Earlier quoted context omitted.
The ISI search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals That seems like a pretty large sample size to me. I guess you could claim that they cherry picked 11, 944 papers out of some much larger number, but that seems like a stretch. O…
Forgive me, I'm doing my best to stay above board. This is not an attack... You misunderstand me. I think that 11944 was too many papers, and should be narrowed down to papers by hard scientists. I'm saying out of those 11944, a potentially huge number were social studies, news studies, and other fields that have nothing to do with climate modeling. When you remove those from the 11944, what do you have? 10000? 5000?…
Re: Gains in Antarctic ice might offset losses
#61Really I think its main weakness is that it is a meta-study.. which always tend to have issues like you mention. I find it compelling enough though.