Monday, October 07, 2013

Another Climate Model Fail

Good grief, what do I have to do to get my point across?!

I ran across a web site called the Carbon Capture Report that analyzes online reaction to climate related stories. I notice that they analyze my posts on "carbon credit" (16 of them--17 after this is indexed, I guess).

My "tone" is apparently failing completely to register my utter disdain for the entire concept and the so-called science that is the basis for the scheme.

This is their user guide description of "tone" for whether it is positive or negative:

Tone/Positivity/Negativity. Specially-tuned linguistic algorithms examine the text of each document and determine the overall "tone" of the wording it uses. This does not measure how positive or negative the underlying events being reported on are, but rather how positive or negative the writer is portraying them as. For example, an announcement of a new wind turbine plant might be viewed as an extremely positive event for wind energy proponents, while local townspeople might view it as an extremely negative development to be fought. Both sides will likely generate news coverage casting the turbine plant in either a positive or negative light, respectively. This measure therefore offers insight into local and global reaction to new developments. Positivity and Negativity measures indicate the raw intensities of positive and negative content, while Tone is a composite of the two, with a positive score indicating the text is more positive, and a negative score indicating a more negative text. Tone can range from -100 to +100, but in practice usually falls into the range -10 to +10.

Only four of the posts were registered as negative, with the lowest (best) rating at -2.84%--on a post titled "So Now We Know They'll Kill"!

Oddly, I got a +3.48% tone rating for "When Rivers Run Green With Blood". WTF?

Astoundingly, my Battle Hymn of the Republic satire on Al Gore got +13.45 rating! Which exceeds the range they usually expect!

Repeated use of "Glory, glory, carbon credit!" was apparently model bait.

And the descriptions for a couple other measures are amusing, too:

•Polarity. Polarity measures the overall "emotional charge" of a text, independent of its tone. An article with equal levels of positive and negative content will have a Tone score of neutral, but if it contained significant emotional wording on both sides, it will still have a high polarity score. Polarity therefore measures how "emotional" an article is, ranging from 0 to 100, with lower scores indicating more "clinical" texts that simply recount facts, and higher scores indicating more impassioned pleas and discussions.
•Activity. Activity measures the intensity of "active language" in a text, indicating whether a text is more passive and scientific in nature, recounting a series of factual statements, or more active, encouraging the reader to take action and using intense language to discuss information. This indicator ranges from 0 to 100, with lower scores suggesting factual recollections and higher scores suggesting emotional calls to action.

My highest polarity was 17.04% (for the Battle Hymn satire), but 12 of my 16 posts had polarity in single digits. What do I need to do? Am I insufficiently disrespectful? Is my mockery insufficient? What?

I'm even a tad disappointed with the Activity scores, with 14 posts in the 20s, one in the teens, and another in the thirties. But still, I tend to factual recollections.

Good grief. This post analysis could be part of a body of "science" that demonstrates how well received global warming science and carbon credits are in the minds of the public!

But remember, it's only a model. Let's not be too shocked that it doesn't reflect reality--or predict my future posts on carbon credits.