Svensmark has never tried to defend himself properly, i.e., by a peer reviewed reply article, against these serious charges. Friis‐Christensen once tried to defend himself against the criticism of the 1991 Science article. However, the apparent rebuttal in his reply article was only achieved by introducing two simple arithmetic errors, which were well hidden in the article and quite difficult to spot. The two arithmetic errors artificially created an agreement of the new observational data with the values of the 1991 article. Applying correct arithmetic, the support of the solar theory totally vanishes.Peter Laut (.pdf; 6 pgs.) via RealClimate.
D'you think our local denialist will make note of that? Me neither.
Mr. McIlheran's latest missive on the subject, incidentally, is characteristically uninformed and credulous. Beneath the headline, Climate 'science' was rigged from the start, the local paper's "right-wing guy" and ace environmental reporter finds soothing words at the Wall Street Journal and endorses the red herring of a Detroit News editorialist who declares: "Science should never be settled."
Obviously, all scientists knows this, and concur. It's a question of degree: some science is "more settled" than other. Yet there are still Young Earth Creationists and people who believe diseases are caused by Hell-dwelling pixies. Likewise, there is still Patrick McIlheran.
No comments:
Post a Comment