Submitted by ucodegen on February 21, 2007 – 11:16am.
@drunkle
In addition, any scientist would know that doing all your references from one site, a blog no less (realclimate.org) would get you laughed out of the scientific community.
and yet you point to junkscience? huh?
I don’t use him as sole source, and if you had paid attention I pointed out that he refers to other sources in support of his contention, while realclimate.org doesn’t!.
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.
In fact, using your reference (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Cosmic_rays_and_climate.html), within the first paragraph, junkscience.com/Milloy has referenced at least 6 background articles (both pro and con to his position). This is how real science articles are written. Personally, I do not support all that Milloy states, but the method he uses is actually scientifically sound, while the method that realclimate.org uses is not scientifically sound.
if a = b and b = c, what does that tell you about d? absolutely nothing, the fact that he uses references is meaningless when he makes assertions and claims that are not founded by the references he makes. ie:
stephen hawking theorized about black holes (brief history of time, 1988), that they exist. the hubble telescope has taken pictures of anomolies that support the existence of black holes (http://www.spaceimages.com/blackhole.html). therefore, black holes must be doors to other dimensions.
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.
