• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corrections to Marvel, et al 2015 (MEA15)

Of course the omitted it. It would make their corrupt data almost meaningless.
 
Jack Hays said:

[h=1]Flaws discovered in Gavin Schmidt’s new climate paper, not so ‘marvel’ous after all[/h] Bishop Hill writes: Over at Climate Audit, Nic Lewis has outlined the latest developments in the saga of the Marvel et al paper, which claimed to have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is low, but appeared to have a whole series of problems, not least of which that it had got its forcing data mucked up,…
Continue reading →
Click to expand...

Probably all true. However, it would be better if there was a sourced paper instead of Climate Audit. You know how the True Believers won't have anything to do with such heresy from someone not of the faith.

I have to treat Climate Audit with skepticism as well. Like the alarmists, they too have an agenda.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Probably all true. However, it would be better if there was a sourced paper instead of Climate Audit. You know how the True Believers won't have anything to do with such heresy from someone not of the faith.

I have to treat Climate Audit with skepticism as well. Like the alarmists, they too have an agenda.
Click to expand...

The author is Nic Lewis.
 
Jack Hays said:
The author is Nic Lewis.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's probably all true. It doesn't mean Nic isn't also in error about something. One of the reasons for peer review.
 
Jack Hays said:
I'm sure Nic's work is getting plenty of "review" from Marvel et al.
Click to expand...

LOL...

True.

I wonder how they will try to rationalize any of it, or end up being silent?

Silent would be a sure sign of Nic's work being correct.
 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
Oh. Then you must be impressed with people who not only get published with peer review, but do do in the top journals.

Oh, wait. You call them 'pundits'.
Click to expand...

There are only a select few like Mann who misrepresents the sciences. By pundits, I mean the bloggers you recite and regurgitate. they misrepresent what the scientists really say.

Don't believe me?

How about actually, for once in your life, actually quote and explain a part of a peer reviewed paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom