Re:Scientists want to create ‘red teams’ to challenge climat...
by hyperbovine on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @03:29PM
(#13989745)
Medical studies with proper protocol and sufficient power are actually extremely reliable. Compared to the rest of the fields you mentioned, climate science is way more replicable and data-driven. The empirical evidence is so overwhelming that even the deniers no longer deny that the planet is warming. Now they have shifted the goalposts to quibble about whether this is 'man-made' or not. While harder to establish, there is abundant evidence supporting this hypothesis as well. It's also important to distinguish between this testing question and climate forecasting, which is harder and more error-prone.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Scientists want to create ‘red teams’ to challenge climat...
by basurihn on Wednesday March 29, 2017 @09:31PM
(#13992175)
Actually, 90 percent of medical studies are pretty much horseshit.
Source http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...
Or ask a good cardiologist after a few drinks.
The closer you get to the source, the more you find out just how much we delude ourselves about what we know.
Sometimes BOTH sides have a hidden agenda.
Re:Scientists want to create ‘red teams’ to challenge climat...
by hyperbovine on Thursday March 30, 2017 @11:45AM
(#13996359)
I've read that paper more than once. It doesn't contradict what I said.