• 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!

How AGW papers mislead

My #21 offered data and an argument derived therefrom. Your #22 avoided both data and argument, and went straight to the ad hominem. I'm happy to let others draw conclusions from that.
The 'conclusion' is that I don't make a habit of clicking through on click-bait spam to climate truther conspiracy blog posts. Especially when you're too lazy to even write any comments yourself in your own words.

Post a link to a published peer-reviewed science Journal article and add your own commentary if you want me to take the time to write comments.
 
Last edited:
The 'conclusion' is that I don't make a habit of clicking through on click-bait spam to climate truther conspiracy blog posts.

Post a link to a published peer-reviewed science Journal article if you want my comments.

I already understand your limitations. You are probably wise to avoid embarrassment.
 
[h=1]Cloud Feedback[/h]Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach In the comments to Christopher Monckton’s latest post, Nick Stokes drew attention to Soden and Held’s analysis of feedback in the climate models. I reproduce their Table 1 below: Figure 1. Soden and Held’s Table 1, showing all of the feedback parameters calculated from the models. I found several amazing things in…
Continue reading →
 
Climate sensitivity
[h=1]Feet of clay: The official errors that exaggerated global warming – part 3[/h]Part III: How the feedback factor f was exaggerated By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley In this series (Part 1 and Part 2) I am exploring the cumulative errors, large and small, through which the climatological establishment has succeeded in greatly exaggerating climate sensitivity. Since the series concerns itself chiefly with equilibrium sensitivity, time-dependencies, including those…
 
[h=1]Leading climate scientist Cess admits mathematical errors in the AGW theory[/h]Guest essay by Kyoji Kimoto Dr. Robert D. Cess led the following Intercomparison Projects of GCMs for the IPCC Assessment Reports. 1989: Interpretation of Cloud-Climate Feedback as Produced by 14 Atmospheric General Circulation Models. 1990: Intercomparison and Interpretation of Climate Feedback Processes in 19 Atmospheric General Circulation Models. 1991: Interpretation of Snow-Climate Feedback as Produced…
 
[h=2]How false information becomes fact: Q&A with Carl Bergstrom[/h]without comments
[FONT=&quot]Photo credit: Corina Logan
[/FONT]​
[FONT=&quot]Not every study contains accurate information — but over time, some of those incorrect findings can become canonized as “fact.” How does this happen? And how can we avoid its impact on the scientific research? Author of a study published on arXiv in September, Carl Bergstrom from the University of Washington in Seattle, explains how the fight over information is like a rugby match, with competing sides pushing the ball towards fact or falsehood — and how to help ensure the ball moves in the right direction.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Retraction Watch: What factors play a role in making false statements seem true? Read the rest of this entry »[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
 
Back
Top Bottom