Tweet
Re: Climate Change ( 3rd Version ) - Assertion & Denial
First of all this blog is not peer reviewed. Secondly I highly doubt this person was able to read 13950 articles even if he only read abstracts. If he did only read abstracts that is not reading an article. Thirdly he himself admits he took an extreme requirement to determine if an article had concerns about climate change: Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. One wonders what his qualifications are to decide if flaws are 'minor'. One also wonders how he was able to label flaws as minor from only reading the title of the article.
So in other words he dismissed all articles raising problems with climate change unless in his quick scan of it it also stated categorically that climate change was not occuring. Who was it that said that there are lies, damn lies and statistics? To properly do what he is attempting to do you would need a team of several scientists to go through the literature. It would not be this slipshod one person attempt. But then much like yourself he is not interested in doing it properly.
I'm surprised that you would fall for such a flawed methodology. Even if the message is music to your ears. So simply do the math. 13950 articles at say 5 mins each (the minimum amount of time needed to even do any kind of scan let alone decide if a doubt or flaw is minor - you know these are science articles not People magazine right?) would mean 1163 hours. Given a 40 hour work week this guy would have spent 29 unpaid weeks to do this. Get real, he's conning you. Posting this kind of bunk does not speak well to your credibility. The rest of us can read and analyze it ourselves believe it or not.
You are supposed to have scientific training and an interest in science. Can you think of other examples in science where the majority believed one thing and it turns out the minority was right? I bet you can think of plenty if you are truly educated in science. I can think of several myself and I am not a scientist or guy with an engineering degree.
Originally posted by Paul Beckwith
View Post
So in other words he dismissed all articles raising problems with climate change unless in his quick scan of it it also stated categorically that climate change was not occuring. Who was it that said that there are lies, damn lies and statistics? To properly do what he is attempting to do you would need a team of several scientists to go through the literature. It would not be this slipshod one person attempt. But then much like yourself he is not interested in doing it properly.
I'm surprised that you would fall for such a flawed methodology. Even if the message is music to your ears. So simply do the math. 13950 articles at say 5 mins each (the minimum amount of time needed to even do any kind of scan let alone decide if a doubt or flaw is minor - you know these are science articles not People magazine right?) would mean 1163 hours. Given a 40 hour work week this guy would have spent 29 unpaid weeks to do this. Get real, he's conning you. Posting this kind of bunk does not speak well to your credibility. The rest of us can read and analyze it ourselves believe it or not.
You are supposed to have scientific training and an interest in science. Can you think of other examples in science where the majority believed one thing and it turns out the minority was right? I bet you can think of plenty if you are truly educated in science. I can think of several myself and I am not a scientist or guy with an engineering degree.
Comment