Sentences with phrase «flawed paper which»

Despite being a deeply flawed paper which drew conclusions which were contrary to what their work actually showed, Marotzke & Forster 2015 may be informative.

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?

Not exact matches

We believe that the flaws of other paper currencies stem directly from the flaws inherent in the dollar, which is to say, unlimited supply.

The paper by Emma Derbyshire is an opinion piece, not a scientific study, and has been submitted for publication in the British Journal of Midwifery, which we note runs misleading formula advertising (some to be featured in the monitoring report) and published a highly - flawed article on Nestlé's practices with multiple errors.

Women's groups also criticise the manner in which the paper's infamous «sidebar of shame» harms women's self - image with a constant stream of commentary on even the slightest physical flaw of young female celebrities.

In 2005, Rathke analyzed Mills's theory and published a paper in which he concluded it was flawed and incompatible with everything physicists knew (New J. Phys.

Among hundreds of media reports worldwide on the BMJ revelations - which were covered by all north American networks and reached almost half of Americans surveyed days later in a Harris poll - The New York Times said in a second editorial on the affair: «Now the British Medical Journal has taken the extraordinary step of publishing a lengthy report by Brian Deer, the British investigative journalist who first brought the paper's flaws to light - and has put its own reputation on the line by endorsing his findings.»

How did a deeply flawed paper, which contradicts mainstream science on climate change, pass peer review?

In 2014 he was the lead author on a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences about the systemic flaws in biomedical research, which, I feel, serves as a commentary about biology writ large.

But there's a major flaw in the story construction, which director Stu Zicherman almost but can't quite paper over with energy and high spirits: Nothing that happens in the movie really has any real consequences for Carter.

In 2010, James Heckman and Paul LaFontaine published a remarkable paper in which they collated different data sets to overcome flaws in how high school graduation had been measured to that point.

This week and next, I plan to write a series of commentaries on the paper, which I believe is fundamentally flawed.

Impacts of Free - ranging Domestic Cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: A review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations (2009) HAHF cites the 2009 paper co-authored by former Smithsonian researcher Nico Dauphiné (who resigned after being found guilty of attempted animal cruelty last year, after rat poison was found in cat food outside her apartment building) as evidence of «the incredible impact of free ranging cats on the bird populations of the U.S.» Among the many flaws in «Impacts of Free - ranging Domestic Cats» was the authors» estimate of «117 to 157 million exotic predators,» which was based on David Jessup's inflated (and, not surprisingly, unattributed) «estimate» of «60 to 100 million feral and abandoned cats.»

Between 1980 - 88, the artist produced approximately 1000 works on paper, which articulate complex narratives, revealing flawed power structures and hinting at fundamental failings in social discourse.

MA: (1) The impact of AGW on tropical cyclone intensity & frequency covers much trampled ground but Munshi's analysis concentrates on a single paper of some age (Emanuel (2005), the one which first defined PDI and which, mathematically flawed or not, is immaterial to the subject as a whole.

Knoblauch et al (2018) «Methane production as key to the greenhouse gas budget of thawing permafrost» The findings of this paper are already a matter of dispute between you and me, in that my not inconsiderable assessments of this paper and its context in UVMarch2018 @ 365 and @ 378 and @ 393 & @ 406 which show zero «Skyrocketry» are already dismissed by you as «exaggeration, flawed cherry - picking and seemingly endless Strawman creation» although the rationale you present underlying such comment is mostly non-existent and nowhere approaching adequate.

The paper he wrote together with Friis - Christensen in which he found a correlation between solar activity and clouds had a «slight» flaw: it ignored that the period of the study coincided with a big El Nino, and that large scale changes in ocean surface temperature are going to have an effect on cloud formation.

There's a troubling section, however, in which Mann creates a flawed dichotomy, hailing a paper by James Hansen and Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University (and others) pressing for deep carbon cuts and criticizing a peer, * Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, for complaining that the paper failed the Stephen Schneider / Gavin Schmidt test for distinguishing between the «is» of science and the «ought» determined by individual feelings about the state of the world and how to shape it.

In our paper we offer several recommendations which might help overcome some of these flaws.

How did a deeply flawed paper, which contradicts mainstream science on...

In addition to your pool table analogy, you ought to incorporate the warmists» body - weight = Calorie - consumption assumed analogy into your paper, because it is a better fit to the way they are thinking, and enables you to point out its subtle flaw: the human body can't increase its metabolism rate (via a higher body temperature) to keep its weight down, but the climate system can increase its convection rate; i.e., the rate at which it sheds heat.

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.

I don't see why everybody is arguing over human issues (which have a way of never getting resolved) when statistically Briffa's paper is fatally flawed.

Indeed, the egregious attack by Trenberth et al. on the paper by Spencer & Braswell cites no flaw in that paper and the journal which published it has refused to withdraw it.

First it's; «momentum is building behind the controversial view that the numbers don't add up» then «A rising chorus of literature in the world's best scientific journals and most prestigious opinion pages has argued the climate change math is flawed» and «For climate scientists, irritating questions from «sceptics» about the «pause» have now become peer - reviewed papers...» which is the intro for Michael Asten as the first quote for the article.

Unless they accepted them tactically to give them a get - out clause in which case they were naive for submitting a knowingly flawed paper.

However, that preliminary paper contains numerous fundamental flaws which entirely negate its conclusions, and since it has not passed peer - review, according to Watts» own comments it is not «a successful inquiry.»

«I much admire Max's keen ability to find flaws in those refutations of the paper's logic for which no one else has been able to find any flaw.

If you count papers which don't address the issue at all you could bring in hundreds of thousands of papers on quantum physics, stellar cartography, economics, sociiology, et cetera and claim that since none of these take any position on global warming there is less than 1 % support for it... or any other subject you want to dismiss via blatantly flawed logic.

As such, it does not deal with the major flaws in the temperature records which your recent paper deals with.

Quite possibly the biggest flaw in the paper (and there are many to choose from), is in their «natural» linear trend, which L&S describe thusly:

That paper, which was not peer - reviewed, argued that because polar bear numbers have remained relatively stable despite faster - than - expected sea ice loss over the past decade, scientists» predictions of future population declines are flawed.

[DC: The «peer review corruption» I am most concerned about is that which allows publication of deeply flawed papers from the likes of lobby group allies like researchers Soon and Baliunas (Climate Research, back in 2003) or McLean et al (GRL, last year).]

The NAS and others (including DC) have clearly stated the flaws and limitations of Wegman's paper, so choosing to believe it it is rather like choosing to believe in the tooth fairy, or perhaps like choosing which parts of the tooth fairy myth to believe.

However, the paper in question is Dole et al. (2011), which contained some serious flaws, failing to account for a glitch in the Moscow July station temperature data, which saw an urban heat island correction erroneously applied, as discussed in detail by Stefan Rahmstorf at RealClimate.

There is another recent paper which hints at the models being flawed: The Holocene temperature conundrum.

But this paper has discovered a series of new flaws in it including: The publication of inaccurate data on the potential of wave power to produce electricity around the world, which was wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave - energy company.

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?

Many flawed thermodynamic concepts are presented in the paper, some of which we have already seen in earlier articles.

The employer is not in the position to give you a job they want to solve a problem which hiring the best candidate to fill the empty position, it is your responsibility to convince the employer that you are the best candidate for the position and they will be observing the way you present yourself, speaking, walking, wardrobe and any other flaw to rule you out regardless of how good you look on paper you also have to look even better at the interview to demonstrate your qualities, skills, uniqueness, education etc..