5 ms·

Any chance this gets published if it somehow found the opposite to be true?

nabla9 7y ago
To answer your conspiratory rhetorical question: Yes it would. There are some good news from research reported, like "Slowdown in Antarctic mass loss from solid Earth and sea-level" feedbackshttps://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6444/eaav7908 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6444/eaav7908 Just because there is less good news than bad news, does not make science biased.
- tengbretson 7y ago
  > To answer your conspiratory rhetorical question: Yes it would. The accusatory tone of your response only reinforces my concern. It doesn't even require a "conspiracy" as you gibingly added. If a scientist considering publishing findings counter to consensus expects to be met with this kind of reaction from their peers, and shouts of "denier" at large, that's all it takes to put a finger on the scale to bias what gets published.
  - SamBam 7y ago
    You protest too much and show your clear intent. First, your "Any chance" question was clearly begging the question. The framing was that you believed the article wouldn't get published if it went the other way. Then, when shown evidence that such articles do, in fact, get published, and that there is no conspiracy against them, you somehow suggest that... that response will keep scientists from publishing their work?
  - nabla9 7y ago
    > a scientist considering publishing findings counter to consensus expects to be met with this kind of reaction from their peers, They don't in climate science if their research is solid. Objectively bad research get shunned of course. There is no basis for your suspicion.
- glofish 7y ago
  I will disagree here, science usually is quite biased! There are always lines of thinking that get into fashion, where exaggerated claims are more common. Climate change is one of those fields. Everybody and their little sister want to be at the forefront, and they can only get there if they either claim to the savior or become that one special person that points out yet another imminent catastrophe. It is like a 11'o clock news, nothing but bad news to get people tune in. Just to make sure, I want clearly state that I do believe that human-induced climate change is taking place. And that we should act, reducing waste, unnecessary air travel etc. On the other hand, how many times do we read about that there could beneficial aspects to climate change? Right now I can't recall any instance. This is what I don't buy. Every change will suck for some, it might be better for others. Talking about anything positive in the context is taboo and it is part of the scientific bias that I believe is present. makes us all weaker because we can't quite prepare for something built on exaggerations and sensationalism. We reward those that bring us bad news.
Angostura 7y ago
Are you suggesting systematic bias in climate change publication? If so, would you like to point at any evidence that this is happening?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

To answer your conspiratory rhetorical question: Yes it would. There are some good news from research reported, like "Slowdown in Antarctic mass loss from solid Earth and sea-level" feedbackshttps://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6444/eaav7908 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/364/6444/eaav7908 Just because there is less good news than bad news, does not make science biased.

tengbretson 7y ago
> To answer your conspiratory rhetorical question: Yes it would. The accusatory tone of your response only reinforces my concern. It doesn't even require a "conspiracy" as you gibingly added. If a scientist considering publishing findings counter to consensus expects to be met with this kind of reaction from their peers, and shouts of "denier" at large, that's all it takes to put a finger on the scale to bias what gets published.
- SamBam 7y ago
  You protest too much and show your clear intent. First, your "Any chance" question was clearly begging the question. The framing was that you believed the article wouldn't get published if it went the other way. Then, when shown evidence that such articles do, in fact, get published, and that there is no conspiracy against them, you somehow suggest that... that response will keep scientists from publishing their work?
- nabla9 7y ago
  > a scientist considering publishing findings counter to consensus expects to be met with this kind of reaction from their peers, They don't in climate science if their research is solid. Objectively bad research get shunned of course. There is no basis for your suspicion.
glofish 7y ago
I will disagree here, science usually is quite biased! There are always lines of thinking that get into fashion, where exaggerated claims are more common. Climate change is one of those fields. Everybody and their little sister want to be at the forefront, and they can only get there if they either claim to the savior or become that one special person that points out yet another imminent catastrophe. It is like a 11'o clock news, nothing but bad news to get people tune in. Just to make sure, I want clearly state that I do believe that human-induced climate change is taking place. And that we should act, reducing waste, unnecessary air travel etc. On the other hand, how many times do we read about that there could beneficial aspects to climate change? Right now I can't recall any instance. This is what I don't buy. Every change will suck for some, it might be better for others. Talking about anything positive in the context is taboo and it is part of the scientific bias that I believe is present. makes us all weaker because we can't quite prepare for something built on exaggerations and sensationalism. We reward those that bring us bad news.

Angostura 7y ago

Are you suggesting systematic bias in climate change publication? If so, would you like to point at any evidence that this is happening?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]