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.
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….
He also points to the weakness in the data “While we are hesitant to extrapolate from very short data series (always a dubious procedure) it… “. It could be that you mistook this statement as saying categorically that all warming attributable to AGW is attributable to Cosmic Rays.. the problem is that the author used the word could. This is not a categorical statement.. it is speculative by its wording.
