[timr]

This article is nonsense. It takes observational data from a survey, averages it, doesn’t control for obvious medical factors that more strongly influence the observed data than climate (e.g. illnesses), and then asserts that the correlation is causative.

It is not science. It’s just propaganda.

[Alpha3031]

Fairly sure "may" means something different to "is" but maybe I'm just not the target audience and am reading it wrong.

[thinkingkong]

To what end? Either there’s a global conspiracy to destroy the planet or theres’s a global conspiracy to save the environment?

[timr]

Or neither option in your false dichotomy has any relation to the quality of this paper?

[thinkingkong]

You quite literally used the word “propaganda” which is an intentional attempt to mislead or hide the truth. If the quality of the paper is in fact purposefully low and youre saying its for a reason just say what the reason is.

[timr]

The reason is that it's propaganda.

That also isn't even close to what the word means.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda

[tremon]

I look forward to reading your research article refuting this one. Please let us know the arxiv url when you're ready to publish.

[derwiki]

Are you saying you think it’s unreasonable to disagree on a research paper unless you commit to publishing another paper in response?

[slopinthebag]

Typically bad research doesn’t require another article to be refuted. Is there something different about this case specifically?

[8note]

i instead look forward to your study reproducing the results?