3 ms·
Just from a first look, the caption of the figure references Figure 5 in Haustein et al 2019 [1]. You can see that this figure is way more detailed and includes
by jphenningsen 7y ago
Just from a first look, the caption of the figure references Figure 5 in Haustein et al 2019 [1]. You can see that this figure is way more detailed and includes a confidence interval. This article is clearly not a scientific publication but aimed at a broader audience. As for your other questions about the details of the methods used to gather and analyse this dataset, I am sure you can find plenty of information in the actual paper and references therein.
Generally speaking however let me comment that you will not be able to formulate a meaningful critique of the nitty gritty details you inquire about without the equivalent experience of at least a PhD in the specific subfield.
[1] https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1 https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1
- jolfdb 7y ago"it's for a popular audience" is a bad justification for publishing misleading or wrong information that teaches people a wrong headed view of what a science is. It's not just poor quality, it's a actively harmful to culture and social progress. It's a supernormal stimulus, the journalism equivalent of replacing real foods by sugar and oil mixes -- it pushes people toward preferring wrong things over right things.
- craigzucchini 7y agoProbably get over yourself tho
- huslage 7y agoThe general public care about conclusions of the science, not making up their own minds about what the science says. The overall article does a very good job of summarizing the paper. I'm not sure that what you're looking at as "wrong information" actually qualifies as such.