A researcher who scanned all the scientific articles published in the last 21 years regarding global warming narrowly found only 24 articles rejecting human responsibility for warming, but their scientific quality is low and there is no "golden bullet" that would refute the consensus
Surveys show that the general public believes that scientists do not agree on the fact that man is the cause of global warming. Because the gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed scientific literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on solid evidence, it will be revealed in peer-reviewed articles.
James Powell recently summarizes on the Science Progress website the results of a study conducted by John Cook and Dana Nocchitelli using the Web of Science tool to search for scientific articles, all articles published in the last 21 years from January 1, 1991 to November 9, 2012 that contained the keywords "global warming" or "global climate change". The survey brought up 13,950 articles.
"I read all possible combinations of articles, abstracts, and full articles required to identify articles that "reject" human involvement in global warming. To identify an article as rebuttal, the article must clearly and explicitly state that the global warming theory is wrong or, as has happened in some cases, that other processes better explain the observed warming. Articles that claimed inconsistencies, minor errors, or cause for concern were not classified as rejecting global warming.
Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation and phenomena that at least hinted at acceptance of global warming, were clear from the title itself.
Cook and Nocchitelli also reviewed and commented on some of these articles, Cook provided Powell with technical assistance.
The work follows a similar study conducted by Orseks (Science, 2005) who searched for articles published between 1993 and 2003 that carried the keywords "global climate change". She found 928 articles, read the abstract of each one, and categorized them. None of these articles rejected man-made global warming. Using her criteria and in the same period of time I reached the same results. The deniers attacked Orsex and her findings, but she managed to attack them.
Some of the articles about global warming may use other keywords, such as "climate change" without adding the word "global". However, there is no reason to think that the proportions will change and that the research data rejecting the connection between humanity and warming will be higher.
According to the expanded definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles or 0.17%, (581 article out of XNUMX), were found to have rejected or encouraged a factor other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming. You can find the list of these articles HERE.
These 24 articles were cited a total of 113 times over the 21 years, which means an average of approximately 5 citations per article. This compares to an average of 19 citations for articles in favor of global warming. for example. Four of the articles denying global warming were never cited, four were cited by more than 10 other authors with the record being 17.
One thing is certain, if one of these papers represented the magic bullet that dispelled the claim of human contribution to global warming, this paper would be on its way to becoming one of the most cited papers in the history of science.
These articles are collectively shared by 33,690 individual writers. The ten countries from which most of the writers came are (in order): USA, Great Britain, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain and the Netherlands.
Global warming deniers claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. However, 24 articles in 18 different journals, which in aggregate expressed different claims against global warming, and these were revealed to be wrong. Articles denying global warming can be published, but those that are published have received little support or interest, even from other deniers.
A few deniers have become household names due to media interviews, congressional hearings, conferences of global warming critics, books, lectures, websites, etc. Their names are rare among the publishers of the studies denying warming. Like these authors, the prominent deniers have not produced any evidence disproving global warming.
Anyone can repeat the research and report their findings. Other reviewers may use different standards than mine and receive a different number of articles denying warming. However, no one will be able to come to a different conclusion, because only one conclusion is possible: among the scientific community, the denial of global warming is an extremely negligible phenomenon, its influence is found mainly in its ability to mislead the media, the decision makers, those who want to deny the science for their personal benefit, and the public the innocent
There is no sign of disagreement among the scientific community as to the human cause of global warming. This is the scientific paradigm, in the same way that plate tectonics is the paradigm in geology. We know the continents move. We know that the Earth is warming and that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main cause. These are known facts that 99.9% of scientists agree on.
James Lawrence is the author of the book The Inquisition of Climate Science and senior director of the National Consortium for Physical Sciences, a collaboration between government agencies and laboratories, industry, and academics whose goal is to increase the number of US residents with an academic degree in the physical sciences and related engineering fields.
49 תגובות
Miracles
I mean that in rational thought I do not understand how you arrive at the fact that there is a creator. I understand even less
How do you arrive at this empirically? The existence of a creator does not fit what I know about the world, and it causes many contradictions.
------
I don't come to the conclusion that there is a creator from rational thought, certainly not from empirical thought - it's just not clear to me how you come to the opposite conclusion in a rational and empirical way.
------
The pro-AGW side relies on the evidence. The opposing party relies on …. I have no idea about what to be honest... wishful thinking maybe?
-----
I understand that you admit total ignorance of all the claims against the AWG theory, whatever they are?
-----
I'm probably not explaining myself well enough about the connection between science and the existence of God. If God has an influence on the world then it should be possible to see the influence. There must be something happening in the world that cannot be explained by forces known to us. Now - you have to be careful here! There are physical phenomena that we do not understand. One should be careful not to draw hasty conclusions from this. We have been burned by this in the past.
And if God has no physical influence then why bother with it at all?
--------
Except for people who want to believe in a hidden world which by definition is hidden.
Why do you think that if there is a God - and he has an influence on the world, then our science will be able to identify this influence and separate it from just the behavior of nature?
As I said, we come here to Einstein's pantheistic God who still as a pantheist/agnostic/determinist is more of a believer than I am.
Since the definition of 'God' is not unambiguous, since he is supposed to be invisible to humanity and incomprehensible on a human level anyway - then by definition he is an idea that cannot be discovered by human means.
Therefore, any "scientific" way to prove that there is no God is exactly equal to a "scientific" way to prove that God exists is by definition impossible.
And why bother with it? There is more to the world than physics - people want to believe that there is something more than the physical world - that's why people bother with it.
another one
I mean that in rational thought I do not understand how you arrive at the fact that there is a creator. I understand even less how you arrive at this empirically. The existence of a creator does not fit what I know about the world, and it causes many contradictions.
The pro-AGW side relies on the evidence. The opposing party relies on …. I have no idea about what to be honest... wishful thinking maybe?
I'm probably not explaining myself well enough about the connection between science and the existence of God. If God has an influence on the world then it should be possible to see the influence. There must be something happening in the world that cannot be explained by forces known to us. Now - you have to be careful here! There are physical phenomena that we do not understand. One should be careful not to draw hasty conclusions from this. We have been burned by this in the past.
And if God has no physical influence then why bother with it at all?
Miracles
-----------
Descartes failed in his experiment of casting doubt. He had to assume there was a God at some point, and also assume that God wouldn't let his senses lie.
------
Not exactly - after the experiment of casting doubt he tried to get out of the cogito by mixing God.
This is the least relevant part of my argument.
----------
I am not saying that the believers are complete fools. They take the existence of God, that specific god they believe in, as an axiom. Even the great Descartes, when he sat alone and thought, reached the God of Christianity.
You can come, out of ignorance, to the fact that there is a God. I don't understand how it is possible to reach this from knowledge.
-----
Knowledge of what? What are you talking about?
----------
According to my interpretation, the flood is a symbol of the destruction of mankind, and God has promised that there will be no more flood. According to you - everyone can interpret as they see fit.
----
And how many threats were there to Israel? How many threats were there to Judah? How many prophets of wrath were there who predicted destruction if the people of Israel did not change their ways? What should all humanity be? - After all, only the most extreme in the ranks of the greens foresee the total annihilation of humanity due to AWG.
--------
You wrote "what idiots all those who believe in him are - including Einstein (probably)." not me….
---
A. They call it sarcasm - don't pretend you didn't understand.
B - This is not a quote.
-------
I am not a party to the AGW debate!!!! How did you get to that? When 99% of the studies show something then I listen - that's all.
-
Again you stick to the rhetoric - the pro AWG side - is better?
------
You say the person is special... You are taking it out of context. What I said is that the great religions put man in a special position relative to animals. Again - man was created in the image of God, evolution is intentional. We kill animals for ritual and not just for food.
Am I wrong here??
-----
No, but that was not the discussion - the discussion was whether religion attributes uniqueness to man that science disproves.
-------------------
Avi:
You are indeed right - Einstein is not exactly a good example of a religious person.
But in the framework of the debate - in the framework of Nissim's argument it is actually appropriate - because Nissim said that God's existence should be measured in principle by miracles and wonders in nature (change in momentum of objects).
And Einstein's pantheism/agonistism does not deny the existence of God, lack of miracles and wonders.
I am anonymous…..
The nonsense about Einstein again? Einstein explained that he believes in Spinoza's God embodied in nature itself, meaning that in fact it is not God at all because nature exists in the most and of course he is very far from the religious god and in fact the complete opposite of him, he does not interfere, he does not care what we eat, and when we travel.
another one
Descartes failed in his experiment of casting doubt. He had to assume there was a God at some point, and also assume that God wouldn't let his senses lie.
I am not saying that the believers are complete fools. They take the existence of God, that specific god they believe in, as an axiom. Even the great Descartes, when he sat alone and thought, reached the God of Christianity.
You can come, out of ignorance, to the fact that there is a God. I don't understand how it is possible to reach this from knowledge.
According to my interpretation, the flood is a symbol of the destruction of mankind, and God has promised that there will be no more flood. According to you - everyone can interpret as they see fit.
You wrote "what idiots all those who believe in him are - including Einstein (probably)." not me….
I am not a party to the AGW debate!!!! How did you get to that? When 99% of the studies show something then I listen - that's all.
You say the person is special... You are taking it out of context. What I said is that the great religions put man in a special position relative to animals. Again - man was created in the image of God, evolution is intentional. We kill animals for ritual and not just for food.
Am I wrong here??
Miracles-
—
How much doubt is there about falling from a tall building? Are you willing to bet on this doubt, or are you just you
Speak?
-
What do you mean? The fact that there is doubt about something does not mean that there is no doubt - even a greater doubt on the contrary.
There is very little doubt what will happen to a person if he jumps from a high building.
There is a very strong doubt that he got out of it alive.
I was talking about the essence of doubt - about Descartes's doubt experiment and all these things.
Why do you insist on rewording me?
------
Can you explain to me what Einstein's beliefs have to do with the subject?
—–
Part of my rhetoric brought about by you making an argument that basically claims that all believers are complete morons.
---
I still haven't understood by what right what is written in your book can be interpreted. If someone is allowed to interpret, then so am I. And my interpretation is simple, consistent and irrefutable.
----
….so your religion conflicts with science- their religion with their interpretation maybe not.
You now come and tell religious people what their religion says?
And what do they believe? I told you - this trick only works against a certain type of Christian who claim to believe their scriptures literally when they haven't even read it all - most of the religious world doesn't go that way.
----
You are starting from a strange axiom that religion is something that cannot be examined. I don't understand why you say that. I say it again and again and again - God is a completely physical concept. It can affect the physical world. I can see that effect. What reason do I have to think it's different??
---
A strange argument that says that since nature is consistent - then there is no God because if there was a God we would see something happening against the laws of nature from time to time.
The idea that either God for hidden reasons does not perform miracles and wonders where we see them or that God does something all the time and we just think it happens by itself - is this logically impossible?
---
The promise to preserve humanity does exist in your heart.
------
First thing: where?
Second thing:
There were threats of huge punishments for the Israelites
Not to mention the extinction of all humanity minus family because humanity sinned.
So I'm sorry but your rages (originally a religious term) have a biblical precedent....
------
The disbelief in AGW comes from 3 reasons:
1. A significant number of bad people trying to promote a dirty agenda
2. A negligible number of scientists who are probably wrong
3. The stupidity of man... you are the one who likes to quote Einstein...
------
First thing: When did I quote Einstein?
Second thing- enough, I know you like to feel superior to anyone who disagrees with you-
But your side of the debate is no cleaner, you have enough politicians and businessmen who profit from promoting AWG agendas. And there is no shortage of scientists in all sorts of unrelated fields who publish articles that threaten destruction far beyond what the establishment even says and receive an echo from the public who believe them.
Human stupidity is not the monopoly of all those who disagree with you.
------
The wisest is not uniqueness - it is repulsive arrogance. Because we are the "smartest" we think this is the most important feature. A giraffe is the tallest and a whale is the heaviest and the diarrhea is the longest.
I definitely agree that humans have a rate of development that is unmatched in nature. But - don't forget that this is not the case with all humans.
And this rate of development is based on language. And maybe there really is "cultural evolution" - that's really one of the things I'm researching today.
----
In a given group there can be more than one item that is special.
Some are the heaviest and some are the fastest and some are the smartest etc. Man is special, that doesn't mean there aren't other animals that have their own uniqueness.
another one
How much doubt is there about falling from a tall building? Are you willing to bet on this doubt, or are you just talking?
Can you explain to me what Einstein's beliefs have to do with the subject?
I still haven't understood by what right what is written in your book can be interpreted. If someone is allowed to interpret, then so am I. And my interpretation is simple, consistent and irrefutable.
You are starting from a strange axiom that religion is something that cannot be examined. I don't understand why you say that. I say it again and again and again - God is a completely physical concept. It can affect the physical world. I can see that effect. What reason do I have to think it's different??
The promise to preserve humanity does exist in your heart.
The disbelief in AGW comes from 3 reasons:
1. A significant number of bad people trying to promote a dirty agenda
2. A negligible number of scientists who are probably wrong
3. The stupidity of man... You are the one who likes to quote Einstein....
The wisest is not uniqueness - it is repulsive arrogance. Because we are the "smartest" we think this is the most important feature. A giraffe is the tallest and a whale is the heaviest and the diarrhea is the longest.
I definitely agree that humans have a rate of development that is unmatched in nature. But - don't forget that this is not the case with all humans.
And this rate of development is based on language. And maybe there really is "cultural evolution" - that's really one of the things I'm researching today.
Miracles
—–
You are right that there is no way to determine the effect of religion on morality. That's why it's not interesting.
-
That's not what I said - I said we have no way of knowing what if - you can't even know that -
It is certainly possible to explore the history of morality and its interrelationships with world religions.
-----------
Except for Kogito Argum Sam? Descartes came to completely wrong conclusions because of this assumption and say - is there a way to know if this statement is correct?
On the other hand - if I fall from a tall building - there is no doubt that I will reach the ground. There is no doubt about the simple things.
—–
Or you dream that you are on a tall building - or you are imprisoned in the "Matrix" - maybe your whole life is a dream?
It may sound stupid - but everything has a doubt, Verne Duckert or one of the fathers of modern scientific thought.
------
Obviously, I cannot judge religious belief with the tools of science - "judgment" is not a scientific concept. What I can do is explore the faith itself. It is already a scientific concept and has even been studied a lot.
-
It's just a shame that you approach the field in a very biased way.
---
"God directs evolution" this and more is how it is scientific - and there are certainly tools to investigate it. As Laplas said - there is no need to assume the existence of God to explain the world. Certainly not evolution. On the contrary - if you assume that someone directs evolution, you end up with illogical things and you gain nothing.
---
It's not scientific - what tools do you have to investigate it? Just because it's not necessary doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong.
—–
Really stop if this - the existence of God is a scientific question. Anything that can cause a change in the momentum of a particle is a scientific concept.
—–
Yes, because it is that simple - miracles and wonders that break the laws of science do not happen in the world - therefore there is no God.
What idiots are all those who believe in him - including Einstein (probably).
—–
I didn't say but the scriptures should be interpreted the other way around!!! You have to read what is written, that's all there. What is written in the Torah corresponds to what was thought then and there are enough sources that explain it in a simple way. Why do you think the sky is called "sky"? Why did the sun stand still in Gibeon Dom? Why does Israel have foundations? Because this is what many peoples in the area believed then.
—–
Are we talking about the religion of that time? We are talking about today's religion - your insistence that religion is something that is not dynamic clashes with reality. Religion is a funny thing - it changes a lot over time but it wants to be faithful to its sources - so it constantly interprets what is written.
—–
Once you start to match what is written with reality you can explain anything. Also 9/11. The problem is, you're selling your honesty to Stan when you do that.
----
What about 9/11?
Yes, it seems dishonest to those who do not know the religion at all - but that's the way it is - the religion interprets itself according to reality in many cases - there is nothing dishonest about it - they simply say 'we misunderstood what was said here, in our opinion this is the true interpretation' this is true in many religions And not only in Judaism.
———–
Humanity has really lived tens of thousands of years without believing in evolution. The problem is that for these tens of thousands of years we did not influence the environment as we do today. Those who think we have no influence, and those who think we are not in real danger - are on the verge of extinction. This has happened in the past to entire civilizations and it is going to happen to the "global village" in the future - unless we stop believing in the hesitant puppet.
—–
And we are back to this topic - listen to the view that the unwanted behavior of humans will bring destruction upon them - it is not foreign to religion - a prophet of wrath and destruction - they are something familiar from the Tanach.
The fact that humans are special does not mean that God will keep them alive - this promise of existence was not in yours - so this claim of yours is simply not true.
Personally, in the opinion of most of the green movement dealing with AWG is more or less a religion in itself - it even has indulgences in the form of buying carbon offset or whatever you call it and they always talk about an imminent and immediate catastrophe and call anyone who speaks against it a "denier" and claim that he serves "brothers" Koch" - so trust me - the lack of belief in AWG among many people in the population does not stem from their belief in God - the concept of punishment due to destructive behavior actually fits very well with many religions, especially religions that are based on the Bible.
—–
To convey information in writing? Writing is an invention of a few thousand years ago. It does not exist among all nations to this day. I have already said that everything that is unique to a person is language - transmission outside of language is a common thing.
—–
It doesn't matter - writings, statues, wall signs - even oral stories - but anything can happen that is not special - other animals also communicate with each other - and it is possible that they will find one or another "culture" between different groups of certain animals - even a different language - The uniqueness of humans is simply that they are the wisest, most aware creature, with the most developed sense of imagination, who learned from history - most of the animals - the ones that were not themselves domesticated by man - if you were to send them back in time a few thousand years ago - they They will fit right in (except for special cases) - people 50 years ago lived differently than we live now -
If someone sent you 100 years ago, it will be very difficult for you to live in the new city. - This is the difference that distinguishes human beings - our culture - our "collective", has its own "evolution" and at a tremendous pace.
another one
You are right that there is no way to determine the effect of religion on morality. That's why it's not interesting.
Except for Kogito Argum Sam? Descartes came to completely wrong conclusions because of this assumption 🙂 And say - is there a way to know if this statement is correct?
On the other hand - if I fall from a tall building - there is no doubt that I will reach the ground. There is no doubt about the simple things.
Obviously, I cannot judge religious belief with the tools of science - "judgment" is not a scientific concept. What I can do is explore the faith itself. It is already a scientific concept and has even been studied a lot.
"God directs evolution" this and more is how it is scientific - and there are certainly tools to investigate it. As Laplas said - there is no need to assume the existence of God to explain the world. Certainly not evolution. On the contrary - if you assume that someone directs evolution, you end up with illogical things and you gain nothing.
Really stop if this - the existence of God is a scientific question. Anything that can cause a change in the momentum of a particle is a scientific concept.
I didn't say but the scriptures should be interpreted 🙂 on the contrary!!! You have to read what is written, that's all there. What is written in the Torah corresponds to what was thought then and there are enough sources that explain it in a simple way. Why do you think the sky is called "sky"? Why did the sun stand still in Gibeon Dom? Why does Israel have foundations? Because this is what many peoples in the area believed then.
Once you start to match what is written with reality you can explain anything. Also 9/11. The problem is, you're selling your honesty to Stan when you do that.
Humanity has really lived tens of thousands of years without believing in evolution. The problem is that for these tens of thousands of years we did not influence the environment as we do today. Those who think we have no influence, and those who think we are not in real danger - are on the verge of extinction. This has happened in the past to entire civilizations and it is going to happen to the "global village" in the future - unless we stop believing in the hesitant puppet.
To convey information in writing? Writing is an invention of a few thousand years ago. It does not exist among all nations to this day. I have already said that everything that is unique to a person is language - transmission outside of language is a common thing.
Miracles
Our morality is influenced by the culture that contains us,
Culture is influenced or influenced by religion, there is no way to know if our morals would be the same without religion.
-
You can't judge religious belief with the tools of science - those who claim it don't need to bring proof - because by and large there is nothing in the way of proof - almost everything is in doubt - except for cogito ergo sum.
Scientific thinking cannot prove the existence of an alien force and it cannot flower such an existence.
Therefore, God's worldview that directs evolution may be against some religions - but it is not against science - because it is by definition not a claim that science can relate to.
—–
Listen - it's funny that an atheist comes and tells the rabbis and priests and all these religious people how their holy scriptures should be interpreted - why don't they know how to read what is written there?
So that's it - religion doesn't go like this - not Judaism, not Christianity (mostly) and not Islam - and there is always room for interpretation - in each place more than the other - it might be funny
But there is a simple, preachy, etc. in your Tanach - and to understand something in a literal sense and to use it as an argument against religion? - This might work in America - but in Israel even a secularist who studied Tanach for secularists like me knows better than that.
—–
Humanity existed for thousands of years while believing in idols - and for some reason even without knowing about evolution they continued to exist.
Really... there are many practical applications for the insights that the theory of evolution gives - but not in this sense -
Stop using science as a means to promote your religion.
---
Language also exists in nature….
I was blessed with the ability to read and write and transmit information throughout the generations.
another one
Just because theologians say something about morality does not make it true. Socrates already saw that there is a problem when linking religion and morality (the Euphro's dilemma). Religion enters every field as well as morality. Woe to us if religious people are moral because of their religious belief...
You talk about "lack of proof..." - I do not try and do not need to prove that there is no God. You don't throw out an idea and tell me "prove that there is no such thing". The point is that the assertion that there is a God is a very strong assertion. Whoever claims this should explain why...
Tanach commentators can say whatever they want. It is explicitly written there. Whoever wants to deny the scriptures, let him be healthy. A little integrity won't hurt these people!
Evolution puts man in his place as part of nature. We have no special status. There is no one to protect us. If man does not understand this he will not survive much longer. Too bad they don't understand that. Do you really think there is anything more important than this for the continued existence of humanity??
Collective memory also exists in nature. In songbirds for example. For killers for example. In carnivores for example. in bees for example. With us it is much more significant - but it is not unique.
Miracles
The studies I know do not come from a religious point of view. Imitations of animals were also made - and even there there is a moral. I am ready to accept that religion comes, in part, from morality. Absolutely not the other way around. As soon as there is a directive from above to be moral - then it is immoral...
—
There are clerics and theologians who hold that part of morality is intrinsic to man - but still see religion as the source of many moral laws that shape our society.
Our morality is partly built on our culture - a culture that in the past was based a lot on religion.
---
They are the ones who need confirmation, not me. There is no reason to believe that there is anything "outside of nature". Someone who thinks like this makes a very strong claim - and the proof is on it.
-
It doesn't work, yes - lack of proof of the existence of something is not proof of its existence -
The fact that we were not convinced does not mean that we should be convinced that the opposite is necessarily true.
-
You will begin in the first book of the Torah, in the first chapter, in the first verse - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."
We will continue in Joshua chapter 12 verse XNUMX - "...the sun in Gibeon Dum..."
Habakkuk chapter 11, verse XNUMX - "The sun and the moon stood still"
In the Psalms it is written that the earth does not move, in Samuel it is written about the foundations of the earth, in the Psalms it is written that there is a distance from east to west, it is written (I don't remember where) that you can see the whole world quickly enough high up.
continue?
-
Tanach interpreters from different streams can interpret everything for you in a way that does not conflict. It's strange - but religion is based on the fact that you shouldn't always take a literal interpretation.
-
"really? how? The Torah does not say that man is special - it does not say that he is not necessarily special."
You're kidding, aren't you? "Let us make man in our image and likeness", God created the animals so that man could find a mate among them. to bite??
—–
I meant the theory of evolution.
She doesn't say that the person is special-= but she also doesn't say that he isn't.
—–
"I think it's a wild exaggeration to say that the idea of evolution is the greatest idea in human history."
Darwin's theory is the first time we discovered that we are one of the animals. I know of no idea that has such an influence on our thought. Neither Copernicus nor Einstein had such an impact on the essence of man.
—–
The fact that you draw inspiration for your philosophical concept from the theory of evolution does not mean that it is the greatest idea in human history - in my opinion, the discovery of spelling, for example, is a little more important.
And the domestication of wheat and animals is a little more important - the transition from exchange wages to the use of money is also more important for human history.
Leave various medical discoveries. For example, I think that the theological implications of the quantum theory are heavier than the implications of the theory of evolution.
—–
"It's not just language that makes a person special."
What more??
- the acquired collective memory for example.
another one
"Know that the claim that morality is intrinsically rooted in us is also the claim of many religious people.
So it could be that at least some of your research came from this worldview."
The studies I know do not come from a religious point of view. Imitations of animals were also made - and even there there is a moral. I am ready to accept that religion comes, in part, from morality. Absolutely not the other way around. As soon as there is a directive from above to be moral - then it is immoral...
"And do you have confirmation that they are wrong?"
They are the ones who need confirmation, not me. There is no reason to believe that there is anything "outside of nature". Someone who thinks like this makes a very strong claim - and the proof is on it.
"Where do you get that the lion is distinctly geocentric?"
You will begin in the first book of the Torah, in the first chapter, in the first verse - "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."
We will continue in Joshua chapter 12 verse XNUMX - "...the sun in Gibeon Dum..."
Habakkuk chapter 11, verse XNUMX - "The sun and the moon stood still"
In the Psalms it is written that the earth does not move, in Samuel it is written about the foundations of the earth, in the Psalms it is written that there is a distance from east to west, it is written (I don't remember where) that you can see the whole world quickly enough high up.
continue?
"really? how? The Torah does not say that man is special - it does not say that he is not necessarily special."
You're kidding, aren't you? "Let us make man in our image and likeness", God created the animals so that man could find a mate among them. to bite??
"I think it's a wild exaggeration to say that the idea of evolution is the greatest idea in human history."
Darwin's theory is the first time we discovered that we are one of the animals. I know of no idea that has such an influence on our thought. Neither Copernicus nor Einstein had such an impact on the essence of man.
"It's not just language that makes a person special."
What more??
An argument does not stand because of "maybe". And he probably doesn't stand if the situation is "surely not". I understand you have no children. Children have innate morals, in addition to other emotions. One-year-old babies have morals that do not come from an external source.
There are many studies that show this in a wonderful way.
---------------------
I never said that our morality is not partly intrinsic - are you claiming that it is entirely intrinsic?
For thousands of years human morality in a religious context - this thing is still expressed in our culture.
Our culture shapes our morality - even if it has biological origins.
Know that the claim that morality is intrinsically rooted in us is also the claim of many religious people.
So it could be that at least some of your research came from this worldview.
---------------------
Even the Catholic Church, which accepts evolution, accepts it with certain reservations. Once the Pope said that the soul is a gift of God, and the current Pope says that God directs evolution.
--------------
And do you have confirmation that they are wrong?
-----------
"Adapting religion to science" - I don't understand what you mean. Science is a way of thinking that allows for mistakes. Religion is not wrong - at least reality is wrong...
----------
Religion is interpreted again and again by different commentators - such as the Catholic Church which accepts evolution with different caveats as you said. - It used to not be like that.
------------
Yes - the heliocentric model conflicts with the major religions. The lion is distinctly geocentric, despite all the quacks who claim otherwise.
—–
And if this is the case in many currents of the monotheistic religions, they accept the heliocentric model.
How do you know that the lion is distinctly geocentric?
----------
"Nothing in the theory of evolution says that man is not special." - Ummmmmmmmm, that's exactly what the theory of evolution says!!!
-------
really? how? The Torah does not say that man is special - it does not say that he is necessarily not special.
---------------
The idea of evolution is the greatest idea in human history. It is so understandable - the result of three simple conditions. He has the ability to explain and the ability to refute. He has a lot of evidence, and not a single piece of evidence weakens his power.
-----
I think it is a wild exaggeration to say that the idea of evolution is the greatest idea in human history.
------
In this idea - man is like any other living being. He is different from everyone else - he is the only one who speaks. But he is not the only one who is single. Only woodpeckers are woodpeckers... and to be precise - man is the only animal today that has a language. We don't know if Neanderthals had language or not.
-------------
Lots of birds pecking…..
Language is not the only thing that makes a person special.
another one
An argument does not stand because of "maybe". And he probably doesn't stand if the situation is "surely not". I understand you have no children. Children have innate morals, in addition to other emotions. One-year-old babies have morals that do not come from an external source.
There are many studies that show this in a wonderful way.
Even the Catholic Church, which accepts evolution, accepts it with certain reservations. Once the Pope said that the soul is a gift of God, and the current Pope says that God directs evolution.
"Adapting religion to science" - I don't understand what you mean. Science is a way of thinking that allows for mistakes. Religion is not wrong - at least reality is wrong...
Yes - the heliocentric model conflicts with the major religions. The lion is distinctly geocentric, despite all the quacks who claim otherwise.
"Nothing in the theory of evolution says that man is not special." - Ummmmmmmmm, that's exactly what the theory of evolution says!!!
The idea of evolution is the greatest idea in human history. It is so understandable - the result of three simple conditions. He has the ability to explain and the ability to refute. He has a lot of evidence, and not a single piece of evidence weakens his power.
In this idea - man is like any other living being. He is different from everyone else - he is the only one who speaks. But he is not the only one who is single. Only woodpeckers are woodpeckers... and to be precise - man is the only animal today that has a language. We don't know if Neanderthals had language or not.
They may not have been exposed to religion - but they were probably exposed to people exposed to religion. (Or to people who were exposed to people who were exposed to people who were exposed to religion, etc...
So my argument stands.
Even in the great religions there are many, many currents and many, many interpretations.
And there are those who manage to integrate religion with the theory of evolution.
Adapting religion to science is a theological religious question - not a scientific question.
People once had a problem accepting the heliocentric model - does this mean that the heliocentric model conflicts with all major religions?
Nothing in the theory of evolution says that man is not special.
another one
I still think that every religion gives a special status to a person. At least the major religions. Maybe the Hindu Sabbath is not like that. But let's concentrate on the 3 Abrahamic religions. Here there is definitely a distinction between a person and the rest of the world. In none of them is man a descendant of primitive animals.
Regarding morality - there is morality even in children who have never been exposed to religion. I think this is a winning argument……
Miracles
Not every religion is like the other - some religions force themselves on science and some don't.
And practical people and movements within it have their own interpretations about religion.
It is impossible to say in a blanket way that religion conflicts with evolution - indeed there are religions that blanketly deny evolution - but not all religions - not all currents.
Regarding Musk - as a secular person myself, I certainly do not claim that there is no morality without religion -
I only claim that it is not certain that we would have morals as secular people if there was no history of religion in the world.
another one
There is indeed a contradiction between religion and evolution - I also told you why. There is no contradiction in understanding the existence of a creator for evolution - religion and a creator are two different things.
My problem with morality is that there is a religious claim that says: without religion there is no morality. I don't agree with that.
I think religion is harmful to morality - it transfers responsibility for morality to someone else. As soon as it says "thou shalt not murder" we have a serious problem.
Mike Green
What's that got to do with it?
Meat production is responsible for more air pollution than all public transportation combined!
https://www.facebook.com/MeatlessMondayIsrael?fref=ts
"Really, really not. I do not claim that there is no God. Nor am I claiming that there is no Santa Claus, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. I have no interest in claiming that there is nothing.
I look at the world and try to understand it. This observation does not lead me to think that there is a God. "
So ok- -it all started when you said that there is necessarily a contradiction between religion-and evolution.
"More than that - I thought that maybe I was wrong and the believers were right. I checked their claims. Not worth much - I'd be happy if you could show me one argument that convinces, even a little."
- They didn't convince me either - this does not mean that I rule out in advance the possibility that they are right after all.
"I do not confuse any religious institution with any religion. There is no difference between the two things. Show me one religious person who is not subject to any institution. And if there was one, then he invented a new religion of his own, like Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard."
Not true - there are many people who have a religion that is less institutional - people who are deists for example.
Each religion has a different structure of its institutions and there are religions with very little authority for their institutions.
"You are the one who confuses the scientific establishment with science. Scientists are human beings and there are (few) among them who are more interested in their ego than discovering the truth."
I wasn't confused - but you are optimistic about the amount of scientists who are interested in the ego.
"Look around you - what is the contribution of religion to the world and what is the contribution of science? Christianity stopped the world for 1000 years, Islam was not ready to hear about a pattern in the past and today it endangers the very existence of humanity. And the Jewish religion, as a religion, does not exactly contribute to the world today."
So what? Tens of millions of people were murdered in the twentieth century under non-religious ideologies and some even with a tendency to atheism - it is human nature - the nature of human society that stopped the world - it simply manifested itself in religious institutions as well."
"The scientific establishment does not kill people because of curiosity. Maximum does not give you permanency ……..”
I never said that the scientific establishment kills because of curiosity.
"Science has doubled life expectancy in a century. Only the science. Religion is mainly harmful (not religious people - there are wonderful people among them)."
We seculars want to think that there was no religion in the world either - our moral values would have developed in the same way - that we had the concept of good and bad - but religion is an important part of the history of our culture - and our morals are greatly influenced by our culture.
In other words - even if we don't believe - religion in this world plays a very important role in shaping our moral code, for better or for worse.
another one
Really, really not. I do not claim that there is no God. Nor am I claiming that there is no Santa Claus, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. I have no interest in claiming that there is nothing.
I look at the world and try to understand it. This observation does not lead me to think that there is a God.
More than that - I thought that maybe I was wrong and the believers were right. I checked their claims. Not worth much - I would be happy if you could show me one claim that is convincing, even a little.
I do not confuse any religious institution with any religion. There is no difference between the two things. Show me one religious person who is not subject to any institution. And if there was one then he invented a new religion of his own, like Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard.
You are the one confusing the scientific establishment with science. Scientists are human beings and there are (few) among them who are more interested in their ego than discovering the truth.
Look around you - what is the contribution of religion to the world and what is the contribution of science? Christianity stopped the world for 1000 years, Islam was not ready to hear about a pattern in the past and today it endangers the very existence of humanity. And the Jewish religion, as a religion, does not exactly contribute to the world today.
The scientific establishment does not kill people for curiosity. Maximum does not give you tenure ……..
Science has doubled life expectancy in a century. Only the science. Religion is mainly harmful (not religious people - there are wonderful people among them).
"Why should I think that something hidden does exist? Why something in particular? I don't know if my neighbor has a lion in his living room. But I also don't know if he has an elephant or a zebra."
Why would you think that something doesn't exist and if it has a hidden effect on my life, an effect that I have no way of discovering, why would it interest me??
"And if the same animal that my neighbor in the living room has, perhaps, has no effect on my life - why would I waste gray cells on it?"
You are the one who defines himself as an atheist
"You are not an atheist because it has advantages. You are an atheist because you are a person who asks questions. And if you get an irrelevant answer, you keep asking."
An atheist is one who does not ask questions - he does not ask if there is a God - he states that there is no God.
That's the difference. A fact that interests you - you state - there is no God.
Me - personally, I believe that the question is in its definition beyond the ability of the person to grasp and therefore there is no point in answering it.
"And if you are religious - you learn that the first sin in the Torah is the sin of curiosity. What a terrible thing it is to be a religious person" - a generalization that is true for all religions. - You are confusing religious institutions with religion itself -
There are also scientific institutions and political institutions - some of them also atheists - that will persecute those who show curiosity in the wrong place.
another one
Why would I think that something hidden does exist? Why something in particular? I don't know if my neighbor has a lion in his living room. But I also don't know if he has an elephant or a zebra.
And if that animal that is, perhaps, my neighbor in the living room has no effect on my life - why would I waste gray cells on it?
And if it has a hidden effect on my life, an effect I have no way of discovering, why should I care?
You are not an atheist because there are advantages to it. You are an atheist because you are a person who asks questions. And if you get an irrelevant answer, you keep asking.
And if you are religious - you learn that the first sin in the Torah is the sin of curiosity. What a terrible thing it is to be a religious person...
Miracles
First of all there are enough people in the world who benefit from promoting the AWG theory.
Second, many scientists have something to lose if they question AWG.
Why is it difficult to understand that atheists have pretensions to know something that cannot be known?
How can you know that something hidden does not exist?
The atheist is no different from the theist in that he unequivocally states a reality that he has no way of knowing exists.
We don't need to involve a problematic worldview, however problematic it may be, with a person's character.
I brought up the Pashpizim as a problematic worldview that is not necessarily related to religion. Some are even atheists.
Another problematic world view is communism and it also often comes together with atheism of one kind or another.
In other words, atheists have no "practical" advantage over theism - people developed destructive worldviews even without religion - they simply found something else to believe in.
another one
On the subject of AGW, our opinions are divided and it's a shame to debate. I tend to accept that if the theory and the evidence match then you should go with it. I know very few people who have anything to gain from AGW.
It's just like smoking. And equally dangerous.
Why didn't she ask at all? The meaning of "why" in my understanding is "for what purpose". When you say "goal" you imply an entity that has a goal. I mean you assume someone created the universe when you ask why.
An atheist will never ask "why".
Pacifists are not related to the issue. A pacifist says "It is better for me to die, and for my family to die, than to kill another person".
A pacifist is a piece of human shit, just like those ultra-Orthodox whose "teachings and art" are pieces of shit. In my eyes, a pacifist, and an anxious person (who is not ready to serve in the army) is a person without a human image. There is no room for compromise here.
Miracles
"
He found that 99.83% of the studies support AGW. So even if there is a bias in the research - how much can it affect?
"
It is difficult to measure bias in the particularity of a study that I have read to the end (where is it published?) - but you know how to take with limited confidence a study that says that bananas are healthy published by banana growers - right?
"Pay attention - you do exactly the same thing - you have an opinion, and therefore you dismiss any research that contradicts your opinion.
"
—- When I rejected this study, I rejected it because it doesn't innovate anything and because in my opinion there is no place for a meta-research in this field - the part with the bias is only in addition to this - every study has a bias - but there are more biased studies and there are less biased studies - when one that is known to support AWG publishes research that strengthens AWG - it's much less impressive if it comes from a neutral or skeptical source - right?
"When you do many studies on the same topic - there will always be studies that show the opposite. I know of a study that showed that high voltage lines cause blood cancer. The study was done properly and really shows that the incidence of the disease increases 4 times near high overhead lines. But - they did studies on hundreds of diseases - so it is most likely that statistically one of the studies will show a correlation when there really is no correlation.
What I'm trying to say is that those 0.17% are absolutely expected and do not weaken the argument for AGW."
- Statistics is relevant in statistical studies - such as medical studies - that measure other people in each study. Statistics of this kind have no relevance at all when everyone uses a similar pool of data and measures the same phenomenon.
Dan Shechtman's research and other convention-breakers were not a statistical error.
"Regarding "Creation". You are avoiding reality - either science will know how to explain the formation of the universe or not - a completely intelligent question."
Science explains how
He does not explain why - why it is not a scientific question
For example, I believe that there is no answer to this question - but people of faith come up with their own answers
And I have no better argument to convince them that what they believe is not true.
"Faith is thinking that something is true without any evidence. People are exempted from military service because of this stupidity, that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. I have no patience for stupidity."
Miracles - faith is also thinking that something is not true without any evidence.
Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
And people are exempted from military service because of a combination of personal worldview and political considerations.
There are pacifists in this world who do not believe in any religion.
another one
He found that 99.83% of the studies support AGW. So even if there is a bias in the research - how much can it affect?
Pay attention - you do exactly the same thing - you have an opinion, and therefore you dismiss any research that contradicts your opinion.
When you do many studies on the same subject - there will always be studies that show the opposite. I know of a study that showed that high voltage lines cause blood cancer. The study was done properly and really shows that the incidence of the disease increases 4 times near high overhead lines. But - they did studies on hundreds of diseases - so it is most likely that statistically one of the studies will show a correlation when there really is no correlation.
What I'm trying to say is that those 0.17% are absolutely expected and do not weaken the argument for AGW.
Regarding "creativity". You are avoiding reality - either science will know how to explain the formation of the universe or not - a completely intelligent question.
Faith is thinking something is true without any evidence. People are exempted from military service because of this stupidity, that everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.
I have no patience for stupidity.
Nissim - "false" is too strong a word - I say 'biased' - the person who wrote it had a solid opinion before he wrote this meta study - therefore you have to take into account that there can be bias in the study - even unconsciously.
Yes, miracles - religion is not a scientific theory. The question "did God create the world" is not scientific.
I don't know why you should bother - it's a personal matter for each and every person. It's a matter of faith - for example, I don't have much faith - but others do.
There is more to this world than just science.
another one
The very concept of "omnipotent power" is a human concept. And as such, it is a self-contradictory concept. Otherwise the whole language loses meaning. I hope I don't have to tell you about the stone….
If God is a concept beyond my grasp, as a human, then He is beyond the grasp of any mortal. So this concept has no effect, neither on my life, nor on the lives of others.
Religion is not a scientific theory? The question "Did God create the world" is not scientific? If it cannot be refuted or confirmed then why bother at all? According to you, this is not an interesting question at all. It has no effect on my life.
How many people suffered and are suffering from this unnecessary question…….
another one
It is written in the article - 0.17% of the articles on the subject claim that AGW does not exist. The sample is huge - almost 14 thousand articles.
Are you claiming that what is written in the article is false?
Miracles
The articles and studies that question something "green" usually come and refer to other articles and explain why they are wrong and provide data - you cannot contradict them by citing the same sources that they bother to refute. -You need reference to them:
That is: if there is an article A that says X and reinforces it with arguments 1 2 3.
And there is an article B that says that article A and makes its own claims.
You cannot cite article A to refute article B.
You need to address his claims and produce an article C that refutes B's claims.
Miracles - an omnipotent supreme power - as it exists in many religions - is by definition omnipotent - therefore it is above every law of nature - you cannot take a philosophical debate of this type and include the laws of science on it.
Religion is not a scientific theory - its basis cannot be refuted or confirmed - therefore there is no point in trying.
another one
When I write "this is not true" I summarize in three words the studies on the subject - call it meta-meta-research.
When I write "science" I mean what the cob scientists think, Ross - I mean the 97 percent.
And regarding evolution - by definition, evolution cannot be directed. I happen to understand this - I wrote a thesis on it.
In one sentence - any attempt to direct evolution weakens it. If I expand then it will no longer be one sentence……
Avi:
"Because science is not a democracy, and not everyone who shouts," - therefore only your side has a monopoly on the truth?
"The index of citations is an index of quality - very accepted in science for over a hundred years".
And does that necessarily make it more true?
"They have to bring facts, and they can't find any fact that works in their favor" - brought facts
You just ignore it. It is also not clear to me why you need to bring facts to disprove something - you need to bring facts - you demand humanity to do something.
"And as for the fact that it is not clear to you why there is a contradiction between religion and evolution - it is because you have never studied evolution, but only religion." - You are completely wrong about - I have already written several times that I am completely secular - I do not understand why you think that I studied religion more than evolution.
There are enough evolutionists who have found ways to find logic between their religion and their science - there is no necessary logical contradiction between any religion and evolution.
Evolution and science as a whole can at most explain that the existence of a higher power is not necessary for the existence of the universe - they cannot rule it out completely.
Miracles
"Science, except for a tiny number of articles, is uniform in its opinion" - science is not an entity - it does not think, it does not decide - there are people - human beings who are under various external influences and they have an opinion.
"I read that it is good for plants in the FDA - that's not true. I read that wind energy is a bluff - it is not true. I read that the hockey stick graph is wrong - it is not true. I read that it is impossible to predict climate because it is chaotic - this is not true. I read that it is impossible to calculate the effect of the increase in the concentration of PADH on the warming - this is not true."
It's true! - look how - with one click of a few keyboard buttons "I won your argument".
You can say that something is true - you can even bring studies that support it - that does not make it true - studies do not have a monopoly on reality.
"And regarding evolution and religion - religion gives a special status to man, and evolution does not."
Does evolution preempt a special status for man?
People who also believe in a higher power and a certain set of holy books and still support the theory of evolution, they usually explain that according to their method, evolution was intended so that man could create, etc.
How can something like this be refuted scientifically?
another one,
I see no point in talking about AGW. Science, except for a small number of articles, is uniform in its opinion. Moreover, I know articles that say that the problem is even more difficult than it is customary to present!!!
On the other hand, I know a lot of falsehoods in the other direction. I read that it is good for plants in the Food and Drug Administration - this is not true. I read that wind energy is a bluff - it is not true. I read that the hockey stick graph is wrong - it is not true. I read that it is impossible to predict climate because it is chaotic - this is not true. I read that it is impossible to calculate the effect of the increase in the concentration of PADH on the warming - this is not true.
And regarding evolution and religion - religion gives a special status to man, and evolution does not.
Because science is not a democracy, and not everyone who shouts really has something to say, so the deniers fail. They have to bring facts, and can't find any fact that works in their favor. The researcher agreed with them and brought as opponents of AGW also those who claimed that there is an effect on man but there is a greater effect on other phenomena.
The citation index is an index of quality - widely accepted in science for over a hundred years.
And as for the fact that it is not clear to you why there is a contradiction between religion and evolution - it is because you have never studied evolution, only religion.
Miracles - a meta-research in comparative medicine
Data between each study - it compares statistics and cross-references data - and even then there are many problems with a meta study that was performed incorrectly.
What is being told here is more or less an opinion poll - not even that - just a sorting of a large number of articles according to a scan at an unclear level of depth.
Father - facts impress me more than opinions - and that's what we have here - opinions.
There are many scientists who believe in AWG - I already knew that.
This does not mean that their opinion has special weight.
This is what you didn't understand-
Studies that cite each other - studies that you know have bias for all kinds of reasons to reach their results - studies from the same faculties and the same researchers - that repeat the same basic assumptions - does it matter how many of them there are?
Science is not a democracy - it is not relevant how many articles there were on the subject, it is not relevant how many other scientists agree with you - it is completely irrelevant - if in the end in reality you are not able to bring results.
The academy has no authority over reality - if it decides that there is no gravity - we will not be thrown into space - and if it has decided that there is an AWG, it does not mean that there will necessarily be an AWG.
Science has not been decided - it has never been decided - certainly not in this field.
I myself am not religious - completely secular in fact - and it is not clear to me why there is a necessary contradiction between religion and evolution.
my father
Why are you excited about someone else? He has an opinion and his right to his opinion. There is no connection between his opinion and reality - but so what? Are you surprised that the facts don't impress him?
My father - he started with "over and over again the usual demagoguery" - so you expect words of wisdom from him? You brought up an interesting meta-study. Go explain to someone else that medicine is based on the idea of meta-research.
You yourself show that there is a negligible minority of scientists who deny AGW, this needs to be distinguished from a mob that believes the latest nonsense in fashion. It's just like religion, or homeopathy - most people are pretty stupid unfortunately (unfortunately for you - someone else must think it's good....).
Think about the fact that the majority of people in the world do not believe in evolution, and a large part of those who do - think that it can be reconciled with religious belief.
He and his assistants read at least the abstracts, and usually in the abstract the researcher writes the main points of his findings. If there was a problem with understanding, they would go into depth. As they said the articles they identified as opponents they read from beginning to end and gave a discount in cases of ambiguity in favor of the side of the deceivers.
Wait - he checked the combination GLOBAL WARMING and not Anthropogenic global warming?
If an article deals with warming and its measurement and does not deal with the cause of the warming then does it still count?
That's why he only checked those that had GLOBAL WARMING written on them
It sounds like a PR firm's statistical games.
How many articles are there that directly say "Anthropogenic global warming"?
I guess maybe 20 too
What opinions do you attribute to me?
The reusable bags I've had have torn before covering their environmental benefits versus regular bags.
Alternative fuel that burns and produces the same amount of fuel only costs more, I'm not sure what's good about it!
Why do you think I think an electric vehicle is a criminal offense? It's just too expensive a way to protect the environment - there are cheaper ways.
I can read, I know what a search engine is.
There is still the human factor - he himself - so I am not impressed by what he found and what he did not find.
He used a dedicated search engine for scientific articles. But I would not expect someone who is not willing to use reusable bags, for whom an electric vehicle is a criminal offense and a bus is completely out of bounds, and who is only looking for what is wrong with any type of alternative fuel, to come to a different conclusion.
Abi - Where do I claim that there were more studies?
I'm not interested in what studies he found and how he sorts them.
Meta research in this field is folly.
He will be able to tell you something about the paradigm but nothing about reality.
That most scientists in the field support the AWG requirement is not something new to anyone.
An increase in the number of studies and articles in the field does not mean an increase in the popularity of the idea among scientists - it simply means that they publish more articles - note that the sharp increase began in the same year that Al Gore won the Nobel Prize for his film "A Disturbing Truth".
Besides, such "research" is fundamentally biased research - according to the book and the author's way of wording - it is clear what his opinion is about those who do not believe wholeheartedly in AWG, therefore the fact that he "did not find" more articles - does not impress me.
He checked the studies throughout the years, including the newest ones, and found no more than 24 studies that, unfortunately, are of low quality. If there were more as you claim - that later studies contradicted the previous ones - he would have found them.
Again and again the usual demagoguery,
Again and again we "deny"
Again and again they refer to "consensus" and "paradigm" as if it means something.
Again and again the "deniers" "confuse" the public and make them think that there is uncertainty regarding the issue even though it is a "fact" that global warming is man-made.
And now we have a meta-study - what can a meta-study say about the existence or non-existence of AWG?
Nothing- surely most of the older studies have been overshadowed by the newer studies or reality.
According to the article here, he probably didn't really check them in depth - but only checked the summary and the references in most cases and went in depth only when he found an article that opposes the paradigm.