Submitted by ucodegen on February 21, 2007 – 5:03pm.
it’s not whether or not you use junkscience as your sole source, it’s the fact that you use it at all. it’s creator is politically funded. it’s not scientific. it’s garbage.
Unsupported statement. I can use it because it draws upon earlier work. You can’t condemn a publication because you don’t like the publisher. You have to condemn it because it is incorrect.. and have to prove it in the process.
the support was provided in context, specifically, my comments on his conclusions and the link to the wiki describing his political connections.
i can condemn the blog on the basis of its partiality *and* its accuracy. i again gave an example of his false logic:
see the problem? similarly, junkscience refers to the swed’s study on sun spot activities and then jumps to the conclusion that sun spots are responsible for all the recent warming. there’s no reason to believe that, there’s no evidence provided in the reference to support that claim
This is a better technique to invalidating a statement. Show that the derivation is not supported by the underlying research.. only one problem. He makes no such claim. He just states that it is significant and point that in 5 years the cloud effect was responsible for a 2% decrease….
are you suggesting that argument structure should be of the form of a single paragraph run on sentence?
regardless, he makes this claim:
“The one thing we are reasonably sure of is that twiddling about with emissions of carbon dioxide will have no discernable effect on global mean temperature. ”
based on his prior incorrect assumptions about solar forcing and water vapor.
