joined "the denialists." http://www.westword.com/Issues/2006-06-29/news/feature.html Actually, according to this survey of 530 climatologists a few years ago, "the denialists" have lots of company. http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Bray.htm While these scientists definitely lean toward anthropogenic global warming, there is definitely no "consensus." Far from being accurately characterized as "right wing" as John Quiggin believes, neither Steve McIntire nor William Gray (see article) are sensibly described as such. The matter of ACW has become a religious issue for many people - an article of faith beyond falsifiability, as evident here on this thread. That's unfortunate. Considering that billions of dollars annually are spent on such research, one would think that the people had a right to know if such consequential work could be corroborated or not. Apparently, the journal "Nature" believed that even knowing about dissent among climatologists was not important enough to publish. Hurrican prediction expert William Gray at Colorado State University has joined “the denialists.” http://www.westword.com/Issues/2006-06-29/news/feature.html

Actually, according to this survey of 530 climatologists a few years ago, “the denialists” have lots of company.
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/Bray.htm
While these scientists definitely lean toward anthropogenic global warming, there is definitely no “consensus.”

Far from being accurately characterized as “right wing” as John Quiggin believes, neither Steve McIntire nor William Gray (see article) are sensibly described as such. The matter of ACW has become a religious issue for many people – an article of faith beyond falsifiability, as evident here on this thread.

That’s unfortunate. Considering that billions of dollars annually are spent on such research, one would think that the people had a right to know if such consequential work could be corroborated or not. Apparently, the journal “Nature” believed that even knowing about dissent among climatologists was not important enough to publish.

]]> By: chrisl http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164596 chrisl Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:22:51 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164596 Again, to restate the obvious, a partisan document like the Wegman report is redundant where it agrees with the NAS study and unreliable where it does not. La la la I'm not listening Again, to restate the obvious, a partisan document like the Wegman report is redundant where it agrees with the NAS study and unreliable where it does not.
La la la I’m not listening

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164587 John Quiggin Tue, 18 Jul 2006 09:18:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164587 If your "peer review" is the kind undertaken by Barton's Committee and the Marshall Institute then it is indeed my "war on science". If your “peer review” is the kind undertaken by Barton’s Committee and the Marshall Institute then it is indeed my “war on science”.

]]> By: chrisl http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164584 chrisl Tue, 18 Jul 2006 08:31:04 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164584 One man's "peer review" is another man's "war on science" And a REPUBLICAN war on science {Boo Hiss) Spinning nicely Mr Quiggin One man’s “peer review” is another man’s “war on science”
And a REPUBLICAN war on science
{Boo Hiss)
Spinning nicely Mr Quiggin

]]> By: JohnLopresti http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164569 JohnLopresti Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:46:10 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164569 JQ, Next I am going to be referring your method to a noted scholar who published a book on the history of presidential signing statements; though, I think his difficulty requires a neural networks equation. The problem as I understand it is Boston Globe's Charlie Savage has counted about 780 Bush statements since 2001 which "purport" to negate statute; but the OLC person who represented the administration in Senate Judiciary Committee hearings approximately last week cited only 112 GWBush constitutional blue pencillings; that is quite a disparity of estimates. The scholar to whom I refer likes to examine each memorandum's cites by statutory provision; I think the OLC person counts as one statement a memo that enumerates, perhaps a dozen or more displeasing statutes. Then there is the permutation factor if one takes the scholar's approach: negation of ten provisions in the current memorandum multiplied by the number of other laws which rely upon the negated statute's individually blue pencilled provisions for validity. Sociologic statistics seems to approach neural networks, though. I will send the scholar person to glance at this nice thread you have launched, and let him take it from there, should he be interested in exploring the math of signing statements further. JQ, Next I am going to be referring your method to a noted scholar who published a book on the history of presidential signing statements; though, I think his difficulty requires a neural networks equation. The problem as I understand it is Boston Globe’s Charlie Savage has counted about 780 Bush statements since 2001 which “purport” to negate statute; but the OLC person who represented the administration in Senate Judiciary Committee hearings approximately last week cited only 112 GWBush constitutional blue pencillings; that is quite a disparity of estimates. The scholar to whom I refer likes to examine each memorandum’s cites by statutory provision; I think the OLC person counts as one statement a memo that enumerates, perhaps a dozen or more displeasing statutes. Then there is the permutation factor if one takes the scholar’s approach: negation of ten provisions in the current memorandum multiplied by the number of other laws which rely upon the negated statute’s individually blue pencilled provisions for validity. Sociologic statistics seems to approach neural networks, though. I will send the scholar person to glance at this nice thread you have launched, and let him take it from there, should he be interested in exploring the math of signing statements further.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164564 John Quiggin Tue, 18 Jul 2006 01:07:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164564 If you've been following the debate at all, bryan, you'll be aware that Mann's work has been repeatedly attacked by right-wing think tanks and people associated with them (such as McKitrick). These groups don't have any interest in Principal Components Analysis or related issues, and would take entirely the opposite line if the policy conclusions were reversed. Barton's committee was part of that process, as I mentioned in the intro. On your "flat earth" point, I'd be interested to in the names of the scientists who advocated the flat earth theory, and even more interested if you could point to right-wing think tanks (or their historical equivalent) who took the opposite view. If you’ve been following the debate at all, bryan, you’ll be aware that Mann’s work has been repeatedly attacked by right-wing think tanks and people associated with them (such as McKitrick). These groups don’t have any interest in Principal Components Analysis or related issues, and would take entirely the opposite line if the policy conclusions were reversed. Barton’s committee was part of that process, as I mentioned in the intro.

On your “flat earth” point, I’d be interested to in the names of the scientists who advocated the flat earth theory, and even more interested if you could point to right-wing think tanks (or their historical equivalent) who took the opposite view.

]]> By: fulldroolcup http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164557 fulldroolcup Mon, 17 Jul 2006 23:33:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164557 Is the "al" in et al. our peer-reviewed global climate expert Al Gore? Just askin', is all..... ;) Is the “al” in et al. our peer-reviewed global climate expert Al Gore?

Just askin’, is all….. ;)

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164551 John Quiggin Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:28:50 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164551 I did a count and, as it happens, I also have 42 co-authors. Can I now claim to be a central figure in economics? I did a count and, as it happens, I also have 42 co-authors. Can I now claim to be a central figure in economics?

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164550 John Quiggin Mon, 17 Jul 2006 22:27:03 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164550 "How many people Mann is connected to, and how strong the connections are. It’s not useful to poke fun at this first step as if it merely showed that Mann co-authored papers with his co-authors." Since "connected" = "co-authored with", this is precisely what the first graph shows, and all it can show. The second analysis might be interesting if it showed anything significant, but as bi restates, it doesn't. “How many people Mann is connected to, and how strong the connections are. It’s not useful to poke fun at this first step as if it merely showed that Mann co-authored papers with his co-authors.”

Since “connected” = “co-authored with”, this is precisely what the first graph shows, and all it can show.

The second analysis might be interesting if it showed anything significant, but as bi restates, it doesn’t.

]]> By: Bryan McRoberts http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164509 Bryan McRoberts Mon, 17 Jul 2006 18:29:49 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164509 Sorry - but how exactly is getting a statistics group to analyze a group of reports so easily lumped into the 'war on science'? It seems to me that they're using science and providing their facts and why they lead to a different conclusion than the conclusions in the opposing reports. Isn't this what science and scientists have done all along? If it were a war on science, they would fall back on non-scientific rationale... i.e. "because I say so", or "because everyone knows this". It appears that Mr. Quiggin thinks that the war on science is anything that attempts to debunk anything he accepts as scientific fact. It was accepted fact that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. We've come a long way since then, despite those who resisted challenging the accepted science of the day. The networking part of the report is interesting and would, at best, be an interesting reason for why the opposing group of reports could all be viewed as being produced by a single entity. In the end you still need to go through and look at each report critically, no matter what the connections are between the authors of those reports. Sorry – but how exactly is getting a statistics group to analyze a group of reports so easily lumped into the ‘war on science’? It seems to me that they’re using science and providing their facts and why they lead to a different conclusion than the conclusions in the opposing reports. Isn’t this what science and scientists have done all along? If it were a war on science, they would fall back on non-scientific rationale… i.e. “because I say so”, or “because everyone knows this”. It appears that Mr. Quiggin thinks that the war on science is anything that attempts to debunk anything he accepts as scientific fact. It was accepted fact that the earth was flat and the center of the universe. We’ve come a long way since then, despite those who resisted challenging the accepted science of the day. The networking part of the report is interesting and would, at best, be an interesting reason for why the opposing group of reports could all be viewed as being produced by a single entity. In the end you still need to go through and look at each report critically, no matter what the connections are between the authors of those reports.

]]> By: bi http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/comment-page-2/#comment-164499 bi Mon, 17 Jul 2006 16:20:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2006/07/15/adventures-in-social-network-analysis/#comment-164499 Functional: there isn't even a large degree of overlap. The report itself says that "Tett, Briffa and Cook emerge as ''belonging to their own cluster'' and they also exhibit high centrality" (emphasis mine). Functional: there isn’t even a large degree of overlap. The report itself says that “Tett, Briffa and Cook emerge as ‘’belonging to their own cluster’’ and they also exhibit high centrality” (emphasis mine).

]]>