that is
the first flaw in your argument.
Not exact matches
But despite being well supported, the
first argument itself is
flawed in at least two fundamental ways.
(I'm assuming not, or wouldn't have gotten published
in the
first place — so where is the
flaw in my
argument?)
But I'd like to know how it all ties
in with the discussion we're having: 1) Coby
first concluded that Lindzen's
argument is
flawed because it ignores thermal inertia.