pull down to refresh

There are patterns that an intelligent lay person can learn to recognize in the climate literature. A lot of bad arguments are placed in articles by non-idiots for the purpose of pandering to either grant reviewers or journal editors.

I believe that. Maybe a better way of saying what I intended:

  1. There are idiotic wrong arguments that are recognizable as such by people with no particular expertise.
  2. There are non-idiotic wrong arguments that are recognizable as such by people with no particular expertise.
  3. There are non-idiotic wrong arguments that are not recognizable as such by non-experts.

The amount of effort required to identify wrong arguments probably goes up an order of magnitude with each class. I'd put what you discussed in class #2.

There’s definitely a lot of class #3.

There’s a lot that I’ve come across and probably much more that I haven’t.

reply