Thread replies: 5
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
The Skeptical Environmentalist 2017-08-30 10:03:48 Post No. 9139166
[Report] Image search: [Google]
The Skeptical Environmentalist 2017-08-30 10:03:48 Post No. 9139166
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: 91bkRzSX7mL.jpg (699KB, 1370x1945px) Image search:
[Google]
699KB, 1370x1945px
Recently read this book. Is it reliable? I did some background checking on it and can't really get a clear answer. Naturally, it was controversial upon release yet it seems a lot of the criticism was unfounded and the hate Bjorn got was sorta unfair. Scientific American claimed it wasn't peer-reviewed even though it was, and refused Bjorn when he tried to publish a point-by-point rebuttal to their criticisms (they eventually allowed him a fucking one page short response). So from what I gather this is just an example of media interest over actual science. I mean, the book has all sorts of references and was peer-reviewed. Is there actually something wrong with it or was the media just being shit as usual?
>>
>"climate change"
Fiction belongs on >>>/lit/
>>
>>9139180
TO BE FAIR...it's not JUST about climate change. That's only like 1 chapter.
>>
shameless self bump
>>
>>9139166
Basically, he agrees with the general consensus but then cherrypicks sources to argue that the effects of climate change will be on the low end of estimates and the costs of solutions will be on the high end. Why not just stick with the totality of evidence represented by the middle of the consensus range?
Thread posts: 5
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1