Just responding to you deniars is getting boring so I'm going on the offensive.
You have complained about the content of the study, but do you have any critiques that you really believe could pass academic muster? Submit your critique of this study to the National Academy of Science, and summarize for us all right now, what will your "Conclusions" section say? Put up or shut up.
Quote:
We provide a broad assessment of the relative credibility of researchers convinced by the evidence (CE) of ACC and those unconvinced by the evidence (UE) of ACC. (page 1)
... Furthermore, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group, as opposed to less than 10% of the CE group. This indicates that the bulk of UE researchers on the
most prominent multisignatory statements about climate change have not published extensively in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
We examined a subsample of the 50 most-published (highest-expertise) researchers from each group... This method reveals large differences in relative expertise between CE and UE groups (Fig. 2).
Though the top-published researchers in the CE group have an average of 408 climate publications (median = 344), the top UE researchers average only 89 publications (median = 68; Mann-Whitney U test: W = 2,455; P < 10−15). Thus, this suggests that not all experts are equal, and top CE researchers have much stronger expertise in climate science than those in the top UE group.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
No comments:
Post a Comment