Two now - retracted
papers made the same claim: that he was running authorised medical research.
Not exact matches
However, in a recently published
paper, this
same author
makes some very different
claims about the age of geological features of the Australian landscape.
McIntyre and McKitrick (2005), in a
paper they have managed to slip through the imperfect peer - review filter of GRL, now simply recycle the very
same false
claims made by them previously in their comment on MBH98 that was rejected by Nature.
I would not have left these
claims unaltered if it had been my
paper — not that I would ever have
made the second
claim in any event, since it assumes the real world behaves in the
same manner as GISS - E2 - R.
By assuming that «no - position» abstracts or
papers are tacit endorsements, Powell
makes the
same error that contrarian critics
make when they
claim that the «no positions» count as rejections or don't - knows.