Reblogged from Wattsup: Consensus=Nonsensus – Reviewing Cook et al (2016)

I take it that most so called experts and many real scholars never learnt that consensus is a political term that never ever existed in Theories of Science….. As usual most forgotten that Fallacies in argumentation never ever presents valid arguments. Fallacies are usually used by those who lack valid arguments or have a non-science agenda they try to follow…..

Watts Up With That?

Michelle Stirling writes:

A critical review of the most recent Cook et al (2016) consensus study.

There can’t be much more consensus than getting all the lead consensus study authors together to write a consensus on the consensus study. However, in my opinion, this Cook et al (2016) study suffers from the same problematic issues of earlier studies – beginning with the premise. I deconstruct. Comments welcome.

Consensus Nonsensus on 97%: Science is Not a Democracy

Stirling, Michelle, Consensus Nonsensus on 97%: Science is Not a Democracy (July 10, 2016). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2807652
Abstract:

A number of scholars who have previously undertaken studies on the alleged ‘consensus’ of the human impact on global warming have recently published a paper (Cook et al. 2016) which they claim confirms and strengthens their previous 97% consensus claims. This author rejects their findings and deconstructs both the premise of the relevance of consensus…

Visa originalinlägg 72 fler ord