Comment

Comment on Climate scientists flee Twitter as hostility surges

They werent selectively chosen. " An original, aggregate data set of all known major nonviolent and violent resistance campaigns from 1900 to 2006 is used to test these claims." As well as any researcher who isn’t a complete buffoon would only look at statistics that has only a 2-3 sigma chance of only being stochastic noise.

source

Sort:hotnew top

rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
The set of indicators, of course, was selectively chosen. The authors, of course, have decided which of these they consider important and which don’t, that is, decided upon weights and criteria.

source
- Eximius@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  That is complete unfounded fluff words. No paper would be published if it was biased and as selective as you say. Look at the paper at least briefly and we can discuss.
  
  I think you can download it here: researchgate.net/…/240678278_Why_Civil_Resistance…
  
  source
  - AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    REMINDER: THIS IS WHERE WE STARTED
    
    MY POINT = PROVEN CORRECT
    
    PLEASE KEEP MOVING THE GOALPOST
    
    source
    Eximius@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago
    The goal posts were not moved at any point. It was a discussion of the situation, as it is.
    
    Please look at the paper you refer to: www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/…/abstract It was only retracted because of “In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.” It was retracted due to fraud. I don’t think it’s in any way wise to blame the possibility of fraud on the peer review process. Just as fraud can happen in any field because some people decide to pathologically lie.
    
    However, besides the fraudulent ethics, the paper is fine, and as always previously reiterated multiple times. All it says are a bunch of maybes. It makes no extraordinary claims, it holds no conclusive proof, just a lot of “this maybe hints to something”. The paper is publishable.
    
    The actual scandal was caused by the Wakefield lying profusely in media.
    
    These are two different things: what Wakefield said in media, and what Wakefield said in the paper. You should separate them.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments
  - AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    No paper would be published if it was biased and as selective as you say.
    
    That is incredibly naive of you and truly points to your lack of credibility.
    
    source
    Eximius@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    You completely disregarded the paper.
    
    Completely disregarded peer review as a thing without any grounding.
    
    Went ad hominem as a hail marry.
    
    Bye.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments