Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (845341)	3/26/2015 8:31:38 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	2 Recommendations Recommended By FJB TideGlider Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1576206

babbling boobs and brain dead buttheads are the only source of science ratie believes in. speaking of anonymous mouthpieces of the incompetent, biased and secretive, it does seem to walk like and talk like and even whine like an incompetent, biased and secretive babbling boob. Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper Bob Tisdale / 3 hours ago March 26, 2015 Guest Post by Bob Tisdale It’s been almost 2 years since Cook et al. (2013) Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature was published. If you’re like me, you’ve lost track of the paper’s flaws, there were just so many, and how it is misrepresented, which is most of the time. Richard Tol has published an excellent summary of Cook et al. (2013) in his blog post Global warming consensus claim does not stand up (author’s cut). An edited version appeared in the Australian on March 24, 2015. Richard’s post begins: Now almost two years old, John Cook’s 97% consensus paper has been a runaway success. Downloaded over 300,000 times, voted the best 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters, frequently cited by peers and politicians from around the world, with a dedicated column in the Guardian, the paper seems to be the definitive proof that the science of climate change is settled. It isn’t. And it concludes: If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point. The rest of Richard Tol’s post is here. It’s well worth the time. Also see Andrew Montford’s comments about it in his post The Institute of Physics is Corrupt at BishopHill. UPDATE: Jo Nova has included parts of Richard’s article in her post The 97% Cook Consensus – when will Environ Res Letters retract it? wattsupwiththat.com