Replicating Climate Papers on Sea Level Rise
Frequently I'm told that climate-related papers are fraudulent, usually because the person revaluating the paper is 1) predisposed to deny any data they don't like and 2) completely illiterate about what they're reading. In discussing these papers, I often find that wading through the details of the analysis can go so far over their heads that they don't even bother reading either the paper they're complaining about or my corrections to their reading of the paper. Brandolini's Law can get the for two reasons: it takes an order of magnitude more time to refute nonsense than it does to create it and those those who create the nonsense frequently lack the literacy to read the rebuttal (a point I make here ). Occasionally there's a congruence of two conditions that can allow rational discussion to proceed: 1) the paper is simple enough to be replicated with a spreadsheet (reducing the time it takes to refute nonsense) and 2) the individual is at least attempting...