Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Billy Bob, that you think Legates is a valid argument to bring out tells us your either truly desperate, truly stupid or both.
Do you accept the idea of judging papers that make NO comment about the causes of global warming as being in disagreement with the IPCC?
Given the results of Cook, Nuccitelli et al's results when they surveyed authors about their papers (and, yes, I'm aware Watts found four of the several thousand authors who disagree), do you accept the idea that any author who agrees with the IPCC would state so explicitly in their paper no matter the actual subject?
Legates work was the absolute bottom of bullshit. Claiming any validity there tells us more about you than about the topic under discussion.
Billy Bob, that you think Legates is a valid argument to bring out tells us your either truly desperate, truly stupid or both.
I see you have your facts confused with opinion. Legates et. al. is fact... The other paper isn't even fit for publication as it was contrived OPINION and in no way determined the true intent of the papers COOK and his 12 reviewers read the abstracts of. I found it funny that several of his reviewers have been caught ghost reviewing their own works under fraudulent names to give themselves credibility... Wonderful crowd Cook and his followers at SKS have going for them... FRAUD is A-OK...
Do you accept the idea of judging papers that make NO comment about the causes of global warming as being in disagreement with the IPCC?
Given the results of Cook, Nuccitelli et al's results when they surveyed authors about their papers (and, yes, I'm aware Watts found four of the several thousand authors who disagree), do you accept the idea that any author who agrees with the IPCC would state so explicitly in their paper no matter the actual subject?
Legates work was the absolute bottom of bullshit. Claiming any validity there tells us more about you than about the topic under discussion.
Was it lies when the authors themselves said their papers assumed or supported AGW in greater numbers than Cooj et al had found?
God are you stupid!