Back to the topic in hand, I don't think there's anything wrong with the way the paper covered the 66% that didn't express an opinion.
I don't have an issue with the paper itself. I take an issue with how it's being reported.
No, that's a myth. There was never a consensus of flat-earthers amongst scholars, even religious ones, let alone a consensus of scientists.
After reading the link and some of the references I have to agree with the conclusion. There was no flat earth consensus. I take issue with the presentation (it speculates nonsensically about the brain as a device for producing dichotomies and makes other unsupported claims). I also take issue with your characterization. Until Renaissance there was no concept of a scientist. There were philosophers (some of whom concentrated in natural philosophy), but all philosophy was studied as an attempt to gain understanding of the divine. One could argue, in fact, that before Thomas Aquinas' argument no separation between philosophy and clergy was even conceptually possible.
The sin of belief without data is yours, superwiz.
I'll let that go under poetic license because I feel generous. You did give me an interesting read.
If you'd actually read the paper you link to, you'd know why 33% didn't express a conclusion on AGW. It's because to get their corpus they simply searched for papers with certain key terms such as "global warming". Now that doesn't necessarily get you a paper that is aimed at the question of AGW, simply one that mentions it. It's unsurprising that papers that are not intended to answer the question of whether there is AGW do not do so. They have to be manually filtered down to those that address that question.
Yes, if only I read the paper from which I posted a direct quote... If only. Both your claim and the claim made by comrade soulskill overstated the conclusions which can be made from the paper. That was the argument I was making. Your attempt to attribute to me a different argument will not stand. The methodology of the paper did not support that far over-reaching conclusion. Also your argument contains a factual error in the claim that
33% didn't express a conclusion on AGW
In fact 66.4% of the papers didn't express a conclusion on AGW. Simply because they didn't make take any position on it. However, it is still hugely misleading to claim that 97% of the papers express a pro-AGW position. AGW is a hypothesis. And the most accurate statement one can make is that 97% of the papers examining the hypothesis find evidence in support of this hypothesis. This does not rise to the level of a proved assertion as far as scientific method is concerned however. It also produces wild speculations such as "97% of the scientists agree with AGW claim." The reporters (whose job is to produce accurate communications) are, in fact, responsible for wild speculations that come out of their claims. This is because if they report inaccurately, they stoke the flames of those speculations.
This just reveals your wooly thinking. TFA doesn't say "97% of scientists believe in AGW". It's 97% of scientific papers. i.e. 97% of the ways of examining the question scientifically resulted in a conclusion that AGW is real. Scientific method, not belief.
First, scientific method relies on reason rather than consensus. "Earth is flat" was a consensus opinion. Oh, and TFA DOES NOT say what comrade soulskill put up there. 97% of the papers DID NOT claim AGW. Only 32.6% of the papers did. Here's a direct quote from the article's abstract:
"...We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW..."
Here's the link to the actual paper: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article
Money is power. Power corrupts. Ethical behavior is incompatible with the pursuit of profit.
I'll give you two out of three.... which ain't bad.
All corruption begins with nepotism. No one can deny loved ones...it's part of what makes them their loves ones. Any behavior which is not done for profit is not ethical. Yep, I know you think it's sociopathic to think that way. I even realize that you think less of me because I know what you think and still disagree. The link breaks at the 2nd sentence though. Power attained through means other than profits is what corrupts. Political power, military power, power attained through love. All of these are powers which corrupt because they are attained without pursuit of profit. Ultimately, power comes through exploitation or through enabling. Power attained through enabling brings profits. Power attained through exploitation strip mines people around you and all strip mining does not last. Don't bring up the example of teachers as people enable without profits. They also enable without attaining power. The only ethical power comes from the pursuit of profit.
Except that no wiretapping occurred.Records of calls to and from AP were obtained.
This rises to the level of wiretapping. This information was enough to figure out who the reporters' sources were. Which is the only type of information which otherwise stays secret as a result of such a phone call. All news-worthy information contained in such phone calls gets published. Only the sources stay secret. So the content of the call actually is less secret than identities of the individuals making the call.