FuManchu's Comments

Yes, when I wrote "None of the skeptic blogs actually posted the survey link" that means that I know they were sent the link and that they did not post it. In fact in the link I posted Steve McIntyre acknowledges he received an email but did not respond to it. Not sure why you're pointing that out to me.

The other point still stands: if I were to do a research item on "How much sand do Feminists have in their vaginas?," and all the feminist blogs refused to post the survey leaving the only respondents from men's right's blogs... I think it would be clear to anyone that it's a bad idea to go forward with it. I should be aware that animosity between the two groups alone could affect the fraudulent responses when it's only an internet survey.

Part of the whole "skeptic community" issues -- the one who are actually doing published research, not just the 'it's a lie!' people -- is that the referee'd journals are kinda doing a shoddy job, and there's a lot of dreck that gets through which makes good press. This published research is a perfect example.

I don't think I'm actually 'skeptical' or 'denying' of most of the global warming results, anyhow. I certainly think the skeptics make mountains out of molehills in general. But I'm always shocked how the skeptic blogger make salient points abut the corrupted publishing process. I thought I witnessed some nasty publishing fights when I was working on my thesis, but the climate community involves the press and politicians over the same petty stuff.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Yea, the skeptic blogs have already shown the crappy methodology. See Steve McIntyre here: http://climateaudit.org/2012/09/08/lewandowsky-scam/

None of the skeptic blogs actually posted the survey link. There are comments in the blogs that did post it openly discussing how its meant to associate 'deniers' with conspiracy theorists. Also, IT WAS AN INTERNET QUESTIONNAIRE.

Of the respondents who were 'deniers', half of them held positions inconsistent with the majority of the skeptic blog community. The large majority of 'conspiracy theorists' fell into this group. If you remove those who are inconsistent, then the 'denier' and 'believer' communities aren't too different.

It's funny because this is exactly the sort of thing that the skeptics complain about: the problems with the research are not intentional, but negligent. If they invited a denier who had views even slightly more rational than Sen. Inhofe, they could have done a legitmate study.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
  3 replies
Login to comment.

Profile for FuManchu

  • Member Since 2012/09/10


Statistics

Comments

  • Threads Started 2
  • Replies Posted 1
  • Likes Received 1
  • Abuse Flags 0
X

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More