4 ms·
This article is nonsense. It takes observational data from a survey, averages it, doesn’t control for obvious medical factors that more strongly influence the o
by timr 3mo ago
This article is nonsense. It takes observational data from a survey, averages it, doesn’t control for obvious medical factors that more strongly influence the observed data than climate (e.g. illnesses), and then asserts that the correlation is causative.
It is not science. It’s just propaganda.
- thinkingkong 3mo agoTo what end? Either there’s a global conspiracy to destroy the planet or theres’s a global conspiracy to save the environment?
- timr 3mo agoOr neither option in your false dichotomy has any relation to the quality of this paper?
- thinkingkong 3mo agoYou quite literally used the word “propaganda” which is an intentional attempt to mislead or hide the truth. If the quality of the paper is in fact purposefully low and youre saying its for a reason just say what the reason is.
- timr 3mo agoThe reason is that it's propaganda. That also isn't even close to what the word means. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda
- tremon 3mo agoI look forward to reading your research article refuting this one. Please let us know the arxiv url when you're ready to publish.
- slopinthebag 3mo agoTypically bad research doesn’t require another article to be refuted. Is there something different about this case specifically?
- 8note 3mo agoi instead look forward to your study reproducing the results?
- derwiki 3mo agoAre you saying you think it’s unreasonable to disagree on a research paper unless you commit to publishing another paper in response?
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- Alpha3031 3mo agoFairly sure "may" means something different to "is" but maybe I'm just not the target audience and am reading it wrong.