3 ms·

I'm surprised anyone is still repeating that 98% consensus hoax. http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html http://richardtol

by jstalin 12y ago

I'm surprised anyone is still repeating that 98% consensus hoax. http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-chancellor-of.html http://richardtol.blogspot.com/2013/08/open-letter-to-vice-c...

epistasis 12y ago
I'm sorry, are you seriously saying that this paper was a hoax and the data was manufactured, based on a ranty blog post? That's ridiculous, and just proves the point of the comment you were replying to.
- pdeuchler 12y ago
  Dr. Tol was appointed to both the Copenhagen Consensus and the IPCC, is an accomplished and respected economist, and very often is a voice of reason for both sides of the debate. I hope you can appreciate the meta-irony of declaring a blog post "ranty" to invalidate its findings and then going on to accuse the parent of proving a point about partisan ideology.
  - epistasis 12y ago
    First, the blog post does not rise to calling the initial survey a hoax. So that addition of jstalin's, is well, completely ridiculous and inappropriate. Second, the blog post is ranty (and many if not most scientists are ranty, in case you hadn't noticed). The associated comment manuscript isn't evidence of a hoax. I'm not surprised it wasn't accepted anywhere. There's no meta-irony in pointing that out.
    - om2 12y ago
      The post seems like strong evidence that the finding of the paper is wrong, or at least not justified by the study performed. "Hoax" taken literally would imply deliberate malfeasance, and that doesn't seem to be proven
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
conistonwater 12y ago
I read the linked blog post, and found it somewhat unconvincing. I am equally surprised anyone is repeating the myth of consensus myth: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/wsjs_shameful_climate_denial_the_scientific_consensus_is_not_a_myth/ http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/wsjs_shameful_climate_denial...
- jstalin 12y ago
  No response is complete without a reference to the Koch brothers, indeed.

by jstalin 12y ago

epistasis 12y ago

I'm sorry, are you seriously saying that this paper was a hoax and the data was manufactured, based on a ranty blog post? That's ridiculous, and just proves the point of the comment you were replying to.

pdeuchler 12y ago
Dr. Tol was appointed to both the Copenhagen Consensus and the IPCC, is an accomplished and respected economist, and very often is a voice of reason for both sides of the debate. I hope you can appreciate the meta-irony of declaring a blog post "ranty" to invalidate its findings and then going on to accuse the parent of proving a point about partisan ideology.
- epistasis 12y ago
  First, the blog post does not rise to calling the initial survey a hoax. So that addition of jstalin's, is well, completely ridiculous and inappropriate. Second, the blog post is ranty (and many if not most scientists are ranty, in case you hadn't noticed). The associated comment manuscript isn't evidence of a hoax. I'm not surprised it wasn't accepted anywhere. There's no meta-irony in pointing that out.
  - om2 12y ago
    The post seems like strong evidence that the finding of the paper is wrong, or at least not justified by the study performed. "Hoax" taken literally would imply deliberate malfeasance, and that doesn't seem to be proven
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

conistonwater 12y ago

I read the linked blog post, and found it somewhat unconvincing. I am equally surprised anyone is repeating the myth of consensus myth: http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/wsjs_shameful_climate_denial_the_scientific_consensus_is_not_a_myth/ http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/wsjs_shameful_climate_denial...

jstalin 12y ago
No response is complete without a reference to the Koch brothers, indeed.