Skip to main content
12 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 14, 2013 at 22:14 comment added Mark I never said they were, where did you get the idea that I have that idea? As quoted above "Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus."
Jun 14, 2013 at 15:51 history edited TallDave CC BY-SA 3.0
added 911 characters in body
Jun 14, 2013 at 15:45 history edited TallDave CC BY-SA 3.0
added 911 characters in body
Jun 14, 2013 at 15:28 comment added TallDave matt_black -- So? Cook is partisan too. Indeed, nearly all the authors cited above are strong partisans, as are most of the publications cited. WUWT is far more credible. mark -- Where did you get the idea every paper reviewed was self-rated?
Jun 14, 2013 at 5:15 history notice added Oddthinking Needs citation
Jun 14, 2013 at 2:08 review First posts
Jun 14, 2013 at 2:24
Jun 14, 2013 at 2:07 comment added Larian LeQuella Welcome to Skeptics! Please provide some references to support your claims.
Jun 13, 2013 at 23:05 comment added Mark The 97.2% figure is from scientists' self-ratings of their papers, thus your first (strongest) point is irrelevant.
Jun 13, 2013 at 21:12 comment added matt_black I actually think your criticism have some validity, but logic alone doesn't meet the rigorous standards of skeptics.SE. We need reliable references and (possibly) some block quotes to demonstrate people said what you claim. Quoting WUWT alone won't meet this standard as it is as partizan in this debate as the site used by Cook et. al.. But you might be able to demonstrate the credibility of the WUWT discussion by tracing the comments themselves to their makers who have reputations independent of WUWT. I'd upvote if you made that case.
Jun 13, 2013 at 19:33 history edited TallDave CC BY-SA 3.0
added 130 characters in body
Jun 13, 2013 at 19:27 history edited TallDave CC BY-SA 3.0
added 130 characters in body
Jun 13, 2013 at 19:21 history answered TallDave CC BY-SA 3.0