Originally posted by DA Morgan:
Do you know the difference between random and pseudorandom? How did your "random" sample achieve statistical randomness?
Anytime a member of the laypublic, with attitude, can take data and come to a conclusion 180 degrees different from that of researchers in the field whose work has been peer reviewed.
That member of the laypublic is engaging in spin.
and any researcher with a goverment grant paid to prove global warming, can use pseudorandom stats to prove it. as long as the peer's all agree that global warming is a fact there is no way they would accept facts that disagree with that.
let me explain something that might have slipped your mind. the peers that review the articles that are summitted are not choisen at random. they are choisen by the publishers. which means that if the publishers beleive in global warming, and they know the reviewers that also agree, then these are the people that will be reviewing the article. Since there is only a small number of publishers that would be considered acknowledgeable, AND since global warming scaremongering sells subsciption, it does not take much of a conspiracy to have all of the few publishers that control those articles pushing global warming. If you go to someone outside of this tiny group, everyone claims that the data cant be real because the publishers is of the wrong political party, or is not considered cutting edge science, or something along that line. If you want to read what people say about that kind of publisher, read some of da's responses to some of the links i provided.
