theradioschizo

The claim that the 97% number is doctored is because while the number is true, it's also not the complete picture.

When they assessed their findings, it was out of 11,944 papers that mention climate change or global warming. Of that total, there were 4,014 papers that expressed a position on the cause of climate change. 97% of the 4,014 papers endorsed the idea of man-made climate change.

So 7,930 papers were not included in the percentage because those papers did not express any position on whether or not climate change is man made. Of the total papers examined, 34% endorsed the idea of man made climate change.

It's not technically doctored, but that's probably where the complaints are stemming from.

Modest Mouse is my favorite band and this makes me extremely happy. You guys rock.

So then the ability to censor "obscene" speech applies to the internet. It would seem that nudity is also not protected? I mean I haven't looked up enough on any court precedent but nudity is obviously censored on TV.

this isn't science it's a book report

Are you not familiar with how meta-analyses work in the scientific community? This is a pretty standard methodology...

Don't forget that it gives the FCC tons of regulatory power that has nothing to do with net neutrality. These people wanted to give FCC the power and they got it. Seemed like a pretty silly idea to me. This is the same organization that sends out fines for female nipples and the word "fuck".