Disturbing review of the Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper

[dpibel]

2. Gosh! Thanks for you're sincere concern!1!!1

Last edited Thu Sep 11, 2014, 12:30 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm sure I--as do you--want to get my climate science analysis from a fellow who is "a PhD candidate in Social Psychology at Arizona State University, a few weeks counting down to my defense."

Because there's hardly nobody better equipped to analyze climate science than a social psychologist.

Also, it is always really good on a website like this one to rely on a person who says, "Relatedly, my debunkings of invalid and leftist-biased social science and rigged climate consensus studies should not imply that I'm a conservative (or an AGW skeptic.)"

Because here on DU, we sure do hate us some invalid and leftist-biased social science.

Also, we pretty much take as gospel what comes from someone who says "I'm not a conservative or a Republican (not that there's anything wrong with that.) I'm a secular libertarian."

You could say, if you were so inclined, that this is an ad hominem. Maybe so. But what I read of this screed (and it was enough to make me wish I hadn't) made me suspect that, if I followed all the links, and read all the articles, I'd discover that, as a matter of fact, Jose, they were legitimate inclusions.

But, again, thanks so much for being so concerned as to make everyone aware that Jose Duarte, PhC, believes he's onto something.

I'll sure be more skeptical about climate change now!11!!!!