Not exact matches
The press fallacy is attaching importance almost entirely to scientists reputation
rather than adherence to solid
science, Dyson, Lindzen and other massive geniuses basically can say anything
valid or fictitious and get ink.
People need to see the bigger picture
rather than having partial pressures, dissolution constants, analysis of algorithms or actual
science shown to them (the philosophy of
science and it's method of logic is as
valid to them as inductive reasoning, so that's no good).
This latest report on the
Science of Climate Change covered the key aspects of concern to those not part of the IPCC consensus, but did not involve them sufficiently, if at all, in developing the material and the result seems to be an official dismissal of the literature
rather than a thorough development as is common for ideas necessary for the consensus view to be
valid.
The alarmists» approach for some years has been to publicly deride the climate skeptics
rather than present
valid arguments for their so - called «consensus
science.»
The Wallace et al. 2016 study represents a new and interesting approach to climate
science research which should yield very interesting and much more
valid results since the weight given to each likely variable is determined by available evidence
rather than the guesses of carefully selected «experts» and incorporated into their largely arbitrary computer models.
Need I remind you to provide peer - reviewed
science to support the idea that we can ignore below 700 for some
valid scientific reason,
rather than because of your own brand of logic.