Difference between revisions of "PopularTechnology.net"
From iGeek
m (1 revision imported) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | |||
− | |||
PopularTechnology.net did a collection 1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. This means the Consensus side needs to show a list of 45,000 papers that support AGW, to achieve their 97% claims, or we can agree that the claims of 97% are greatly overstated. | PopularTechnology.net did a collection 1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. This means the Consensus side needs to show a list of 45,000 papers that support AGW, to achieve their 97% claims, or we can agree that the claims of 97% are greatly overstated. | ||
− | < | + | <noinclude> |
− | |||
== 2014 PopularTechnology.net == | == 2014 PopularTechnology.net == | ||
1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. The point is that any study of papers that doesn't include these in the against-count, is cherry picking data (or not very good at data collection). Also, if they claim 97% consensus by paper count, just ask for their list of 45,000 papers, which would be required to make 1,350 only 3% of the total published. | 1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. The point is that any study of papers that doesn't include these in the against-count, is cherry picking data (or not very good at data collection). Also, if they claim 97% consensus by paper count, just ask for their list of 45,000 papers, which would be required to make 1,350 only 3% of the total published. | ||
Line 11: | Line 8: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
{{Template:Climate}} | {{Template:Climate}} | ||
− | [[Category:Climate]][[Category:Consensus]][[Category:Skeptics]][[Category:NoIndex]] | + | [[Category:Climate]][[Category:Consensus]][[Category:Skeptics]][[Category:NoIndex]][[Category:Study]] |
+ | </noinclude> |
Latest revision as of 13:47, 2 February 2019
PopularTechnology.net did a collection 1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. This means the Consensus side needs to show a list of 45,000 papers that support AGW, to achieve their 97% claims, or we can agree that the claims of 97% are greatly overstated.
2014 PopularTechnology.net
1,350+ Peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against AGW alarmism. The point is that any study of papers that doesn't include these in the against-count, is cherry picking data (or not very good at data collection). Also, if they claim 97% consensus by paper count, just ask for their list of 45,000 papers, which would be required to make 1,350 only 3% of the total published.