jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (11 posts)

My 6th niche site article is up and running.

91
Ivan Hernandezposted 5 months ago
My 10 Reasons to buy The Universim article has been moved to LevelSkip per submission request on Friday. Now, I have 6 articles that is on niche sites. Who's intelligent? Me, that's who?
reply report
95
Rochelle Frankposted 5 months ago
Good job, Ivan. Another step closer to getting the views you want!
reply report
1. 91
  Ivan Hernandezposted 5 months agoin reply to this
  I made an article about Donald Trump and why he needs to be removed from presidency. Go to my profile. You'll find it.
  reply report
  96
  melbelposted 5 months agoin reply to this
  Please don't use the forums solely to promote your articles. The best audience you'll get are external: from Google search, etc... Set that as your target and you'll see better results.
  
  On a side note: When you write a political article, if you resort to name-calling, you'll never attract anyone to your side: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
  reply report
  91
  Ivan Hernandezposted 5 months agoin reply to this
  I wasn't name-calling. I was just stating the facts.
  reply report
  99
  theraggededgeposted 5 months agoin reply to this
  Erick,
  
  You call the POTUS a 'lying jerk'. Not professional. If I didn't know who you were, and just came across your hub by accident, that would make me press the Back button pretty quickly.
  
  Now, I'm not into US politics, but your hub is a little on the hysterical side. Lots of conjecture. That's why I've avoided giving you feedback on it. There are also some sentences and paragraphs that don't make much sense. For example:
  
  "The Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, Las Vegas in September, The Church Shooting in Sutherland; all places which Donald Trump either visited or did not visit. Donald Trump is a very controversial figure in England and all across the world."
  
  The Manchester attack at the Ariana Grande gig took place in May 2017. The tribute concert took place in September.
  
  Climate change claims: you might want to Google that "97% of scientists myth" It has been proven to be a manipulated figure.
  
  "Cognitive scientist and skeptic-of-climate-skeptics John Cook -- then of the University of Queensland in Australia, now of George Mason University in Virginia -- and eight co-authors searched the Web of Science database using the terms “global warming” and “global climate change,” then examined the abstracts of the 11,944 peer-reviewed papers they found to determine what position they took on “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW for short)."
  
  "We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
  
  So 97.1% of papers that expressed a position either way. That's only 33.6% of the total papers reviewed. Can you see how it is a skewed figure?
  
  Anyway, I think you need to go through the article, proofread, fact-check, cite your sources correctly, and calm down some of the more outrageous claims and statements. If you haven't got proof or back-up then state that it is your personal opinion.
  
  Work to do, Erick.
  reply report
  91
  Ivan Hernandezposted 5 months agoin reply to this
  Thanks, theraggededge. I will surely proofread this article when I have the time. By the way, where'd you find this article about AGW? email me the link.
  reply report
  99
  theraggededgeposted 5 months agoin reply to this
  Just type into Google what I wrote: 97% of scientists myth - you'll find it, and many others like it.
  
  I'm glad you took the criticism constructively
  reply report
  91
  Ivan Hernandezposted 5 months agoin reply to this
  How about now
  
  https://hubpages.com/politics/10-Reason … Presidency
  reply report
  99
  theraggededgeposted 5 months agoin reply to this
  Well, as I said, I have very little understanding or interest in US politics, so I'll leave it up to others who know more about the topic
  reply report
  90
  AlexandraHoerlposted 5 months agoin reply to this
  Mr. Hernandez, while you may want to reword the 97% claim, please don't feel that you have to back off claims that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists affirm AGW.
  
  Here is the link to the article theraggededge cited:
  https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles … omplicated
  
  Furthermore, here is the explanation that Cook and his co-authors provided for the fact that many papers did not take a position on AGW: "This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a 'spiral trajectory' in which 'initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions' (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics."
  
  In other words, Cook plainly states that the reason most of the papers don't take a position is because the existence of AGW is so widely accepted that it is completely unnecessary to explicitly affirm its existence.
  
  As the article states, Cook et al. followed up with the authors who took no position, and due to those responses were able to revise their figures to "62.7 percent of papers endorsing the consensus, 1.8 percent rejecting it and 35.5 percent with no position."
  
  Indeed, as you can see from this 2016 paper, Cook himself continues to agree that there is a high consensus, and he concludes that the consensus among scientists who study climate change is indeed 97%: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 … 48002/meta . As you can see here, he also rightly (IMO anyway) dismisses the "taking no position means there is no consensus" argument by pointing out that scientists in other fields almost never take positions on settled theories like plate tectonics.
  
  Cook discussed this 2016 paper (as well as the deliberate attempts by American conservative media to mislead the public about the nature of the consensus) in a short web article in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (https://thebulletin.org/yes-there-reall … change9332).
  
  Cook describes his 2016 paper as follows: "A key finding from our meta-study was that scientific agreement was highest among scientists with the most expertise in climate science. This meant that groups with lower climate expertise showed lower agreement on climate change. The group with the lowest level of agreement—at only 47 percent—were economic geologists, who study metals and minerals that can be used for industrial and economic purposes. Conversely, the group with the highest level of agreement—at 97 percent—were climate scientists who were actively publishing climate research.
  
  In short, the greater the expertise, the greater the consensus. The dark side of this relationship is that it allows misinformers to cast doubt on consensus by selecting sub-groups of scientists with lower expertise in climate science, in order to argue that scientific agreement on human-caused global warming is low."
  reply report