re: #363 LudwigVanQuixote

So let’s look at that abstract:

What happened was the standard, deniers saw the word cosmic ray, and assumed the paper debunked AGW without reading it trick.

What garbage.

This is a paper about the ozone hole. It does have an impact on warming believe it or don’t but it is not a primary driver at all.

I know the idea of actually reading a paper before making claims about it is anathema to the denier sphere, but you all could actually try it. It would save me time and you embarrassment.

I think post 304 (the one that initiated the discussion on that paper) didn’t claim that this paper debunked AGW but only showed that the science wasn’t settled. Also, 304 included a quote from the paper positing a temperature link.

I think he read it.