Claim: Lindzen and Choi’s paper is viewed as unacceptably flawed by other climate scientists.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: It received considerable media coverage; 22 then- current or retired MIT professors promptly issued an open letter addressed to Trump saying that Lindzen’s petition doesn’t represent their views or those of the vast majority of other climate scientists.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: This claim was criticized by climatologist Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who notes the more generally-accepted understanding of the effects of the Iris effect and cites empirical cases where large and relatively rapid changes in the climate such as El Niño events, the Ultra-Plinian eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, and recent trends in global temperature and water vapor levels to show that, as predicted in the generally-accepted view, water vapor increases as the temperature increases, and decreases as temperatures decrease.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: Lindzen and Choi revised their paper and submitted it to PNAS.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: Andrew Dessler published a paper which found errors in Lindzen and Choi 2011, and concluded that the observations it had presented "are not in fundamental disagreement with mainstream climate models, nor do they provide evidence that clouds are causing climate change.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The paper was criticized by numerous climate scientists.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Lindzen has been called a contrarian, in relation to climate change and other issues.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The Climate Feedback reviewers come to the conclusion that in one case Lomborg "practices cherry-picking", in a second case he "had reached his conclusions through cherry-picking from a small subset of the evidence, misrepresenting the results of existing studies, and relying on flawed reasoning", in a third case "[his] article [is in] blatant disagreement with available scientific evidence, while the author does not offer adequate evidence to support his statements", and, in a fourth case, "The author, Bjorn Lomborg, cherry-picks this specific piece of research and uses it in support of a broad argument against the value of climate policy.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Contrary to the IPCC's assessment, Lindzen said that climate models are inadequate.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions: (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: This view contradicts the mainstream scientific opinion on climate change.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: While the paper was cited by Sarah Palin to justify opposition to listing polar bears on the endangered-species list, its findings were contradicted by reports from the U.S. Geological Survey and other independent researchers, who concluded that man-made climate change was likely to devastate polar-bear populations by 2050.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Topics which have received special attention include a feature describing "climate 'myths" promoted by many US politicians, a feature examining the accuracy of past predictions made by scientists studying global warming, as well as individual features to evaluate the claims made by the most prominent individuals who criticise evidence that supports man-made global warming, including Richard Lindzen, John Christy, and Christopher Monckton.