Sorry, Reiver is not interested in evidence or facts but only with peer reviewed papers that support his own bias. The fact that violent crime dropped the last 10 years even though gun ownership skyrocketed makes no difference to him because you did not show the reverse based on a peer reviewed paper that he likes.
Originally Posted by beenthere
Omitting the ‘doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts’ is not a morally neutral act; it is a subtle deception that calls scientific practice into disrepute.
Climate scientists face an ethical choice: do they conform to established ethical standards of scientific practice or do they sacrifice those standards in favour of actions and statements that will be more likely to shape public opinion and climate policy in their preferred direction?