|
dcnovice -> RE: Study shows climate science deniers associated with conspiratorial thinking in general (4/12/2014 1:12:56 PM)
|
quote:
97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them
It's a slow afternoon, so I gave this a look. A few things caught my eye.
To get to the truth, I emailed a sample of scientists whose papers were used in the study and asked them if the categorization by Cook et al. (2013) is an accurate representation of their paper.
"I" is Andrew--an IT guy rather than a climate scientist. He doesn't say how large his sample was, nor does he explain how he selected its members. One of the comments makes an interesting point: "All the scientist you have presented on the list is well-known 'skeptics' of AGW."
Their responses are eye opening and evidence that the Cook et al. (2013) team falsely classified scientists' papers as "endorsing AGW", apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors.
"Falsely" is an interesting choice of adverb, because its echo of "falsehood" suggests that the misclassification of papers was deliberate rather than simply mistaken. Andrew presents no evidence of deliberate deceit by Cook et al. "Apparently" is another slick adverb, allowing Andrew to suggest something he can't possibly prove.
Conclusion: The Cook et al. (2013) study is obviously littered with falsely classified papers making its conclusions baseless and its promotion by those in the media misleading.
The Cook study assessed 12,000 papers. Popular Technology (a site not without its own agenda) found problems with 13. That's 13 more than I'd like, but it's a far cry from "obviously littered."
|
|
|
|
