Not exact matches
The journal said it checked the data with independent experts, «who concur that the data in Figure 1 are
flawed, but
agree that [the retraction] does not negate the central findings of the
paper.»
After he published «Tear Down This Wall,» a controversial
paper that argued teacher certification in this country is
flawed, Hess and Virginia mutually
agreed to part ways (the
paper was just one reason for the divorce, he says).
Even journal publisher Otto Kinne eventually admitted that the
paper suffered from serious
flaws, basically
agreeing with its critics.
First, you write, «Whatever
flaws or ambiguities exist in the
paper, the use of the letters as source materials for any comparison can not purely be a test of agreement with the IPCC (as we stated above — you could
agree with every word in the IPCC report and still not want to do anything about emissions), but must be a test of someone's opinion about what to do about it... Thus the only way in my mind to interpret a comparison of signers is a categorization by policy direction, not understanding or agreement on the science.