No need to get lost in the weeds: See the forest rather than examine the trees

“The core problem is the premise that skeptic scientists should be ignored because they are corrupt. The question is, who do these people rely on to prove this accusation? Rummage through any of the above individuals’ variety of writings and presentations, and a disturbing single source ultimately emerges”

Russell Cook describes The OTHER problem with the Lewandowsky paper and similar ‘skeptic’ motivation analysis: Core premise off the rails about fossil fuel industry corruption accusation. While some scientists get into the methodology and the details of the ‘research,’ just looking at the basic assumptions and the premise of a paper may tell you a lot about its integrity. Are these assumptions really valid? How do you know? Often, they are implicit and not put on the table for examination. In climate research, it is just this pattern of leaving important issues off the table that is bothering some folks.

Comments are closed.