This is work that I want to see developed, so instead of there being
an argument about the methodology there is an argument about the actual policy measures.»
Not exact matches
(that's a valid
argument to make) Did you have concerns
about their
methodologies?
Hence, a good introduction should explain the background of your study; it should clearly state the
argument that you are
about to pursue; it should also explain the
methodology you are going to adapt.
For readers desiring a deeper look into particular faults with the science
arguments / counterarguments and aspects of the Ofcom regulation
methodology, blogger analyst Steve McIntyre (of «hockey stick» analysis fame) has numerous posts in his «TGGSW», «Ofcom» and «Swindle» categories
about specific complaints against the video and the fallout of Ofcom's 2008 ruling.
If Chris Monckton, common bloke, reading the scientific literature, finds fault with the
methodologies of researchers, and has laid out his objections in excruciating detail, could we give those objections a look, and ascertain whether his
arguments have any merit, without resort to ad hominem diversions
about his alleged delusions of grandeur?