Claim: A subsequent study by Dessler (2011) found that Spencer's paper was not a test of climate sensitivity or feedbacks, and his assumptions do not match empirical observational data.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: Phylogenetic theory is used to test the independent distributions of traits and their various forms to provide explanations of observed patterns in relation to their evolutionary history and biology.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: A properly conducted regression analysis will include an assessment of how well the assumed form is matched by the observed data, but it can only do so within the range of values of the independent variables actually available.

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): 1
Passage: In 2008, Spencer and William Braswell published a paper in the Journal of Climate which suggests that natural variations in how clouds form could actually be causing temperature changes, rather than the other way around, and could also lead to overestimates of how sensitive the Earth's climate is to greenhouse gas emissions.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: Natural science is concerned with the description, prediction, and understanding of natural phenomena based on empirical evidence from observation and experimentation.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Spencer stated, "Our paper is an important step toward validating a gut instinct that many meteorologists like myself have had over the years, [...] that the climate system is dominated by stabilizing processes, rather than destabilizing processes – that is, negative feedback rather than positive feedback.

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: Andrew Dessler later published a paper opposing the claims of Spencer and Braswell (2011) in "Geophysical Research Letters".

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: For coupled atmosphere-ocean global climate models (e.g. CMIP5) the climate sensitivity is an emergent property : it is not a model parameter, but rather a result of a combination of model physics and parameters.

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: We find that the Svensmark results on cloud seeding have not yet been shown to be robust or sufficient to materially alter the conclusions of the assessment literature, especially given the abundance of recent literature that is skeptical of the cosmic ray-climate linkage

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Detection of a climate signal does not always imply significant attribution.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: A paper by researchers from the University of Oxford and the University of Florida published in Nature in May 2010 concluded that claims that a warming climate has led to more widespread disease and death due to malaria are largely at odds with the evidence, and that ""predictions of an intensification of malaria in a warmer world, based on extrapolated empirical relationships or biological mechanisms, must be set against a context of a century of warming that has seen marked global declines in the disease and a substantial weakening of the global correlation between malaria endemicity and climate.