Post #243714 by aquarj on Tue, Jul 18, 2006 5:25 PM

More political venting huh?

Well anyway, I'd still contend that there is a tendency to be unscientific about the way science is invoked.

For example, the "903 articles" study involved searching in a publication database for abstracts containing the words "global climate change". There were several shortcomings to this study, if it was attempting to be scientific. Only abstracts were reviewed, not the content of the articles themselves. If there are any articles discussing the topic without using those 3 words, then their abstracts were ignored entirely. 928 abstracts were found and reviewed, with the conclusion that none of them attempted to refute the position that there is a human effect on recent global temperatures as a result of greenhouse gases. 75% were either "explicitly or implicitly" consistent with this position, and 25% took no position at all. This is simply not equivalent to saying something like "903 prior articles of global warming found that all, every single one, agreed as to the causes, primarily fossil fuel emissions". This statement is simply false and shouldn't be perpetuated as a scientific conclusion.

Personally, I think the study did identify a significant pattern, clearly showing some form of consensus. But it's not quite as conclusive and scientific as it is portrayed. The fact that I'm even saying so will presumably be interpreted by some as reeking of bias, and to me that's a shame because it shows a puzzling desire to suppress scientific rigor in favor of predetermined outcomes.

-Randy