3 ms·

I'm not challenging the theory, I'm challengingthe fact that number of studies mean nohing. and that there's an obvious bias in researcher researching along th

I'm not challenging the theory, I'm challengingthe fact that number of studies mean nohing. and that there's an obvious bias in researcher researching along the line of their own grants, so a slightly better approach would be to look if there's an evident deviation in the proportion between funding A: funding B and research A : research B findings, with A : B being opposing theories. if using climate change make as subject makes you feel uneasy and threatened, let's start with A and B being the faces of coffe good / coffee bad debate.

tsimionescu 5y ago
My point was exactly that anthropogenic climate change / natural climate change are not A / B, they are not equally valid working hypotheses that we should research. They are more akin to round earth / flat earth. At some point in the past (say, 80s), yes, they were A / B, and there was significant funding for both. But the results of those studies were clear: it's A. There's no reason to keep investing in B, just like there's no reason to keep investing in flat earth theories. We know the earth is round, we know climate change is man made. There are more important details to keep studying (how bad is it, what kinds of changes can stop it, where specifically will it hurt the most etc). But there's no reason to keep throwing money away on studying a hypothesis which has already been studied and has been conclusively found to be wrong (natural climate change).
- avereveard 5y ago
  Doesn't matter the point stil stands unchallenged: you cannot generally use study count to judge consensus, and especially you can't use it if you're not correcting for the forcing effect of grants application. Today more than ever since a lot of these studies are just p-value hacking ran off collected data and no theory behind to validate. And if you apply such meta analysis to flat earther I still expect the results to be consistent, given 0 grants are given to study the opposite, if you run the result/grant meta-analysis, you'll get both that the research is biased (high correlation between grant and results) and that the overall result/grant ratio is skewed againt the flat earth theory from the studies that were granted from flat earthers and failed to demonstrate the hypothesis.

tsimionescu 5y ago

My point was exactly that anthropogenic climate change / natural climate change are not A / B, they are not equally valid working hypotheses that we should research. They are more akin to round earth / flat earth. At some point in the past (say, 80s), yes, they were A / B, and there was significant funding for both. But the results of those studies were clear: it's A. There's no reason to keep investing in B, just like there's no reason to keep investing in flat earth theories. We know the earth is round, we know climate change is man made. There are more important details to keep studying (how bad is it, what kinds of changes can stop it, where specifically will it hurt the most etc). But there's no reason to keep throwing money away on studying a hypothesis which has already been studied and has been conclusively found to be wrong (natural climate change).

avereveard 5y ago
Doesn't matter the point stil stands unchallenged: you cannot generally use study count to judge consensus, and especially you can't use it if you're not correcting for the forcing effect of grants application. Today more than ever since a lot of these studies are just p-value hacking ran off collected data and no theory behind to validate. And if you apply such meta analysis to flat earther I still expect the results to be consistent, given 0 grants are given to study the opposite, if you run the result/grant meta-analysis, you'll get both that the research is biased (high correlation between grant and results) and that the overall result/grant ratio is skewed againt the flat earth theory from the studies that were granted from flat earthers and failed to demonstrate the hypothesis.