A very
badly flawed paper which is being very actively disputed by even the climate alarmists scientists he wrongly cites as being in agreement with it?
As I see it, one of the most important points to come out of all this is that Nature's peer review process completely failed to prevent a mathematically
badly flawed paper being published.
Not exact matches
That
paper launched a lively debate, and today a group at the State University of New York at Stony Brook has fired back: The authors argue in Nature that the earlier analysis was
flawed, and cancers are due to this «
bad luck» only 10 % to 30 % of the time, STAT reports.
Worse yet, a lot of these features are «invisible» features where the engineering team spends untold work - hours
papering over perceived
flaws in the target platform.
The Soon and Baliunas
paper was so
bad that half of the Climate Research journal editorial staff resigned in protest because the seriously
flawed paper should never have passed peer review.
New Scientist covers their work only to show it up as scientifically
flawed, politically motivated, the result of industry - funded misinformation and
bad moral fibre, just as they did when they reported on Willie Soon's
paper challenging received wisdom that climate change is imperiling polar bears.
Worst of all, as Anthony Watts notes, Christy cited the incomplete, unpublished, fundamentally
flawed preliminary
paper on which Watts and Christy are both co-authors:
If, say, Forest's work is found to be
badly flawed it doesn't invalidate the numerous other
papers which put sensitivity within the 2 — 4.5 C range.
As for appeal to authority, well the wide body of literature has authority (although individual
papers may be
badly flawed), so although it would be wrong to say that because it supports AGW then AGW must be true it is still perfectly legitimate to present it as indicative of our current level of scientific understanding of the subject and evidence that the skeptical view is, rightly or wrongly, a minority one.