Re: The Science of Global Warming - Settled Once and for All
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, you cannot necessarly draw any conclusions from their neutrality.Maybe 90% support mmgw, maybe 90% are skeptics.
[/ QUOTE ]
No, "(48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis" is the very definition of skeptic.
[/ QUOTE ]
I am sorry, but you cannot deduce that from this article. Maybe you have read the study so that fine. but the study is supposed to have the same methodology as Naomi Oreskes's which defined neutral papers like I did. It is possible to write an article about climate change without taking any side. It does not mean that you don't believe one of the other, but simply that it was relevant to you article.
That being said, the methodology of the study might be different, but I'll be really interested in the exact definition ofwhat qualifies as a neutral article.
|