/sci/ - Science & Math

>>8588977
Let's start here. The 9th link on that page links to this:
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/254014a0

Is this a peer-reviewed paper? Is this published in a scientific journal? No. This is an editorial piece, it's not a scientific paper. It's simply talking about the concept of Global Cooling, not supporting a position on the concept.

If you had actually bothered to read the Thomas Peterson paper on the myth of the 1970s Global Cooling consensus here:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

You would know that the methodology involved looking at PEER-REVIEWED scientific papers published in the climatological sciences at the time during the 1970s. A newspaper article, or an editorial in Nature is not a peer-reviewed paper and is not evidence for a consensus.

The paper discusses how in the scientific literature of the time, there were far more papers published about potential warming, or papers that had no opinion on the phenomenon than global cooling.

I'll post more bullshit sources he uses in the next post. You going to respond this time or have you already run away?