/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11045159
>A few scientists out of thousands.
No, an alarmingly large number of scientists who claim the interpretation is wildly false in a single direction, indicating it's not random error.
>Again, the conclusions were replicated by other studies and by direct surveys.
The "direct survey" had less than a 10% response rate, AND refuted the original claim. The data was then further manipulated to omit the self reported papers with no position to get the 97% number.
Consider this: we have 100 candy experts (fatties) in a room. We hand out surveys asking them to tell us whether they believe snickers are the greatest candy bar ever made. 66.4% of those experts (fatties) mark "no opinion" while 0.7% mark "it is not the greatest candy" and 32.6% mark "it is the greatest candy"
You then throw out all the "no opinion" surveys and claim "97.1% of candy experts (fatties) agree that snickers is the greatest candy ever made"
Do you now understand how this is misleading and dishonest?

>trillions of dollars saved
source?
>>11045163
>0% of scientific papers endorse the Earth being round!
that's why the "implicit endorsement" category existed in both the """"""study""""" and the survey
did you even read it?
>I did already respond to it
you don't get to say that when you respond after I asked you to, dumbass
>Now do you actually have a response to why you lied about publicly available information twice?
Just clarified it for you (again). It's not a lie.The surveyors even claim they manipulated the data afterward:
>To simplify the analysis, ratings were consolidated into three groups: endorsements (including implicit and explicit; categories 1–3 in table 2), no position (category 4) and rejections (including implicit and explicit; categories 5–7).
even this is misleading, because they only classified something as category 4 if it explicitly stated no opinion
if no opinion was stated they just tossed it out