
UN climate change panel based claims on student dissertation - nice1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7111525/UN-climate-change-panel-based-claims-on-student-dissertation-and-magazine-article.html
======
hga
Hmmm:

Anecdotal evidence from non-peer reviewed popular news media, student
dissertations and environmental advocacy organization reports and web site
articles that supports our thesis, _good_.

Serious research that's kept out of blessed peer-reviewed journals by our
conspiracy that doesn't support our thesis, _bad_.

~~~
lutorm
Your comment implies that the IPCC panel started with an idea of what
conclusion they wanted to make. What is your evidence that's the case.

It's entirely invalid to say that because they came to a certain conclusion
and the majority of the cited studies support that conclusion, they picked the
citations to support it. That claim can be applied to _any valid_ scientific
review. It uses some sort of Catch-22 argument that because the evidence
support the conclusion, the evidence must have been cherry-picked. With that
view, no science would be valid.

Besides, your comment doesn't make sense. What about all the anecdotal
evidence from non-scientific sources that _do_ support their thesis but _was_
excluded from the report?

Without assessing the rates of the complementary claims, your statement just
looks like good, old-fashioned selection bias.

~~~
yummyfajitas
In general, a scientific review does not cite nonexistent/non-peer
reviewed/advocate sources [1].

 _It's entirely invalid to say that because they came to a certain conclusion
and the majority of the cited studies support that conclusion, they picked the
citations to support it._

The argument is being made that because they eschewed the normal practice and
included _unscientific_ citations _only in support of their thesis_ , we can
conclude cherrypicking was going on. You can't apply it to a normal review,
since a normal scientific review doesn't normally base their claims on
anecdotes from mountaineering magazines.

[1] Such sources are occasionally cited as novelties or as evidence of
importance of the topic. E.g., "as evidenced by recent media attention
\cite{NYT, FOX, NBC, CBS} my topic is important".

------
jcnnghm
Do they still get their trillion dollars?

~~~
hga
The global warming industry is Too Big to Fail.

------
diego_moita
Does anyone know an effective way on how to filter out this drivel with
greasemonkey?

Unfortunatelly it doesn't use always one single word/expression we can use to
catch it.

~~~
jamesbritt
If you truly think it's drivel, then flag it.

