Study: Mainstream Media Acted as Trump’s Mouthpiece, Clinton’s Foe
- Thread starter exGOPer
- Start date
yes, you have seen them... liar... over a thousand skeptical peer reviewed papers and still now one peer reviewed paper stating man made co2 causes warming... which did not rely on a now failed model.
If there were so many peer reviewed papers then why did you post this thread that referred to a fake one?
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...bal-warming-is-fabricated-study-finds.311099/
Who is the liar now?
I told you given my definition of peer reviewed that article exaggerated that papers bona fides. But it clearly surpassed the definition you were supporting with your berkeley earth paid to publish baloney.
the rest of your arguments about the paper were just leftist opinions which when I dug into the main one i debunked.... (if memory serves me correctly. i think I illustrated that your authors preferred chart with bands were just bands made to look like they were statistically significant but they were not.)
the rest of your arguments about the paper were just leftist opinions which when I dug into the main one i debunked.... (if memory serves me correctly. i think I illustrated that your authors preferred chart with bands were just bands made to look like they were statistically significant but they were not.)
As I told you the paper was peer reviewed. Just not the peer reviewed standards I have argued for in the past. But it would have surpassed your standard set in your berkely earth argument.
2. It was not fake... we have seen very similar charts in other papers.
I challenged you to download the data yourself and prove this chart is fake.
Nobody seriously disputes that the warmistas have manipulated the raw data.
The only argument is whether they had good reason for it.
so you lied again... it is not fake.
the data is real, the chart is real...
2. It was not fake... we have seen very similar charts in other papers.
I challenged you to download the data yourself and prove this chart is fake.
Nobody seriously disputes that the warmistas have manipulated the raw data.
The only argument is whether they had good reason for it.
so you lied again... it is not fake.
the data is real, the chart is real...
As I told you the paper was peer reviewed. Just not the peer reviewed standards I have argued for in the past. But it would have surpassed your standard set in your berkely earth argument.
2. It was not fake... we have seen very similar charts in other papers.
I challenged you to download the data yourself and prove this chart is fake.
Nobody seriously disputes that the warmistas have manipulated the raw data.
The only argument is whether they had good reason for it.
so you lied again... it is not fake.
the data is real, the chart is real...
If the paper was peer reviewed, show me the peer reviewed journal where it was published, putting a list of names on a paper hosted on some random blog doesn't mean it was peer reviewed at all.
Your chart is as fake as your claim that it was peer reviewed.