3 ms·
Forgive me, I'm doing my best to stay above board. This is not an attack... You misunderstand me. I think that 11944 was too many papers, and should be narro
by midwest1 11y ago
Forgive me, I'm doing my best to stay above board. This is not an attack...
You misunderstand me.
I think that 11944 was too many papers, and should be narrowed down to papers by hard scientists. I'm saying out of those 11944, a potentially huge number were social studies, news studies, and other fields that have nothing to do with climate modeling. When you remove those from the 11944, what do you have? 10000? 5000? 1000?
It's completely negligent, at the least.
So, how big is that majority, really? And how many of them agree with the IPCCs more conservative estimates vs the scary, less likely ones?
It's really hard to say with noise like this. And no, this doesn't mean I get my science opinions from Rush Limbaugh. That's noise, too.
- splawn 11y agoNo offense taken, and I can tell you are not just parroting political blogs which is refreshing. I do see your point, but as I will explain later, for a meta-study I think they did the best that they possibly could have. It says that only .07% of the abstracts reject AGW. That is a huge signal. This study shows that climate change isn't controversial within science journals as it is made out to be in the news media, which is the only reason people think it is controversial. If its not controversial among scientists then it must fit within the scientific consensus. Also, There is a problem with fixing the study in the way you mention. If they categorize scientists as "hard" or "soft" then the study becomes prone to be rejected during peer-review because at that point its results would hinge on their ability to make that distinction without bias.
- splawn 11y agoReally I think its main weakness is that it is a meta-study.. which always tend to have issues like you mention. I find it compelling enough though.