Comment

Comment on Climate scientists flee Twitter as hostility surges

rottingleaf@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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

Sort:hotnew top

Eximius@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
  REMINDER: THIS IS WHERE WE STARTED
  
  MY POINT = PROVEN CORRECT
  
  PLEASE KEEP MOVING THE GOALPOST
  
  source
  - Eximius@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 It was retracted due to fraud.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
    AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    lol ok bud
    
    source
- AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ 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 ⁨months⁩ 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
    AlexanderTheDead@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
    Tell me more about how antivax scientists didn’t successfully publish a paper with tons of biases and nonsensical findings.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments