4 ms·
UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation
- hga 17y agoHmmm: Anecdotal evidence from non-peer reviewed popular news media, student dissertations and environmental advocacy organization reports and web site articles that supports our thesis, good. Serious research that's kept out of blessed peer-reviewed journals by our conspiracy that doesn't support our thesis, bad.
- lutorm 17y agoYour comment implies that the IPCC panel started with an idea of what conclusion they wanted to make. What is your evidence that's the case. It's entirely invalid to say that because they came to a certain conclusion and the majority of the cited studies support that conclusion, they picked the citations to support it. That claim can be applied to any valid scientific review. It uses some sort of Catch-22 argument that because the evidence support the conclusion, the evidence must have been cherry-picked. With that view, no science would be valid. Besides, your comment doesn't make sense. What about all the anecdotal evidence from non-scientific sources that do support their thesis but was excluded from the report? Without assessing the rates of the complementary claims, your statement just looks like good, old-fashioned selection bias.
- hga 17y agoI'm not saying anything about why they engaged in this observed behavior other than "good" and "bad", the meat of the point is that they have vastly different standards for what they consider to be evidence worth citing in their reports. The real key is how they treat unfavorable serious research, not what they pick and chose from un-peer reviewed anecdotal sources. And how they're willing to use the latter, but made a big deal about how the research of their critics wasn't peer reviewed or in a blessed journal ... when they were conspiring to arrange just that outcome. I think it's clear where the real selection bias is. Look, the essence of science (that doesn't first start with experimental data) is that you put forward a theory, marshal evidence in its favor and answer all the criticism and evidence not in its favor. If you hide, obfuscate or destroy your evidence and refuse to answer your critics you aren't doing science.
- yummyfajitas 17y agoIn general, a scientific review does not cite nonexistent/non-peer reviewed/advocate sources [1]. It's entirely invalid to say that because they came to a certain conclusion and the majority of the cited studies support that conclusion, they picked the citations to support it. The argument is being made that because they eschewed the normal practice and included unscientific citations only in support of their thesis, we can conclude cherrypicking was going on. You can't apply it to a normal review, since a normal scientific review doesn't normally base their claims on anecdotes from mountaineering magazines. [1] Such sources are occasionally cited as novelties or as evidence of importance of the topic. E.g., "as evidenced by recent media attention \cite{NYT, FOX, NBC, CBS} my topic is important".
- jcnnghm 17y agoDo they still get their trillion dollars?
- hga 17y agoThe global warming industry is Too Big to Fail.
- diego_moita 17y agoDoes anyone know an effective way on how to filter out this drivel with greasemonkey? Unfortunatelly it doesn't use always one single word/expression we can use to catch it.
- jamesbritt 17y agoIf you truly think it's drivel, then flag it.