Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on December 10, 2021.
This is funny
I am looking at the silly paper on an AI tool for spotting “denialists”
The training material codes Phil Jones Climategate email stating that he will keep certain papers out of the IPCC as climate denial category 5.2🤣
I'm starting to think this must be a Sokal!!
Another fun one
An accurate representation of my peer-reviewed research with @JessicaWeinkle @maue is climate denial category 1.7
More fun ‘n games with the Skeptical Science guys
My mere existence as described in the statement below from their training dataset is labeled as climate denial category 1.7 😎
My polite responses to Joe Romm earn a climate denial category 5.2 rating 😎
How did my widely-cited peer-reviewed work & I specifically became coded as "climate denial" in this algorithm?
Simple
Algorithm training was done by people pursuing a decade+ vendetta against me
They are automating character assassination & calling it "science"
Awesome!
More seriously
Let's say a Facebook or Twitter decides to run with the new AI climate denial detector
That means that anyone mentioning this peer-reviewed, widely-cited & accurate paper would be labeled a "denialist"
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/25/13/jcli-d-11-00719.1.xml
That's … crazy, right?
It also means that anyone mentioning me and the fact I am a professor at the University of Colorado and details of my accomplishments would be labeled by the algorithm as a "climate denialist"
I know the Skeptical Science guys intensely hate me, but this is . . . something
In the test of the climate denial algorithm it flagged a mention of this peer-reviewed paper (2005, 412 citations) as "climate denial"
Pielke Jr, R. A., Landsea, C., Mayfield, M., Layer, J., & Pasch, R. (2005). Hurricanes and global warming. BAMS, 86(11), 1571-1576.
On one level the climate denial algorithm is a huge success
These guys have spent a decade+ trying to demonize (falsely) me & my research as a "denier"
They have successfully automated that effort & in the process revealed to everyone exactly what they are up to 👀
More for this thread . . .
Other unambiguously true statements flagged as "climate denial" by the nice algorithm developed by the good folks doing this "study"
If we didn't know it already, I've got one of these🎯 on my back 🤓
Don't worry good science wins in the end😎
Originally tweeted by Roger Pielke Jr. (@RogerPielkeJr) on December 10, 2021.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is very worrying. The climate clergy are both ruthless and skilled in propaganda and suppressing rational arguments as if they are heresy. I hope that Dr. Pielke has the fortitude to continue to seek the truth; to not cave in to coercion.
I hate to admit it but these b*stards have the ear of politicians and much of the gullible public.
Religion (e.g. morality, ethics, law) for people capable of self-moderation. Competing interests to mitigate the progress of others running amuck, or not (e.g. single/central/monopolies). All’s fair in lust and abortion, I suppose.
This smells of Podesta. Who else would fund John Cook and his misfits for five years?
I wouldn’t be surprised.
The use of “Artificial Intelligence” can only be justified by a lack of acccess to the real thing.
They must be rattled about something. If the views you hold are true then why feel the need to seek out & fact check opponents so strongly? What’s the worry? Do you have a little nagging doubt that your views may not in fact be true after all, or is it something more sinister? Is this ‘Denialism’ really dangerous & a threat to something?
they should have used topic analysis.
long ago i worked for a company that sent 1800 field reps into the field daily to make reports
rather than read 100os of meeting notes a day i just used topic analysis.
it works
What is wrong with the good old coin toss then it’s basically the same thing and same prediction skill level.
While these algorithms are indeed artificial, they are not intelligent. They are just fancy expert systems, but instead of each decision node needing to be explicitly designed and coded into the program, they train “neural network” based systems to build up a (hopefully) more robust decision matrix. It is, of course, highly dependent on the training materials used. If you feed it faulty (biased, wrong, etc.) information, it will produce faulty results. You can only trust them as much as the people that trained them.
What a tool. Having been educated in computer science and then spending my business career actually using computers to do something useful, I can say this clown should be ostracized for the rest of his life.