Sentences with phrase «how flawed analyses»

From his analysis, «Overheated: How Flawed Analyses Overestimate the Costs of Climate Change,» the Wall Street Journal somehow arrived at the following headline for Cass's recent op - ed: Doomsday Climate Scenarios Are a Joke.

Not exact matches

While most laypeople won't likely want to read the entire analysis and rebuttal of Wax's work, it is significant because these researchers pretty much refute all of Wax's work and show, step by step, how flawed the study was and how referencing this study as a basis for decision making is also flawed.

How the Hartford Board of Education responds to Kishimoto's flawed «re-design analysis» will signal Hartford parents, teachers and citizens about whether they have a Board of Education that is interested in what is best for Hartford's students or whether they are more dedicated to handing Hartford's schools and the soul of Hartford's public education system over to the corporate education reform industry.

Rather than develop a complex, but flawed, analysis of risk... it's more helpful for an investor to think of «risk» in a simpler form: How much could I possibly lose?

I remain amazed at how flawed almost all the MCT analysis is, especially where MCT authors write about topics in which I have special expertise.

Personally I think AGW theory / analysis has a patchwork of flaws, small enough to be individually brushed aside / downplayed, but which collectively tend to add up / multiply in the same direction towards an exaggeration of climate sensitivity (and how much people should be «alarmed»).

Check out this report from the experts at IHS CERA for analysis of the flaws in Howarth's approach, plus more details about how natural gas wells are drilled.

I was trying to show how the analysis of Lansner and Jerker is fundamentally flawed in attributing CO2 rise to temperature change just because the fluctuations in the rate of change matched temperature.

I am not sure how to change the way this analysis is performed but I am sure that its current flawed approach is leading to imposing unreasonable costs without a clear path to the benefits and without regard to alternative uses of the money spent.

It is reasonable to expect that if flaws exist then detailed alternative analyses would have been on record by now showing clearly where and how it is considered that these scientists have erred

Freddy, you claim that MBH98 has fatal flaws, but how do you square your opinion with that of von Storch, who claimed that the type of analysis made no difference to the final results, or the Mann, et al. 2008 paper, in which no PCA was done?

Again, if my analysis is so flawed then how can my calculated flux at earth, 1366W / m ^ 2, be so close to what NASA measures, 1368W / m ^ 2?